Second Person in "Self Help"

After finishing Self Help by Lorrie Moore, I can honestly say that this is probably my favorite collection that we have read so far. One of the things that drew me was the unique writing style Moore possess. I found myself being drawn to stories like "How Be an Other Woman", "How", and "Amahl and the Night Visitors" which were all written in second person. This is one of the few times that I have read a story in the second person and I found myself becoming fascinated with the narration style.

The use of the second person narration allows the author to establish a connection with the reader and to put yourself as a reader into the story. I think that this is an effective tool especially when it comes to the stories that I have mentioned above. There is a common theme dysfunctional relationships in both "How to be an Other Woman" and "How". The use of second person in these two stories allows us as the readers to sympathize with the character and because of that I found myself justifying the actions of the characters. In the case of "Amahl and the Night Visitors", I think that the use of second person allows me as a reader to understand why someone like Trudy would be so distrustful of her husband.

In class today, while discussing the last story in this collection "To Fill", someone made a comment about how Moore chose not to end the collection with a story written in second person. I like others was upset by the fact that this last story wasn't written in second person. One student made the comment that Moore might have written this story in 1st person point of view because of the worry that not many people would relate to the character. By writing this story in second person, the author is urges for the reader to create a connection with the main character. With this story however, there could be a worry that with such a character, people would pull away from the story.

While I agree that writing the story in second person could cause readers to pull away from the story but I think that if we had the opportunity to read the story in second person point of view, we would get a much more intense ending to the story. If the story was written in second person, we as readers would seeing ourselves as Riva in the story. Yes, it would be hard to imaging stealing money and being paranoid throughout the story. I think that is the think that would make Riva more understandable to me. I enjoyed the story overall but I think that it would be interesting to read this story in second person to see what more we could learn about Riva as a character.

Who is the real "Man Child"?

The story "The Man Child" was one that was filled with suspense but it left me with two questions. What prompted Jamie to kill Eric? Who is the real man child in the story, Eric or Jamie?

The entire story starts in the present where Eric is walking through the woods by himself. Then we go into a flashback of 2 months before during Jamie's birthday party where you can tell tension is really being brought to the surface. To answer my first question, I went back through the story and looked at Jamie's actions as well as his reactions. It is clear from the interactions between Jamie and Eric's father that there is some tension between them. Later it becomes apparent that Eric's father bought Jamie's land from him. Throughout the birthday party, we find out that Jamie doesn't have a lot. He doesn't have land he owns anymore and he doesn't have a wife or a family. Maybe Eric was jealous of Eric's father and even Eric to a point. It is clear to Jamie that when Eric's father passes that all of the land, including the land that he feels is rightful his, will be passed down to Eric. To me, I believe that after Jamie hears that Eric's mother loses the baby, he is prompted to strangle Eric because in his mind if he can't have his land than nobody can. I was also thinking that if there is nobody to pass the land down to, Eric's father might have to pass it down to Jamie, giving Jamie his land back and more.

I think both Jamie and Eric are the "man child" in the story. They both encompass different aspects of what a "man child" is. Jamie is a man that acts like a child. Jamie has to be taken care of by Eric's father and mother like he there own child. He is clearly that he doesn't have the life Eric's father has but instead of working towards creating a life like that he acts like a child. He is trying to find a way of making Eric's life his instead of making his own life better. It is possible that Jamie sees himself as a child of Eric's father and that he deserves the land more than Eric does. On the other hand, Eric is a child that acts like a man. He is much more knowledgeable about what is going on around him than a typical kid. He had to grow up before his time and deal with situations that he shouldn't have had to as an eight year old boy.

These are just some of my thoughts about why Jamie did what he did. I wish we were able to hear more about what was going on in Jamie's mind and what prompted him to do this. What are some of your theories about why Jamie killed Eric?

The Laughing Man and The Chief

“The Laughing Man” is one of the stories we get in Nine Stories by J.D. Salinger that is very much a traditional story. In this short story, two stories were really being told. One was about the Chief and his life and the other was the tale of the Laughing Man. One of the things that was unique was the sense of confusion that both of the stories presented. The limited knowledge of the narrator adds to the confusion.

One of the things we are left pondering by the end of the stories is what happens between the Chief and Mary Hudson. A popular belief is that their relationship ended because of Mary’s possible pregnancy, a major hint to this being that Mary is sandwiched between two women with baby carriages at the last baseball game we see her. A few of my personal theories are that Mary is in fact pregnant but is unsure of if it is the Chief’s or the “dentist” that she visits quite frequently and that Mary might be too young to have a baby

Another thing that we are left wondering by the end of the story is why the Chief decided to kill off the Laughing Man. As the story showed, it was possible that the Laughing Man could have survived, the Laughing Man decided to kill himself. For me, this happened because the Laughing Man is a story in which the Chief himself plays a role in deciding the fate of all the characters. Because of this, I think it is clear that the Chief buts himself in the story. I think that when the Chief was going through a hard time with Mary and that the ending of the story is a result of all of the emotions that he was feeling at that moment. I think that the relationship between the Chief and Mary Hudson is similar to the relationship between Black Wing and the Laughing Man. I saw the death of the Laughing Man as a response to the murder of Black Wing as a symbol of what the Chief was feeling when his relationship with Mary Hudson ended.

What do you think? What do you think happened between the Chief and Mary Hudson? Why do you think that the Chief decided to kill the Laughing Man?