|
|
 |
|
|
From Alaka Basu: Now to Counterparts. First, I'm not sure about the meaning of the title (Maureen?). One way I would see it is to mean that every act of frustration has its counterpart in another act of frustration. The main message that came to me from this story is that "all" poverty is terrrible - not just economic poverty, but also a poverty of other positive attributes such as charm (Mr. Alleyne) or age (the son Tom). So my greatest sympathy was not for Farrington but for poor Mr. Alleyne, him whose "head was so pink and hairless it seemed like a large egg reposing on the papers". I don't know if Joyce meant Alleyne to be the big bad boss, but to me he came across as a sorry creature who would have gladly exchanged places with Farrington if only for the latter's greater ability to charm his mates and charm women, while Mr. Alleyne himself has to put up with the unbearable sight of even the stout, midddle-aged Miss Delacour smiling broadly at Farrington's insolent reply to him. I felt terrrible for him sitting facing her in his office with "his right foot jauntily upon his left knee". If he really did feel the confidence he pretended to feel with and about Miss Delacour, it would have been reflected in a much greater lenience with Farrington. When one is in love (or, more importantly, when one feels secure about love or about anything in life), one tends to also feel that all is right with the world in general. As for Farrington himself, just a littel bit of money in his pocket is enough to let him "stare masterfully at the office girls". This is not to say that Farrington himself considers himself better off than Alleyne. He, I'm sure would gladly change places with the former if only to be able ot afford an endless night of drinking and to carry his attractiveness to women further than the sidelong glance. So though I read most of the story with a lot of sympathy for him as well as found him more than faintly attractive, I was not surprised at all when he finally displayed his meaner side on getting home, this time by taking it out on another category of vulnerable person, his small son Tom. My basic point from this story is that there is nothing noble or dignified about being "poor". Rather than becoming more tolerant of and sympathetic to other people's misfortunes, our own misfortunes only make us more cruel - whether it is Mr. Alleyne barking at Farrington or Farrigton beating Tom, or Mrs. Farrington bullying her husband. Am I getting this all wrong? Given that every misfortune is major to its sufferer, perhaps we need an objective way of prioritizing misfortune and perhaps economic poverty would be high on such a list. And in any case, the whole point I suppose is to develop a sensitivity whereby one breaks the circle by not depriving others of their dignity, the way Alleyne breaks Farrington's and Farrington breaks Tom's. If Alleyne had been kinder to Farrington, not only might Farrigton have been kinder to Tom, perhaps Miss Delacour would also have actually jumped to poor Alleyne's defece when Farrington insulted him in public (but can such a perfect world exist?). Note that Farrington also got a big ego boost by repeating his story to his chums in the pub - so he is far from being the long-suffering perpetual victim one may be tempted to see him as - he has enough of an admiration society. That's all for now. Please, please respond. Alaka |
|
|
|
|