|
|
 |
|
COMMENTS CONTINUED:
|
Chandra comments once more! I particularly liked what Alaka Basu wrote: "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).....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. ...... 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." Alaka's writing from yesterday came back to me this evening when I was reading the May brochure of the Zürich Schauspielhaus (Zürich's Theater in English). This brochure talks about two plays that are being shown now there - Beckett's Waiting for Godot and Sartre's "Geschlossene Gesellschaft " (= "closed society", I am going to see on this Sunday). When the two plays were first shown in Paris in 1944 and 1953 resp., it was realized that both the plays were quite similar. To both of them Beckett's saying, "The hopelessness of existence" could be applied. Why helplessness? Why is there no way out of this life? Because no ideology, no religion, no scientific revolution, no utopia has the power to show a human being the path of freedom, to lead him out of the hopeless situation he is stuck in. This hopeless situation need not be just finanical poverty. It can be as Alaka said poverty of the mind and of character too. That is why like Sartre's play, Joyce's Counterparts is also a story about a situation out of which there is no way out Farrington and Alleyne need each other because only then they can stay "sane" in the life they lead. If there was no Farrington, Alleyne has nobody to boss over. Then he would realise his worthlessness. If he had not Alleyne as his boss, Farrington did not have to try to forget his existence in public houses, he did not have to return home late, he did not have to beat up young Tom. Basically Farrington lacks the courage to change his life. Now as long as he has Alleyne as his boss, he can blame everything on him, and waste his life in public houses. The tragedy of the story is that young Tom will become one day like his father. Is not Tom in this sense the counterpart of his father, Farrington? Is not Farrington, the counterpart of Alleyne? I hope these questions answer Alaka's question about the title. Beth wrote: I think the first one - victimhood - is the best of the lot. Farrington wallows in self pity. He does not have the guts to change his life, he does not take a step to improve his life. The rage he feels he exercises only on other helpless people, like his son. Joyce is really talking here of a human being who has no hopes of seeing light at any time. His lot is to live in a closed society, to quote Sartre once again! That's all for now. Please, please respond... as Alaka and Beth said! |
|
|
|
|
|