|
|
 |
|
COMMENTS CONTINUED:
|
hi alaka, et group :-)) how's everybody doing?? i re-read _counterparts_ and it has been on my mind since... i wanted to respond to some of alaka's insightful remarks... --- Alaka Basu
<[email protected]> wrote: i'm going to talk about it below... :) " 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 terrible - not just economic poverty, but also a poverty of other positive attributes such as charm (Mr. Alleyne) or age (the son Tom). " yes, i think that is precisely in line with my understanding of _counterparts_ as well. clearly joyce intends to 'juxtapose' the two main male characters. and yes, it is as tho they are contrasting yet mirrored images of each other -- both bad boys but on opposite sides of a particular kind (or kinds) of a 'counter', or barrier. ;-) and i agree with you that joyce meant to imply that people we (or he) do not like, mean ugly people, exist on both sides of that 'divide', and that, tho different in ways, at bottom, they are equally bad, corrupt, maybe morally bankrupt, and yes, 'poverty stricken' in various ways, and metaphorically. "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". in reading the story, one of the things joyce really tries to get across is the violent streak in farrington's character, which he does not like, it would seem. [joyce wants us not to miss acouple of things about him: farrington is violent, and a drunk -- 'wine coloured' face, dirty whites of his eyes, as in blood shot eyes, and, he fantasizes continuously about drinking, he is constantly thirsty and thinks that the drink will cure whatever his frustration is at the moment...he is as a result lazy and can't seem to get his work done, so mr.alleyne's frustration with him is understandable, right?.] i think the egg reference, alaka, is symbolic too, and is meant to remind us subtly of farrington's violent urges -- i mean, what do we do with eggs? we crack them, and since alleyne's head looks to farrington like an egg (presumably waiting to be cracked, rather than looking like a soccer ball, a bowling ball, a rock, or whatever), the reference reflects the state of "farrington's" mind. tools like this are used frequently by authors... particularly joyce. one of the separators between just good and 'great' literature is an author's ability to get across meanings to readers on various levels of awareness, sometimes subtle, subterranean or subconscious levels. "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, ..." i think he meant alleyne to be a 'bad guy boss' but he also meant farrington to be another kind of big bad guy. i doubt seriously whether alleyne would have switched places with farrington. he enjoyed, it would seem, his position of power over the underlings and made sure the underlings knew he was the boss. (i would never want to work for a creep like him!! :-) but one of the things i think joyce implies here is that the very idea of alleyne's ever having to worry about being in farrington's position is an impossibility -- due to the 'counters' and divides existing between them -- namely, class and religious difference. note the first sentence of the story, "...a furious voice called out in a piercing North of Ireland accent: 'Send Farrington here!'" ...ok, so right here joyce tells us that the boss is a north of ireland protestant (descended of the anglo irish aristocracy) and farrington is the underling, presumably catholic and indigenous irish. [these differences are also evident by their names, which few people would know; also all of farrington's friends are catholic named as well.] immediately then, from square one, joyce is alerting the reader (i think) to the fact that this story is going to involve some kind of a catholic- protestant conflict or tension. this class/religious divide is what i think joyce was talking about, and what he symbolically *represents* when he twice says, "Farrington lifted up the counter..." also of note is Farrington's first trip to alleyne's office, just after the shrill north of ireland accented beckoning, here, joyce uses what i'd call 'spatial narrative construction' to represent 'behind the scenes' issues: "he lifted up *the counter* and, passing by the clients, went out of the office with a heavy step. He went heavily *upstairs* until he came to *the second landing*, where *a door* bore a brass plate with the inscription 'Mr. Alleyne'. Here he halted, puffing with labor and vexation, and *knocked*. The shrill voice cried..." i have asterisked all of the spatial features in this little segment in order to show what i mean... joyce has constructed for us the path it takes to get from farrington's 'place' to alleyne's 'place' and in so doing, demonstrates the vast divide, the distance between them. (note too that farrington is called over a loud speaker and has to travel the distance to alleyne's office.) "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 >terrible 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 greate 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."
yes, this aspect of the story threw me. i suppose she is in a way comparable to the woman farrington sees later in the bar, who he wants (note she had an english accent) but he can't get her... "As for Farrington himself, just a little bit of money in his pocket is enough to let him "stare masterfully at the office girls". This is not to say that Farrington 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." yes, agreed. i found farrington pretty disgusting, "all 'round" :-). my only sympathy for him is what made him what and who he is, which is old history, and if i got into it too deeply, it might bring out my meaner side... ;-)) so i'll cease and desist!! :)) "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." the only part here confusing me is 'mrs. farrington bullying her husband'? i didn't get that? i know when he got home she was at the church (probably afraid, knowing he'd come home drunk and she wanted to avoid the thrashing she'd get?). but yes, your points here are well taken and i think joyce is showing us the bad effects of 700 years of imperial rule on the indigenous people, as well as showing us a guy who has potential and could get off his duff and get off the drink and be 'functional', but he doesn't seem to care to. this guy is so confused that after spending all of his money on his friends, without being asked by anyone to spend his money on them, he becomes angry with them as soon as he is out of dough. in addition, the child, who knows he has a violent father is braver than the wife, he comes down to the kitchen knowing his father is drunk, taking a big risk, offers to make him dinner and take care of him, and what does the father do? again, he gets confused and is not in touch with reality at all. he 'bites the hand that feeds him' literally (the child offering to cook) and figuratively (the employer who he can not seem to work for properly -- instead of doing his work he is slipping off for a 'plain one'! that is, a pint of guinness). (note too, the relevance of this storyline to certain contemporary american issues -- such as issues of violence and crime in primarily african american communities -- some 'privileged white people' and maybe some african americans too, say, 'oh why can't they get it together! behave themselves! what is the problem?!' but some people, like me, would say, well, it's just not that simple -- what with the history we created, that is a slave history, and its 'counterparts' of longlasting, and possibly and sadly ever-present, discrimination and racism.) "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." yes, right, and part of their happy revelry over this was something like, the small guy giving it to the big guy, or the union winning a contract over the management, or, the slave overcoming the slave master (as is chronicled in one of frederick douglass' autobiographies). i liked your analysis here and how you worked thru how everyone would be different if only people behaved differently -- that there is a domino effect from meanness, longlasting effects and circular effects, and it seems to me that joyce is, in fact, implying that in this story. cheers, maureen. END OF COUNTERPARTS! |
|
|
|
|