Money- the admiral of life

"And do you know why they clone the Afghan hound," he went on, ignoring her, " the very stupidest of all the dogs on this earth? You don't? Breeding, that is why. This is what they call an uncomplicated genetic line, a pure line all the way back to the wolf ancestor. Breeding," he said, and he'd raised his voice so that Admiral looked up at the vehemence of it, " so that we can have this purity, this stupid hound, this replica of nature." (p.14)

In this story, a very wealthy couple pay a considerable amount of money to replicate their deceased dog and its upbringings. By cloning the animal and hiring Nisha, the Strikers wish to go back in time and repeat the past. As Erhard comes into the picture, he makes Nisha question the Strikers' motives and approach to the untimely death of their original dog. This then brings up the question of social class. The Strikers and Nisha are undoubtedly in different social classes. The differences between the two is represented through this quote, and more so through Admiral . The Strikers go out of their way just to specifically clone their dog, though they could have just paid a significantly smaller amount just to get a new Afghan. But no, the Strikers had to get their exact dog, just to preserve the reputation of the dog, and maybe to preserve the reputation of themselves. Breeding and purity of the hound serves to keep out any external genes, any external others which could taint their name. The "replica of nature" is just that, a shadow of the natural world as humans try to conquer the earth with their artificial actions to keep those with power on top.  As Nisha tries to change this with Erhard, in the end she realizes that her tries are fruitless. Nisha goes back to making sure that the clone ends up exactly like his original, even if it leads to his death.

Does the breeding of a dog, specifically this dog which is supposedly the dumbest, represent the class system of America? Does this dog, with its faults and imperfections, show how the rich want to continue their conditions, even if it means repeating their mistakes and going against nature?

Illustration, Cotton Fields, and Howard: A Response to Clear as Black and White

Some of us can infer early on that the neighbors of Eighth Street are black from the illustration on the cover page and the numerous references to Howard University. The figure on the cover, presumably Sharon, has full lips and a bell-shaped nose which indicate African heritage. However, the image is not a photograph but an illustration which allows the artist a lot of creative license. The moment in Bad Neighbors when Sharon describes her new feminine appeal is when some readers glean the predominant race on Eighth Street:

"And Sharon, coming rather late to this awareness of her womanhood, had begun to take             some delight in seeing boys wither as they stood close enough to her to smell the mystery that had nothing to do with perfume and look into the twinkling brown eyes she had inherited from a grandmother who had seen only the morning, afternoon, and evening of a cotton field" (Jones 73, Column 3).

So to answer your first question Alexis: After this sentence I knew that the neighbors were black.

But to answer your second question takes a longer answer. I highlighted this sentence and tried to understand why the author decided to veil the race of the neighbors on Eighth Street in this manner. I was unsure of the race of these neighbors until I read the words cotton fields. I wondered why Jones did not make it obvious that the characters where black to his readers who do not associate cotton fields with slavery. It comes down to race and class. I believe that the race of the neighbors on Eighth Street is far less important than their social class. The race of the neighbors on Eighth could have been easily been substituted but I believe that the story would have remained the same. The overall impact of the story would have been the same.

Why do you think Jones did not hit us over the heads with the race of the neighbors on Eighth? Why does Jones focus on social class more than race in his story?
 

The Appearance of Class

"[Terence] was to excel in anatomy and dermatology when he got to Howard's medical school, but genetics and neurology would nearly cost him his future" (40).

In "Bad Neighbors" by Edward P. Jones, the people of Eighth street determine the quality of a person by their appearances. They drive nice cars and peer at each other from behind "brocade curtains" (36). They go to church, but only on holidays and special occasions. They judge each other's worth based on their material possessions. Terence judged the Benningtons quite severely, calling them trash and spitting on Derek Bennington's car. Terence, with his protecting his father's parking spot, his loveless marriage to Sharon Palmer, and his general demeanor, is all about appearances. He didn't bother, unlike Sharon, to get to know the Benningtons. He chose to judge them on their apparent poverty, lack of class, and on their atypical family situation, without seemingly realizing that he, himself, came from humble means. And even though Sharon knew the Benningtons were worth more than her parents and her future husband thought, chose to marry one of her class, rather than the man that she actually loved.

These people allow their lives to be run by their idea of what class is. They marry people they don't love and they move from neighborhoods that they love to live in, just to prove that they themselves are not of humble means and are worth more than the world gives them credit for.

Is class mostly based on appearances? And, if so, does that mean that we discount more worthy people because they don't fit our idea of class?

Clear as Black and White

"I wanted to keep this clean," Derek said. "But white trash won't let me."

(Jones, 82)

When Sharon faces the threat of possible rape and sexual harassment from three students, the author provides one of the first direct citations of color and race within the elements of the "Bad Neighbors". Throughout the story, there is an ambiguity of race, leaving it to the readers to assume and imply each character's race. From first glance, I found the Benningtons to be a parasite on the neighborhood, I found them to be an oddball amongst the suburban backset. We assume they come from hard times, and do not have strong financial means, and the lack of interaction with fellow neighbors allows a sense of mystery, as they evade public eye. The reader only sees disapproval and disgust amongst the neighbors, who eventually push the Benningtons out. Ironically, Derek saves Sharon's very life at the end, leaving him possibly with mortal wounds. In regards to the confrontation of the students and Sharon, the reader can only assume the students verbally harassing her had darker motives, but Derek arrives right in the nick of time, like a night in shining armor. He saves the damsel in distress, clearly contrasting the social class duality found throughout the short story. This trashy, vulgar individual comes to be one of the few gentlemen seen throughout the story. He is true to his nature, cold and stoic, and has a certain moral code not seen amongst other characters. Now, I assume the Benningtons are of African American descent and come as individuals in the working middle to lower class. This family is seen as a plague upon the community, as troublesome individuals who upset the neighborhood balance. The author clearly contrasts this upheaval of the family with the life-saving acts of Derek to purely portray the racism and constraint society holds in regards to meeting the status quo. The author comments on the overall superficiality and racism the country still faces, even within racial groups. George P. Jones purposely utilizes ambiguity of race as a social commentary on the racism and oppressive nature society is still stained with, over a hundred years after slavery was abolished, and equality of rights achieved. 

Discussion Question: 

What race do you think the Benningtons were as well as surrounding neighbors? If George P. Jones blatantly noted the race and color of character, how would the overall impact of the story change? Would the story be less effect or more so?

Love Thy Neighbor

In the short story "Bad Neighbors,"Edward P. Jones illustrates a story of the classism and prejudice a family experiences when they move into a "good" neighborhood. For the most part, this story excludes racism because the neighborhood is predominately black, because of this Jones leaves the reader with an excellent way to examine class within racial boundaries. I have chosen two quotes that contrast the meaning of being a "good" neighbor and beg the question of what being a "good" neighbor truly means. 

"He had heard, too, that the police there were brutes, straight out of the worst Southern towns, but he had come a long way since the boyhood days of helping his father deliver coal and ice throughout Washington. 'Dirty nigger coal man and his dirty nigger coal son,' children had called them. And that was in the colored neighborhoods of maids and shoeshiners and janitors and cooks and elevator operators. But he was a thousand lives from that now, even though he wasn't anybody's lawyer." (43)

"We are the future, Lane Stagg had proclaimed at a final dinner party at the Sheraton Hotel for the good neighbors. Who was left there now? Bad neighbors, her father had called those who came after them. Bad neighbors." (46)

Lane Stagg represents a man that has turned from his past and left his experiences completely in the dark. Even as a man that once excluded from his own neighborhood he cannot learn from his past and start a new, more kind cycle due to the shame he carries about what he once was, a working class boy from a working class family. The Stagg's have the opportunity to be "good" neighbors to the Benningtons, but instead exclude them into the judgmental, category of "bad" neighbors and attempt to replace them with "more agreeable people" (42). Although the other neighbors pasts are not examined, the reader can assume that at least some of them have come from hardship and discrimination, most likely racially or economically. The neighbors actions completely disregard the golden the rule, that all "good" people must follow, "do unto others what you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12). This causes the reader to examine who the "good" people really are in this story and how "good" people should behave. 

In the closing moments of the story, Derek Bennington and Sharon Palmer Stagg reconnect in the climactic moment of story. Derek acts a "good" neighbor and saves Sharon from a group of drunk boys attempting to sexually abuse her. In this moment Jones ironically makes the former "bad neighbor" into a "good neighbor" by being Sharon's savior. This again causes the reader to reexamine the meaning of "good" in this story.

What is Jones telling the reader about the Benningtons, or people like them, in the final moments of the story? What is Jones telling the reader about the "good neighbors"?

Class v. Love

In Edward Jones' "Bad Neighbors," class plays a big role in determining the view of the Benningtons on Eight Street. They were of lesser means, and their neighbors had no problem or qualms. Sharon seems to be the only neighbor with a desire to see the Benningtons for who they really are, but she inevitably buckles under the weight of want for upperclassness and her relationship with the Benningtons fades away in favor for a relationship with the college boy, Terrance Stagg.

Years later, Derek Bennington will say to Sharon, "I lied. I lied. Red wasn't a bad color It was way good enough for you. Any color you put on is a good color, didn't you know that? You make the world. It ain't never been the other way around. You first, then the world follows."

This is a moment of tenderness from the tough Derek as his true feelings are surfacing verbally. Later on, we read that the gift Sharon received one Christmas from Neil might really have been crafted by Derek and delivered by Neil. This reinforces the idea of a longstanding love for Sharon by Derek, who even all this time later is still gentle toward Sharon.

My question is, what significance does class have in relation to love? Why do many people, and in this story Sharon, wish to marry the callous doctor rather than the sincere underclass neighbor?

-ing words

Moment: [She held up her uniform up before her. She stared at her name tag and found it hard to connect herself with the name and the the uniform and the naked person they belonged to. Am I really who they say I am? Bleeding. Bleedin. None of Derek's people had ever used the "g" on their -ing words; one of the first things she herself had been taught early in life was never to drop the "g". The "g" is there for a reason, they told her. It separates you from all the rest of them, those who do not know any better.]

I selected this moment because it deals with the association between proper grammar, names, clothing, skin color, and wealth with a certain class of individual. Throughout the story, the narrator mentions the fact that the "good neighbors" on Eighth street looked down on the Benningtons for being a different class of people. When Sharon questions if she really is who they say she is I finally understood that this story is more of a commentary on the different ways in which societies, neighborhoods, and individuals create their own perception of class. I took this passage to mean that they refers to the "good neighbors" of Eighth Street that would have looked down on her love for a man that used -ing words. When Sharon was young she saw class through the lens of her neighborhood, but as an adult, Sharon questioned whether the Benningtons were actually "bad neighbors" at all. The dialects, the stereotypes, and racial slurs used in this story were all meant to get the reader thinking about what class of people the Benningtons might belong to and how their class affected their career choices and love prospects.

For Discussion:
1. Do you think that that the Benningtons where actually bad neighbors or where they simply thought to be bad for being of a different class?

2. After Sharon had finished her introspection, I found myself wondering whether she would continue hating what her father hated, the Benningtons and the digital clock, and stay in her relationship with Terence or actually go through with her fantasy of murdering Terence in his sleep and seek Derek. Why end the story with the expensive digital German clock?

The Monsters are Due on Eighth Street

"After Riccocelli had gone, Derek went up and down both sides of the street shouting to the neighbors to come out and confront him. "Don't be punks!" he shouted. As he neared the Palmers' house, Grace came around the corner, and she and Amanda and Neil, who had been standing in the yard, went to him. "We got babies in that house, man! It's winter, for God's sakes!" Derek shouted. Sharon opened her door and came out onto the porch, but she was the only neighbor to do so. "We got sweet innocent babies in that house, man! What can y'all be thinkin?" His family was able to calm him, but before they could get him across the street the police arrived." (pg. 10)

 Jones here illustrates how far the neighbors on Eighth Street are willing to go to hurt the less fortunate Bennington's. Rather than acknowledging the hardships they face both financially and culturally, the neighbors always felt that the Benningtons never belonged on their street, and now have an opportunity to exile them. 

What was Derek's, the usually stronger more confrontational of the family, purpose in emphasizing that there are babies in the house?

Do good fences really make good neighbors?

The ambiguity of race in the story was very telling, and Jones, by slowly introducing the theme, captured the reader to figure out such complexities. Language, word choice, and tone reflect one’s education level, economic status, and life style, and this story utilizes the power of language in a very interesting way. It is not only used to confuse and intrigue the reader, but also to present how such a minute thing such as how one talks can distinguish the “good neighbors” from the “bad”. 

After finishing the story, one moment especially stuck in my head, one of disappointment and disdain, “Neil and [Sharon's] brother forever had the look of true believers who had to start every sad morning by learning all over again that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus did not exist (Jones, 73).” Sharon equates the new neighbors with her family member on the first page, and I did not realize how significant and prophetic that was until the end of the story. It set the reader up to expect disappointment from things that appear one way with what may actually be something else entirely. Furthermore, the non-linear structure of the story mirrors a sort of memory, leaping forward and hypothesizing about how events could have taken place “in another universe” while telling the long drawn out story about a neighborhood block. When Sharon spoke to Derek it was the first time the audience got colloquial cues as to what race the Benningtons may be, especially through Derek’s outright use of Ebonics. It wasn’t until after the fight between Terance and Derek that I realized it was internal racism, blacks versus blacks, and from there the line was drawn between the good and bad neighbors. But Sharon never made such a distinction, she was different, more accepting, from the quote about Neil and her brother, to being the only neighbor to answer the door. Most importantly, the quote introduces a tone of remorse and sadness, a type of coming of age story where innocence is shattered and people are never fully understood. I wonder if it was Jones' intention to portray Sharon as a soft spoken hero type caught in society's misconceptions who never was able to find her voice, or whether Sharon was meant to portray weakness and corruption.

Superiority Complex

"Two days later, the Prevosts, at 1404, were robbed, with a television the most expensive thing taken. No one said anything, but the neighbors knew it had to be Derek.  The next week, the Thortons, at 1414, had their car stolen. The car was only a Chevy, five years old, but that was not the point, said Bill Forsythe, at 1408. His wife, Prudence, had complained about what a noisy heap the Thorton car was and that the neighborhood was well rid of it. A man's property is a man's property, Bill said, even if it's one skate with three wheels" (74).

            Jones highlights the cruel dynamics of class hierarchy within, one can assume, a neighborhood devoid of racial diversity. The Benningtons' arrival on Eighth Street created a rift in the neighborhood's class distinction. The Benningtons were viewed as occupants of a significantly lower social status than the "veterans" of the block. From the beginning, the Benningtons were scrutinized for their lack of nice things; they had ratty, beat-up furniture, which their neighbors suggested was not worth moving into their new home. However, once the "good" neighbors found miscellaneous items stolen from their homes they became outraged, even if it was a "noisy heap" of a car. Bill claims that a car or even a broken skate is a man's property no matter its condition and firmly believes that man has a right to own useless items. The neighbors became hypocritical in thinking that their dingy belongings were of better value or significance than the Benningtons'. Their superiority complex had driven them to value their property, no matter how dingy or insignificant, above the Benningtons' home furnishings, which the neighbors concluded they should not have bothered to bring.

How else are the neighbors hypocritical with respect to their actions versus the Benningtons?

Separate and unequal

“Even before the fracas with Terence Stagg, people along both sides of the 1400 block of Eighth Street NW could see the Benningtons for what they really were.

The moment sets a tone of transgression as the narrator describes neighbors distinguishing themselves from the Benningtions upon arrival. The moment is significant for the author’s argument because it segregates the Bennington family from the rest of the neighborhood people. This segregation allows the story to revolve around the themes of class and race.

If the Benningtons were upper class would the surrounding neighbors still “see the Benningtons for what they really were?”

The Ultimate Sacrifice

Cheerver's 1949 short story "The Hartleys" depicts a brief ski trip taken by a dissatisfied family, in effort to repair their broken marriage. The story is told as a mere snap shot by an absent narrator, who is unable to capture the emotions of the characters. Besides knowing that the Hartley's had previously stayed at Pemaquoddy Inn eight years ago, one knows no outside information. Because of the third person perspective, Mr. and Mrs. Hartley are depicted completely through their actions, leaving one to question the emotions behind those actions. For example, Mr. Hartley is constantly helping his family with driving, carrying bags, and taking care of Anne, yet one is never privy to his thoughts, and whether his actions are sincere. The only character who is open with her emotions is seven year old Anne, but her emotions can be attributed to her young age, which ultimately does not provide insight into the characters situation.

The Hartley's lack communication and passion for one another, but one assumes there must be deeper issues that initially broke their marriage. On page 63, the maid overhears their private conversation, and discovers, that this trip was taken to revisit a place, where they once thought they were happy. The key word being "thought". Mrs. Hartley is determined to undermined the entire trip, and begs for a separation. She sounds like a child, when she begs her husband to let her take Anne, "Why can't I..." causing one to wonder whether she was jealous that her daughter prefers to be with Mr. Hartley?

So... where does that leave us? Basically one is left with seemingly little information into this family's situation. Therefore, when Anne suddenly dies at the end, one is shocked, because the beginning of the story does not prepare for a tragic ending. Now, would be a good time for Cheever to provide insight into the Hartley's emotions after this tragedy, but in keeping with the story, the parents are minimally described as following the hearse home. However, the last line describes Mr. Hartley as "arranging the blankets" over his wife's legs, which depicts an intimate relationship. This small action, provides the ultimate question of whether their marriage will go back to how it was eight years ago, before Anne was born? Was Anne the ultimate sacrifice, to save their marriage?

Breaking the Cycle

Throughout The Hartleys, it is apparent the family feels themselves trapped in this vicious cycle of pretending to be happy and putting on a show for those around them. It is remarked that they seem to have suffered a loss, which reveals itself as a loss of love the between the couple. Mrs. Hartley’s misery is demonstrated in her climatic outburst the maid overhears, “Why do we have to come back? Why do we have to make these trips back to the places where we thought we were happy? What good is it going to do? What good has it ever done?” (pg. 63). The hopelessness embedded in her questioning reflects the desperation of their situation. In essence, what good is it to pretend to enjoy life? Phrases are repeated throughout the story, and the couple continues to return to places or people they associate with the cheerfulness they once possessed. These actions of repetition are an attempt to cling to the last vestige of happiness from their past, a happiness that existed before the monotonous litany that envelops their love and passion through a majority of the story’s progression. The reader can only assume this restlessness is a result of the child, Anne, considering the couple’s last memory of true contentment was the time before she was born. Therefore, Anne appears to serve as the force ensnaring the Hartleys in this state of despondency where they “search again and again in the same sand” (pg. 64) for the life they once had. Her death serves as their freedom from the “frayed rope” of their lives, and the “continuous cycle of movement” they were forced to endure. However, the question arises whether this is a true freedom, or simply a temporary pleasure experienced from the break in the plaintive cycle and repetition of the events of their daily lives? Was the despair that burdened the couple a consequence of the stress of Anne’s presence, or the dull permanence she represented as related to the couple’s relationship? In other words, was the sense of renewal the Hartleys experienced after Anne’s death a result of the absence of her difficult nature, and if so, will this new found rejuvenation endure throughout their marriage, or will it fade back into its previous tedious repetition?

Gender and Class

 During the story, the man’s role in a middle class family is portrayed as the one in charge. For example, when the Hartleys first arrive at the inn, Mr. Hartley checks them in while Mrs. Hartley and their daughter stand by. Also, whenever Mr. or Mrs. Hartley discussed their father’s they illustrate pictures of authority. Mrs. Hartley said that her father was a doctor, and Mr. Hartley described a time when his father was carving the meat. While on at the inn, it becomes clear that Mr. and Mrs. Hartley are not enjoying themselves and have not in a while. She says:

                “Why can’t we separate again? It was better that way. Wasn’t it better that way? It was better for Anne – I don’t care what you say, it was better for her than this. I’ll take Anne again and you can live in town. Why can’t I do that, why can’t I why can’t I, why can’t I…” (63).

                Why did Mr. and Mrs. Hartley get back together if they were happier separate? And why is Mrs. Hartley unable to separate from her husband again? Does her gender hinder her from being able to raise her daughter on her own?

Cycles

"That afternoon was a continuous cycle of movement. There was a single file to the left of the slope, holding the frayed rope and breaking from it, one by one, at the crown of the hill to choose their way down, going again and again over the same surface, like people who, having lost a ring or a key on the beach, search again and again in the same sand."

This short passage seems to be a metaphor for not only the Hartley's marital problems but perhaps for broken relationships in general. According to Mrs. Hartley's emotional outburst earlier in the story, the couple have already separated once and their current attempt to reconcile is not going well. Her reiterated question "Why do we have to come back?" is a foreshadowing of the ski slope scene, the "continuous cycle of movement" that characterizes these lives, from the mundane to the intimate. Instead of simply admitting that what they previously had is lost, they "search again and again in the same sand," spinning out the same cyclical story, coming back around to the same obstacles, breaking and coming together again at the same places, creating a revolving wheel of dysfunction. Nothing is ever healed or solved or changed in any way. The fact that their daughter's neck is broken against an actual wheel seems heavily symbolic of this.

Discussion Question: What solution do you think that Cheever is proposing for a disintegrating relationship, if any? That is, what the Hartleys are doing to repair themselves- revisiting people and places that had made them happy in the past- is obviously not working. What do you think he's saying they should have done?

continuous cycle

Time is at the crux of The Hartleys and how the rich waste time in a circular fashion trying to reproduce feelings and lifestyles that they simply prefer.

" 'Why do we have to come back?' Mrs. Hartley was crying. 'Why do we have to come back? Why do we have to make these trips back to the places where we thought we were happy? What good is it going to do? What good has it ever done? We go through the telephone book looking for names of people we knew ten years ago, and we ask them for dinner, and what good does it do? What good has it ever done? We go back to restaurants, the mountains, we go back to the houses, even the neighborhoods, we walk in the slums, thinking that this will make us happy, and it never does. Why in Christ's name did we ever begin such a wretched thing? Why isn't there an end to it? Why can't we separate again? ....' "

In this paragraph alone, we travel back to many places in an attempt to rediscover feelings that they want to have, but no longer do. If the Hartleys were from a modest background, then they wouldn’t have the means to be traveling constantly in an attempt to find these feelings. They could move passed whatever love or anger they have towards one another and find a way to love one another or simply separate. The wealth that appears to be behind them is what is actually moving them to try to rediscover their feelings in this fashion.

Can everyone look for lost feelings by traveling through the past in the present?

A Cheevarian Happy Ending

Ah…what a feel-good story! Warms the soul, yes?

At the risk of sounding more macabre than I actually am, I will make the odd argument that various dreary aspects of The Hartleys function to produce a rather happy-ish ending.

The effect of Anne’s death is one of intense shock and sorrow, yet I could not help feeling that something had been restored, even rectified, in the last paragraph. The last line describes Mr. Hartley’s altered behavior,

“He helped his wife into the car, and after arranging a blanket over her legs, they started the long, long drive.”

Up until now an emotionally distant figure to Mrs. Hartley, Mr. Hartley has become reconnected to his wife, gently and lovingly caring for her. Some vague themes in the story leading up to this point are the chaos of modern life, emotional disconnection, intense loneliness, and the idea that the present is damaged and the desire to revive past happiness. It is clear that the Hartley’s were very different people 8 years ago, when they visited Pemaquoddy for the first time. Anne’s age of 7 suggests she might have even been conceived at the Inn, and perhaps that conception, or at least the intimacy related to it, is what Mr. Hartley refers to when he speaks of the “wonderful time” he and his wife had. The Hartley’s return to the Inn only differs in the addition of Anne. Cheever depicts Anne as difficult and demanding, as well as a human rift that has emotionally separated her parents. Even the guests note that the Hartleys gave them “the feeling that they had recently suffered some loss..”.

Coming back to the last line, why would Cheever present a reconnection in such a bleak way? While I recognize that it is just as likely that this moment of tenderness from Mr. Hartley does not represent a permanent change, and the death of the daughter could distance the couple even further, this is not the picture Cheever paints in the last lines.

If the aim of all art is to achieve the ‘universal’, or to have ‘meaning’, Cheever is successful in reminding us of the complexity of our emotions. We feel guilty recognizing the couple’s rediscovery of each other, uncomfortable that it came at the cost of an innocent child’s gruesome death. By emphasizing the tension between very different themes in The Hartleys, Cheever reveals the unforgiving and chaotic reality of the modern age.

"Where is the Love?"

"Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are" (Fitzgerald, 152).

This paragraph, introducing "the very rich" sets the tone for the rest of the story as it delineates the boundary between the social classes. "We" refers to the middle and lower classes, or anyone who is not one of the ultra-rich born into wealth. I noted that Fitzgerald specified being "born rich" and did not include those who become rich as a result of hard work. This story invites us to peek through the window into the lives of those "born" rich, but it is not the fairy tale where we get to enter their world and become part of it, like a Cinderella story.  We love to read about the rich, fantasizing about their lavish lifestyles. Still, this was no Cinderella story and there is no happy ending.
The main character, Anson Hunter, moves through life with ease taking what he wants from each relationship and not taking responsibility for the pain he causes the people he takes advantage of. It is interesting that Fitzgerald named his lead character Anson "Hunter," because throughout the story, Anson is a hunter searching for the perfect game. He goes through Paula, Dolly, and other women who cross his path. He claims he loves Paula, but he can never commit. He never finds what he's looking for because he's never found happiness inside himself. Contentment was something even his wealth couldn't buy for him. So he self-medicates by excessive drinking and joining lavish parties, firm evidence of his attempt to escape from himself.

Discussion question: Fitzgerald never precisely tells the readers why Anson has so much trouble in
maintaining long-term relationships. Why do you think that Anson cannot commit and why wouldn't Fitzgerald share more depth of Anson's character?

A Flaw in an Armored Shield 


“In the evening he went out as usual, saying nothing of what had occurred; he was cordial, humorous, unabstracted. But one thing he could not help—for three days, in any place, in any company, he would suddenly bend his head into his hands and cry like a child."


This is the only point in the story where the nakedness of Anson Hunter's vulnerability and weakness is shown in its entirety to the readers.  In a place and time where gender roles are strictly delineated, to cry like a child, in that moment of occurrence, is to forgo one's strength and masculinity.  Hunter spent much of his time in the story manipulating women and thinking them highly simple and exasperating creatures.  Despite this, however, a major low in his life, and one may argue the start of his downfall, was in fact caused by a woman.  His presumed superiority, a characteristic well tailored since a rather young age, and swelling ego is immediately shattered by his sudden outburst of emotion in front of the many members of his social group.  Though it lasted for only three days, this particular moment allows the author to show that despite having wealth and the luxuries that come of it, it does not make one invincible.  Fitzgerald does well in demonstrating that even the rich are not exempt from the rawest of human emotion-- heartbreak and ultimately, loneliness.


The wealth possessed by Fitzgerald's characters propels them to the top ranks of social class creating a world apart from those below them.  At what other points in the story does Fitzgerald shatter the illusion of a perfect world?     

The Effect of Class on Self

In Fiterzgerald's "The Rich Boy," we meet Anson Hunter and immediately he is introduced by the narrator, Anson's later-on friend, that his family is very rich and that Anson possesses an early sense of superiority. As a young man, we are told that Anson "had a confident charm and a certain brusque style, and upper-class men who passed him on the street knew without being told that he was a rich boy and had gone to one of the best schools" (Fitzgerald, 154). We are told that Anson is thick-set and not quite handsome, though this seemingly has no effect on his confidence or sense of standing on the class scale to which he is sure he is at the top.

Anson's sense of superiority over others seems only to swell as the story continues and as Anson grows older. In my opinion, the following passage is a hard-hitting moment where the reader must no longer doubt his callous attitude, even considering the kind acts that Anson does for his friends throughout the story: "There were so many friends in Anson's life -- scarcely for whom he had not done some unusual kindness and scarcely one for whom he did not occasionally embarrass by his bursts of rough conversation or his habit of getting drunk whenever and however he liked. It annoyed him when any one else blundered in that regard -- about his own lases he was always humorous" (Fitzgerald, 165).

My questions for consideration is this: How does the innate sense of superiority and upper-classness in Anson effect not his relationships with others which all eventually fail, but rather his relationship with himself?

The Personalities of Love

     Although Anson Hunter seems to have everything he could possibly want, the reader finds that his life is ultimately restricted by the emphasis he has placed on social status and the feeling of superiority and control associated with such status. As a result, he struggles to enjoy even the most basic of human desires: love. Fitzgerald demonstrates this when he writes,

"He dominated and attracted her, and at the same time filled her with anxiety. Confused by his mixture of solidity and self-indulgence, of sentiment and cynicism - incongruities which her gentle mind was unable to resolve - Paula grew to think of him as two alternating personalities" (Fitzgerald, 160).

     Anson's oscillation between his two "personalities" is indicative of his inability to completely open up to Paula. His withdrawn personality can be attributed to class and superiority as they fill Anson with a belief that he is invulnerable and in complete control; however, love strips its victims of all protective mechanisms, making them utterly and completely defenseless. Arguably, this vulnerability Anson feels challenges his control, thereby discounting two things that have protected and aided him throughout life (i.e. social standing and superiority). Therefore, he feels the need to remain guarded in his relationship with Paula in order to keep his emotions from spiraling out of control. His personality shifts between that of a cold, inaccessible alcoholic to a warm and charming individual. In maintaining two very different personalities, Anson, in his mind, is able to discretionary power over his vulnerability. Moreover, his incapability to set his control aside and plunge into love costs him Paula's affection and instead leaves him completely alone.

     Are personal securities such as superiority and class distinction worth a life without love? 

Mobility

Throughout F.Scott Fitzgerald’s, “The Rich Boy”, we observe as Anson Hunter moves in and out of such a title-- in other words, we observe shifts in his maturity, his economic means, and his social tendencies.  As we see in the following passage, Fitzgerald’s story suggests a mobility between classes and social dimensions:

“ Meanwhile, he plunged vigorously into all the movement and glitter of post-bellum New York, enticing a brokerage house, joining half a dozen clubs, dancing late, and moving in three worlds-- his own world, the world of young Yale graduates, and the section of the half-world which  rests on one end on Broadway. But there was always a thorough  and infractible eight hours devoted to his work in Wall street, where the combination of his influential family connection, his sharp intelligence, and his abundance of sheer physical energy brought him almost immediately forward. He had one of those invaluable minds with partitions in it; sometimes he appeared at his office refreshed by less than an hour’s sleep, but such occurrences were rare. So early as 1920 his income in salary and commissions exceeded twelve thousand dollars.” (Fitzgerald, 161)

We see mobility in several different ways in this passage. Firstly, there is the notion of existing in “three worlds”.  Not only does this stress that Anson is not pigeon-holed into one place in the system as Paul was in “Paul’s Case”, but it is interesting to note that the following list of worlds includes a “half-world” and a world vaguely labeled as “his own world”. By calling the “Broadway” world a half-world, Fitzgerald is suggesting that Anson does not consider that to be necessarily a real part of his life, or a part of his life that can have consequence on other parts of his life. However, as the story progresses, we see that it does in fact ultimately affect his relationships, and who he is as a person. Additionally, by not adding a specific description to “his own world”, Fitzgerald suggests that Anson’s “world”, or in other words his place in the infrastructure, is not something that can be clearly defined or pinned down.  

Another place where we see mobility is in the description of Anson moving forward in his job. The mere fact that he is going somewhere indicates mobility. However, there is also the reason’s why he is moving up-- reasons that are various and not completely connected to birth. Also, there is the final mention of his salary, a device that we see Fitzgerald use throughout the story as an indicator of where Anson is in “The Rich Boy” scale. 

The question that I pose for discussion is: How do the different parts of Anson’s life affect each other, and what message is Fitzgerald trying to convey with this idea of multiple worlds?

"The trouble with the world is that it's always one drink behind."

In Fitzgerald's "The Rich Boy", Anson Hunter, a man of seemingly immeasurable wealth,  leads a life in which he defers to "the world of high finance and extravagance, of divorce and dissipation" as his ultimate reality (Fitzgerald 164). Accepting no one as his equal and maintaining a strong will throughout his youth, there are a but a few moments where his faint disdain for the simple-mindedness and predictability of his peers takes center stage. But when he reaches age thirty, the lack of intimacy in his life causes him an immense depression as old friends settle down and the Hunter family name is reduced to a shell of its former self. When nearing the end of his tale, Fitzgerald recalls a revitalized form of Anson taking control as the two meet up for drinks. Without even the slightest hesitation, he begins to discuss "the girl in the red tam" and his plan to take her out to dinner (Fitzgerald 187). The story ends with the author's final analysis of his companion, proclaiming that he didn't feel as if "he was ever happy unless some one was in love with him."(Fitzgerald 187)

This moment, to me, crystallizes the entire aesthetic of the incredibly wealthy New England communities that were in full swing during the early twentieth century. Fate dealt to them a hand that provided limitless amounts of material pleasure and with it temporary remedies to their internal emptiness. Such quick fixes came in the form of exquisite liquor, cigarettes, and a few deck of cards. And unlike human beings, they were instantly replaceable. Once more, since the society which they belonged to and preserved was never short of pretty faces, there was always the option of forgetting emotional issues with a lover to give your heart away to someone else or play with their own if it were necessary. Even after Paula's passing and the abrupt end to his fling with dolly,  Anson still had in his disposal enough human capital to begin another affair. All that was missing in his situation was the correct remedy. Once applied, he could continue on with his lavish yet meaningless existence, and it would appear in the end this is exactly what he did. Infatuation might be the bare minium for a relationship, but for Anson, coupled with a class of whiskey, it is all that he needs.

What other moments of character development or potential motifs cultivate Fitzgerald's twentieth century aesthetic?

Weight a Minute

Towards the end of F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Rich Boy", the main character Anson Hunter wanders around New York desperately and unsuccessfully trying to find something to do. This significant moment of confusion and loss is displayed in the following passage:

"He was a dignified, impressive young man, rather stout now, but otherwise unmarked by dissipation. He could have been cast for a pillar of something--at times you were sure it was not society, at others nothing else--for the law, for the church. He stood for a few minutes motionless on the sidewalk in front of a 47th Street apartment-house; for almost the first time in his life he had nothing whatever to do" (Fitzgerald 181).

Anson's weight gain is alluded to numerous times in the short story and it becomes a metaphor of his increasing resistance to the changing times. Notably this paragraph is very clear about Anson's massive weight. By the time he finds himself wandering the streets of New York he is irrelevant to his peers and a monument to the way things were. He is weighed down by antiquated notions of class, women, and relationships therefore he cannot adapt to his new environment. He is stout meaning he is unyielding as well as fat. Fitzgerald is arguing that class is an ever changing notion and that those who do not compromise their old ways of thinking become stuck in time.

What other devices does Fitzgerald use to illustrate how class evolves?

when he went against the design of things

"He was entirely rid of his nervous misgivings, of his forced aggressiveness, of the imperative desire to show himself different from his surroundings.  He felt now that his surroundings explained him.  Nobody questioned the purple; he had only to wear it passively.  He had only to glance down at his dress coat to reassure himself that here it would be impossible for anyone to humiliate him." (Cather, 484)

For me, this was perhaps the most engaging moment in "Paul's Case."  This taut, lucid passage conveys the complete character transformation that Paul greatly desired and worked toward.  He is no longer the young man driven by his tempered paranoia of being misunderstood by his father, teachers, and peers.  Paul does not have to work at building his own persona.  That is, he does not have to make explicit his views on his education, he does not have to boast his direct ties to high-brow culture (i.e., the theatre), and he does not have to improvise "explanations that [do not] explain" (473).  His efforts to set himself apart from those around him have finally paid off.  He has succeeded in recreating himself and takes a moment to bask in his achievement.  In this passage, Paul sits in the hotel in a state of artificial beauty and tenuous nirvana.  For a fleeting moment, he is untouchable.

And so, Paul's solitary bliss brings to mind the transformative role of class on the self.  Setting the above excerpt against Paul's eventual suicide, can a personal desire for social mobility lead to a "real," long-lasting transformation of the self, or is this desire the mark of a tragic hero?  In other words, does Cather's short story serve to glorify and/or disparage the idea of social mobility? 

The Last Train Home

"He rose and moved about with a painful effort, succumbing now and again to attacks of nausea. It was the old depression exaggerated; all the world had become Cordelia Street.Yet somehow he was not afraid of anything, was absolutely calm; perhaps because he had looked into the dark corner at last, and knew. It was bad enough, what he saw there; but somehow not so bad as his long fear of it had been. He saw everything clearly now. He had a feeling that he had made the best of it, that he had lived the sort of life he was meant to live, and for half an hour he sat staring at the revolver. But he told himself that was not the way, so he went downstairs and took a cab to the ferry." 

(Cather, 487)


In Willa Cather's "Paul's Case," the author utilizes Paul as an example for those who live by fear and the construct of society. The character tries to escape reality constantly, clearly unhappy with his own life. From the start, Paul does attends school, he works, he cleans the dishes, he goes to church. He does not do these things because he wants to but because he must. He forges lies upon lies to form the ultimate fantasy world in which he lives. He creates a false reality amongst his peers and family, he tries to escape his current disposition. The theatre and concert halls present themselves as sanctuaries, places where he could thrive in. When he finally took his life into his own hands, Paul robs, steals, cheats his father and the bank altogether. For the first time in his life, rather than run away from his problematic life or obediently stay in submission, Paul takes matters into his own hands. He fulfills his quest to experience life as he so fittingly deserves in New York, and takes his own life, freeing himself from the pain, anguish, and deception his life holds. Paul has no fear. He has no limitations. He is free. He accepts his life as it is, and dies happy. He dies in peace. 


I chose this significant moment from the text because it is almost cathartic in nature. This moment is so vital to the self-realization process that Paul goes through. Everyone in some way shape or form has freed themselves of some fear or heavy burden they hold. Everyone has escaped reality and eventually come to terms with the truth. Only a few can say they have taken their lives into their own hands, taken control of what his or her life. Of course, it is tragic Paul commits suicide, but it is almost beautiful in retrospect. He was not happy with his life. He lived a lie. He carried out his errands, duties, chores, etc monotonously, without any care or passion. He lives indifferently. When he finally acted on his dreams did he truly taste joy. Because he revolted from his current disposition, he finally lived. He lived the life he has dreamed in a few days, and came to terms with his past and future. He made a choice and must either face the consequences, or once again take his life into his own hands, or rather, take his life by his own hands. I find this moment to be pivotal in the story because at this moment, the reader gets to see that Paul is happy. He has lived a life he did not want, and after much heart ache and pent up frustration, he frees himself from the shackles of his structured life. He faces death and the consequences of his actions, without regret, without doubt. He attains peace of mind. 




Discussion Question: Why does Willa Cather enlighten and forge Paul into a character of cathartic nature, only to bring about his eventual suicide and condemnation? Why must Paul die rather than live?