“She felt frightened suddenly, for herself, for Admiral, for the Strikers and Frankie and the whole carefully constructed edifice of getting and wanting, of supply and demand and all that it implied.” (page 14)
Nisha’s internal conflict is rooted in her inability to move forward. Despite her success of obtaining a degree, she finds herself in the exact position she strived to avoid, a position of dependence. She claims to be “temporary help” (pg.10), but it is the permanence of belonging to this identity that that leaves her restless and unsatisfied (despite the convenience of her languid and effortless occupation). The “transgressive” impulse Erhard invokes in her is a response to the idea of undermining the class restraints she had failed to dispel initially by attending college. However, this “hope” (pg.17) of liberation soon regresses to a “hopeless state of despair” (pg.19) as she realizes it is the very construction of class and wealth she is attempting to destabilize that is providing the only element of stability in her life. Despite ideals and morals, Admiral, the living icon of wealth, “remains supreme” (pg. 20) and Nisha is forced to reconcile the reality of her situation and the difficulty of overcoming it. Just like Admiral, she longs to eliminate the restrictions of those who control her life and run free where she “really wanted to be” (pg.21), but the challenge and independence this presents seems to scare her. The question then arises; Is Nisha at fault for her position, or are the circumstances of her life and class superiority to blame? And should the reader see her as a victim, or a product of her own idleness?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.