To sum up, I liked the short story
and I enjoyed the style of the author, his laconic manner of highlighting some
human imperfections; I was fascinated by the deep ideas, which lie under the
surface of a simple language. In such a way, Maupassant’s style is similar to
another famous realistic author – Ernest Hemingway, whom I also adore.
The Family
четвер, 18 грудня 2014 р.
Speech characterization provides more ground to make judgments
about the protagonists, though instances of dialogues are not numerous. The
narrator uses primarily elaborate vocabulary, proving the fact that he is a man
from the high-brow society, his language structures are rather formal: “a
friend of whom”: “in the course of”; “in a hesitating manner”. The vocabulary
is neutral with instances of bookish words and phrases: “rare, ingenious
thoughts”; “in astonishment”; “a thought struck”; “a state of mental torpor”;
“to compliment on”. In dialogues colloquialisms are frequent: “That is my den”;
exclamations: “Ah, ah!”; “By Jove!”; the structures are simple, simple
sentences are frequent: “Good living, a good table and good nights!”.
In order to portray the characters
and describe the setting vividly and convincingly the author of the analyzed
story resorts to various expressive
means and syntactic devices. Lexical
devices are not numerous in the text. Epithets are found in the text and perform
various functions: describe Simon Radevin as a close friend of the narrator as
he recollects him, epithets with a positive meaning are presented: “most
intimate friend”; “rare, ingenious, delicate thoughts”; “intelligent, clever
young fellow”; “an active, living and vibrating man”; “lively, witty, light-
hearted”; describe Simon from the point of view of his simple provincial life:
“vague contempt”; “vainglorious and simple reproducer”;
describe Simon’s wife as fair girl from the province: “little thin, insipidly fair
girl”; “weak hands”; “light, vacant eyes”; “clear, silly voice”; “long-enduring
happiness”; “a good, tender and faithful woman”; the description of Madame Radevin
changes in the course of 15 years, epithets are negatively coloured: “ladies of
uncertain age”; “a stout, commonplace mother”; epithets are used to describe
the setting, the setting reflects the mode of life of the Radevins family: “a
dull, sleepy, gloomy town”; “a dreary, interminable plain”; “a
striking and melancholy picture of the life which they must be leading in that
house.” The narrator uses a number of metaphors to express his attitude towards his
friend and family: “the thought struck me”; “that dream of all those who bury
themselves in the provinces”; “I held my tongue”. Metaphors are used in the
following functions: render the setting (“an ocean of grass”, “of wheat and of
oats”); give characterization to Simon and wife as a unity of a provincial
machine (“simple reproducer of his species”; “a human breeding machine which
procreates without any other preoccupation but her children and her
cook-book.”). A simile is used: “who was exactly like a hundred thousand
marriageable dolls”. The narrator is ironic, when it comes to speak about his
friend Simon who’s changed a lot and lost a lot of his prominent qualities:
“You have not grown thin”.
The majority of epithets and
metaphors are used in the context with grandpa: “his trembling clutches at
them”; “the piteous appeal of his whole nature”;
“inarticulate grunts”; “a tiny morsel”; “he ate with feverish gluttony”.
Metaphors, applied to the grandpa, highlight his position in the family, the
attitude of the family members towards him: “He is a treasure, that old man”;
“he almost kills himself at every meal”; “He devoured the dishes on the table
with his eyes”; “at this horrible and grotesque scene.” Similes are few and are
used in connection with the grandpa: “the soup, that it was scattered like a
spray all over the table and over his neighbors”; “and a movement with his neck
as ducks do when they swallow too large a morsel”. All the ridiculousness and
misery of the grandpa’s position in the family is highlighted by the following allusion: “saddening and ridiculous Tantalus”.
Tantalus was a Greek mythological figure, most famous for his eternal
punishment in Tartarus. Similar to the Greek character, the grandpa goes
through the same round of torture every day, he is eager to devour all the tasty
food, but he is given only a tiny morsel, so he cannot be satisfied, all the
tasty food is out of his reach. A periphrasis is used to describe the grandpa: “I
saw something trembling”, such description only heightens the pitifulness of
his physical abilities and position in the family. Onomatopoeia is used in the context with the old
man, when he tries to utter some words: “"Oua, oua, oua," it is no
longer a human’s speech, but some kind of a sound imitation.
The characteristics of the children
are few in number, though important to consider. A metaphor is used to render
the feeling of pride Simon has towards his numerous children: “in a proud,
self-satisfied, almost triumphant manner”. A simile: “where three children,
ranged according to their height, seemed set out for review, like firemen
before a mayor”, which describes the hierarchy in the family. There is a direct
description of the eldest children: “A girl of fourteen, who was almost a
woman, and a boy of thirteen, in the dress of a boy from a Lycee, came
forward in a hesitating and awkward manner”. The clothing of the boy gives a
hint, that Simon’s wife tries to look better in the eyes of the narrator, that
is why she dresses her son in a uniform, similar to those, which are worn
during secondary education for children between the ages of 15 and 18
in France .
What’s more, Simon’s wife plays her role of a decent woman, having “dressed for
company, and with company phrases all ready prepared”.
Syntactical devices are also not so
numerous in the story and are represented by various means. A case of a catch repetition is found within the text: “Then he
married. He married, quite suddenly”, it points the suddenness of Simon’s
decision. A simple repetition is detected within the inner thoughts of the
narrator: “sad, sad, sad”, the
repetition highlights a feeling of deep sorrow and contempt, which the narrator
feels altogether. Zeugma is
used while describing the quiet life in the provincial town: “where nothing was
moving in the streets except a few dogs and two or three maidservants”. Climax contributes to the understanding of
the message of the short story: “How many days? Ten, twenty, fifty, or a
hundred?” Parallel
construction is used, when
nominative sentences with the same structures are repeated: “Oh, ethics! Oh, logic! Oh,
wisdom!”
Rhetorical
questions and rhetorical exclamations are very numerous in the story, which
make it more subjective and create an effect of closeness and direct
orientation to the reader. In the beginning the narrator meditates about the
changes, which can take place in the appearance and inner state of his friend,
his thoughts end up with a rhetoric exclamatory sentence: “What would he be
like when I met him again? Still lively, witty, light- hearted and
enthusiastic, or in a state of mental torpor induced
by provincial life? A man may change greatly in the course of
fifteen years!” Highly emotional passage is situated closely to the end of the
story, and it indicates the sharpest episode of the story: “Oh, ethics! Oh,
logic! Oh, wisdom! At his age! So they deprived him of his only remaining
pleasure out of regard for his health! His health! What would he do with it,
inert and trembling wreck that he was? They were taking care of his life, so
they said. His life? How many days? Ten, twenty, fifty, or a hundred? Why? For
his own sake?” The main idea of the short story is expressed in the following
rhetorical question: “He had one single wish left, one sole pleasure; why not
grant him that last solace until he
died?”
Punctuation is preserved
according to the norms of language, except for the accidental exclamatory mark
within the sentence: “I was low-spirited and sad, sad, sad! and I sat at my
window.”
To cut it short, the short story is
deprived of numerous stylistic devices and the main idea of it is expressed in
a laconic, but very evident and strong way. The most prominent stylistic
devices used by the author are metaphors and rhetorical constructions, which
help to reveal the main character’s nature and bring to the reader the main
idea of the text.
While reading the short story by
Guy de Maupassant, I recollect a famous quotation from Tolstoy’s “Anna
Karenina”: “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its
own way.” A little tragedy always hides within the surface of a good family.
But in the story “A Family” two main problems come out: the first one is
connected with the illiberality and deficiency of the life in province, which
narrows people’s imagination and simplifies their desires and ambitions; the
second one is about intolerance towards old people, the mocking over their
inability. And if the first problem can be understood and accepted somehow, the
second one is completely unacceptable and should be eradicated.
The main character of the short story
is the narrator; the events of the story are concentrated around him. His name
is indicated as his friend Simon approaches him: “George!” The narrator is
presented as an ordinary generalized image of a person. There is no information
about the narrator provided except for the fact that he hasn’t seen his friend
for 15 years. What’s more, the reader can guess that the narrator comes from Paris ,
where his friend Simon used to live before he’d got married. There is no
information about physical appearance, though some traits of his character can
be traced: he’s got sense of humour: “By Jove! You have not grown thin!";
he is tolerant towards his old friend at the sight of his house: “so that I
might compliment him on it. "It is charming," I replied.”; he can’t
stand the fact of humiliation over the old man, but tries not to sound impolite
towards his friend: “I held my tongue, and thought over those words.”
Another protagonist is Simon
Radevin, a friend of the narrator, of whom he “had lost sight for fifteen years”.
The narrator gives a direct characterization to Simon: “At one time he was my
most intimate friend, the friend who knows one's thoughts, with whom one passes
long, quiet, happy evenings, to whom one tells one's secret love affairs, and
who seems to draw out those rare, ingenious, delicate thoughts born of that
sympathy that gives a sense of repose.”;
“intelligent, clever young fellow”; “active, living and vibrating man”;
“lively, witty, light-hearted and enthusiastic”. Such a description makes the
reader assume that the two, the narrator and Simon have been bosom friends, who
have been almost always together, “we had lived, travelled, thought and dreamed
together”, their interests have been the same: “the same books”, “the same
authors”; they shared the same sense of humour, laughing at “the same
individuals. whom we understood completely by merely exchanging a glance”. But
the state of things changes completely, when Simon suddenly marries on a girl
from province and moves from Paris to a provincial
town. When the narrator again meets his friend, he spots that he have become “a
very stout man with red cheeks and a big stomach”; “broad face”. The reason of
this change lies in his mode of living: “Good living, a good table and good
nights! Eating and sleeping, that is my existence!” But the change is not only
in his appearance, but in his character: “his eyes were bright, full of
happiness and friendship, but they had not that clear, intelligent expression”;
“I no longer see the same expression in them”. But Simon acquires more also in
the family life, he has now 5 children and lives in a turreted house in the
suburbs of the town. The narrator sees him as a “simple reproducer of his
species”. His desire of becoming a candidate for the Chamber of Deputies
becomes clear to the narrator and he pities him of such primitive desires as a
compensation of him provincial life.
One more character is Simon’s wife,
who is presented as a typical image of a provincial woman. In the memory of the
narrator she appears “a little thin, insipidly fair girl with her weak hands,
her light vacant eyes, and her clear, silly voice, who was exactly like a
hundred thousand marriageable dolls”; “a good, tender and faithful woman”. Her
image is attractive and it becomes clear why Simon falls in love with her and
leaves Paris .
Still she appears to be rather a practical woman, who in the search of a
husband chooses the most appropriate candidate. Once she is achieved her goal,
she is no longer a thin fair girl, but “a stout lady in curls and flounces.”
She is a typical image of a woman, “one of those ladies of uncertain age,
without intellect, without any of those things that go to make a woman.”
Alongside with her husband, “a reproducer of his species”, she fulfills her
role of a mother, “a stout, commonplace mother”, becoming “a human breeding
machine which procreates without any other preoccupation but her children and
her cook-book.” Hew function in the society is limited by her role of a mother
and a cook.
One more protagonist is Madame
Radevin’s grandfather, who is eighty-seven, a direct characterization of him is
provided: “something trembling, a man, an old, paralyzed man”; “shaking old
man’s ears”. He is the most pitiful creature in the house, everyone view him as
a kind of an entertainment: “He is a treasure, that old man; he is the delight
of the children. But he is so greedy that he almost kills himself at every
meal; you have no idea what he would eat if he were allowed to do as he
pleased. You never saw anything so funny; you will see presently.” Every
restriction and every humiliation over the old man is supported by the idea
that it is all done “for the good of his health”. For instance, the grandpa
doesn’t want to eat soup, but he is forced to do it very violently, making the
old man blow the food out, “that it was scattered like a spray all over the
table and over his neighbors”. Such a view amuses the whole family, Simon makes
a remark: "Is not the old man comical?" Than a question arises: How a
miserable, helpless old thing can be treated with such disrespect and intolerance?
The old man is not greedy in fact as it is mentioned a number of times, his
only happiness lies in the process of eating, his functions in society are
limited, he is no longer a lively man, but a poor old thing.
From the point of view of presentation the text is the 1st person narrative, which is more
subjective: “I was then shown to my room.”; “I was to see my old friend…”; “I
looked at him closely, trying to discover in that broad face the features I
held so dear.” The direct speech presented in the form of dialogues is
numerous: "Are they yours?" "Of course they are," he
replied, laughing. "How many have you?" "Five! There are three
more at home."
In terms of the contextual type, the text is
written mostly as narration with the elements of description (“Yet his eyes
were bright, full of happiness and friendship, but they had not that clear,
intelligent expression which shows as much as words the brightness of the
intellect.”; “a garden that was an imitation of a park, and stopped in front of
a turreted house, which tried to look like a chateau.”); dialogues
("This is a friend of Simon's, papa." The old gentleman tried to say
"good-day" to me, and he muttered: "Oua, oua, oua," and
waved his hand, and I took a seat saying: "You are very kind,
monsieur."); meditations (“No doubt the bird was singing in a low voice
during the night, to lull his mate, who was asleep on her eggs. And I thought
of my poor friend's five children, and pictured him to myself, snoring by the
side of his ugly wife.”). Narration informs the reader of a sequence of events
and is rather dynamic: the narrator travels in the train, gets off and meets
his friend, together they drive to the house, where the narrator is introduced
to the family, than comes the dinner, when the family mocks at the grandpa,
than the narrator meditates about the human values.
From the point of view of its compositional structure the story consists of the following
parts: exposition, where the main characters and the setting are introduced (“I
was to see my old friend, Simon Radevin, of whom I had lost sight for fifteen
years.”); development of events (the meeting of two old friends, their trip in
the carriage, the acquaintance with the Radevins, the dinner); the climax, the
sharpest moment in the story, when the family members mock at the grandpa and
the narrator is stunned and astonished at the fact; the denouement, when Simon
explains that the grandpa can’t be given more food because of his health
condition; the conclusion, when the narrator meditates about values of life.
The basic theme of the story is a philosophical question of tolerance towards old people, marriage, friendship, life in provinces, family values, human values. The main idea is to show that people should treat everyone with respect and tolerance, especially their old relatives, who should be given an opportunity to live the rest of their life happily, without any kind of underestimation and humiliation.
The plot of the
story is devided into 4 parts : the exposition, the story itself, the climax
and the denouement. The exposition begins with the narrator talking about his
best friend, Simon, whom he is finally to see 15 years after. George, the
narrator, tells a reader that Simon was his soulmate. They were devoted
to each other.We observe the
story itself when George arrives to the station and two friends meet each
other. It lasts to the point when another character appears, a grandfather.
Here the climax is noticed. Namely, when the narrator watches the old man
trying to reach a plate with suger rice and doing his best to eat as many as
possible sweets. Besides, that the grandfather is so feeble that he hardly
takes anything with his trembling hands, he is categorically forbidden to eat a
little bit more sweets due to his critical state of health. George watches this
grotesque picture and just cannot understand why Simon and his wife treat him
in such a way.
The denouement, being as usual effortless in Maupassant's stories, is observed
when after having played cards George comes to his room, sad and low-spirite,
thinking about nothing but the last wish of the old man before death which he
wants to realize everyday - to swallow a lot of sweets.
понеділок, 1 грудня 2014 р.
The short story
deals with an
incident in the life of the narrator, who after 15 years of separation meets a
close friend of him. He speculates on the matter of how his friend, Simon
Radeven, could change in such a long time, paying attention to the fact of his
marriage on a simple provincial girl. The expectations haven’t proved to be
true, though Simon appears to be rather stout, but still full of wit and
energy. He’s got now not only his peasant wife, but also 5 children. The two
friends drive to the Simon’s house, where the narrator is given a room and got
acquainted with Madame Radevin’s grandfather. All the Radevins mock the old man
and the narrator is promised to see a delightful and amusing scene in the
evening. During supper the grandfather is given little portions of food, but he
is eager to devour all the food he sees on the table. The meals are placed
almost within the reach of the man, but he tries in vain to get to them. The
continuous torture of the oldman amuses the family. The desired sweet rice is
given only a spoonful to the grandpa, so he cannot be satisfied. The narrator
gets weary and concerned of the situation, but Simon explains that poor health
doesn’t allow the oldman to eat more. The story ends with the narrator’s
meditations on the part of the oldman and philosophical questions of life.
Підписатися на:
Дописи (Atom)