Hemmingway-“aware” vs. “Blind”

While reading the story Soldier’s Home written by Ernest Hemingway it was really difficult to distinguish which character showed the traits of being blind vs. aware.
The mother didn’t seem to understand what her son is going through. When she would ask questions such as, “Have you decided what you’re going to do yet, Harold?” (227)   She perceives her son as someone that has lost a drive for life and has now gone into a slump with little desire to work or socialize.
In the mother’s defence I couldn’t imagine how I would handle the differences that the son continually displayed.  Going from a self assured, and strong individual to a boy that states “I don’t love you”, would be devastating. It’s possible that she wasn’t blind instead unconcioussley chose to ignore the obvious signs of depression and focused more on his employment rather than his mental state.
Krebs on the other hand seemed fully aware of his condition.  During his time at war he witnessed deaths upon deaths, cruelty, torture incermountable violence, and human indignity at it’s best.  Krebs is suffering from post traumatic stressif If It becomes evident to me that he believe    He’s now in a zone where he’s evaluating the value of life.  He was in a world where he experienced an incredible loss of self control, autonomy, and the alluring power of control over someone elses life; he was in a constant search for the ultimate survival.
Krebs is now evaluating life…he’s already lived through what many will never see in a lifetime. He appreciates the finer things in life and grows hostility towards his mother when all she seems concerned about is his career status.

“I Stand Here Ironing”

For me, this story holds a lot of significance.  Roughly four years ago my mother in-law had shared with me all about the truth of her upbringing.   She was born in the era of the late 1940’s, where jobs were few and far between for woman and if there was a job to be found it was a very particular, specific job with very little money earned.

She doesn’t have any significant recollections of her father, he, as well as the narrators’ husband had left his two kids when they were two years of age.  He couldn’t handle all the emotional and financial stresses of being a parent and left.

My mother in law’s mother was put in the very same situation.  She was left alone, to fend for herself and two kids, not only emotionally but financially.  She was able to find work but wasn’t able to feed or put a roof over her children s’ heads.  Being in the era of depression there was little to no government aid (welfare) or family to support her and therefore was given no other choice and was forced to put her children into somewhat of a school like facility.

She (my mother-in law) still to this day remembers how poorly she was treated.  She was separated from her brother and was not aloud to communicate with him.  The only contact she had was when she was  able to catch a quick glimpse of him as he was  passing through the hall on the opposite side of the building.

She remembers her mother would work and was only able to  save enough money for transportation and food so she could bring her children” home” , however, there was only enough money raised for two days at that time would than be “shipped” back to the place they both dreaded.

From a Feminist perspective, my mother in -law’s mother endured much of what the narrator did. She was forced to “survive” on her own, without a man by her side to support her and family.  Where the difference lies is when the mother (narrator) finds happiness with another man, builds a larger family and finds emotional and financial stability.  When her second husband was sent to war(not stating if it was voluntarily) she was left alone, again to fend for herself and children. The narrator did what any other good mother  in this day and age would do- she cared for her children to the best of her ability in whatever situation was brought forth.

From a Marxist perspective, Emily became ill and developed the measles (due to the separation that she underwent) when she was sent to her father’s relatives to live.  Her mother and the baby couldn’t risk being affected by it and was sent away, once again. They didn’t live in an upper class society and therefore the only government assistance that was provided was sending her away into a convalescent.

A convalescent was known as a low class facility where there patients could recover from their illness, there she was treated horribly in ways such as… “only being able to hear the letters read once and not being able to keep them”  and ” fed horribly “runny eggs…or mushy with lumps”.  The mother knew that this place was horrid “They still send children to that place. I see pictures on the society page of sleek young women planning affairs to raise money for it, or dancing at the affairs, or decorating Eater eggs or filling Christmas stockings for the children” and what Emily stated, “they don’t like you to love anybody here”.                                                                                                                                                                           From the outside of it looked glamorous but on the inside was a much different story.

I’m not sure if I could say one approach is more significant than the other.   I think that they both play a role in the story and depending on which part your reading, one is not seen greater than the other.

In the story “The Yellow Wallpaper”, the approach I would use would be from the feminist side.  It didn’t mention a whole lot about the class in which they lived it  just stated  that her doctor (her husband) insisted on her isolation with a “pinned down” bed, barred windows, a horrible patterned wallpaper, not even allowing her a notebook to write her thoughts…why?  Was he embarrassed by what she could write?  As the story progressed and days went on for this institutionalized women she seemed to go more and more crazy…I probably would too if I was left to stare at that wallpaper.

The story takes the concentration off her husband, being the domineering factor, but leads her to be insane by confining her.  Her husband claimed through diagnosis that she had “temporary nervous depression”,  was she really that crazy, or did he make her that way? She didn’t know or believe that she was hallucinating but towards the ending it came inevitable that she was.  Could this have been avoided had not listened to her husband and been seen by a different doctor, avoiding “conflict of interest”?

“The Story of an Hour”-Its unfortunate that some peoples fantasy(which is perceived as their reality) is far greater than their actuality-Wild Twists!

Undoubtedly this story has a very wild twist and I would say that although a setting and an ending is what defines a good story I do think that the author is  very creative in her writing and continually has you thinking.   With that being said I can see how the critics are viewing her as a the creator of “only” clever plot twists.

When reading the story it’s very difficult to distinguish if the setting is playing a stronger role than the ending.  As I engaged myself into the story it almost felt as if I was thrown from one way of thinking to a completely different way. “I loved him sometimes”.  The setting depicts a horrible accident that led to death.  The man that was proposed dead was the loving husband of Mrs. Mallard…or was he??   Yet there was confusion in the statement “she was afflicted with heart trouble”, could this be misconstrued with love issues?  The story goes on to say that when Mrs. Mallard was informed of this tragedy she needed to spend some time (you would assume to grieve) alone.  What became confusing was when the author was in grave detail explaining “new life” with welcoming opened and spread arms, when one life had just been taken.   The setting was slowly twisting from a sad, grieving widow to a “free, free, free…free body and soul”!  I than began to think that just maybe Mrs. Mallard wasn’t this perceived happy wife, that maybe she  felt her marriage was confining and restricting the free spirit within her that longed to be released so she could live on her own terms, leisure, and will.

The ending was extremely shocking, who would’ve thought that the person that opened the door would’ve been the alleged deceased husband.    I didn’t find the ending as significant as the setting.  As far as I’m concerned the point was made before the reveal of her husband.

Mrs. Mallard died of “joy that kills”; she was released from her husband in a presumed unfortunate, tragic way.  When reality showed its face, she died of a broken heart that for a short time was brought back to life.

Hello world!

Interesting…hmmm where do we start?  I find it extremely interesting/scary how quickly kids grow up.    The other day my ten year old son came home from the park and informed me that the park is “crazy”.  I proceeded to ask him why and he had said that while he was grabbing his basketball that rolled towards the park area he saw which he called “a bunch of thugs” smoking weed from a bong and when he walked past his head felt funny.   I mean come on now, he’s only ten and not only has he been educated on what a bong is he already has had the feeling of being high! 

How in the world am I supposed to protect him from societies modern day twelve year olds??