Please respond to the following prompts in collaboration with your fellow classmates. I'm looking for you to discuss the readings by referring to previous posts rather than just listing your interpretations. Also make sure to identify who you are and your class period. I need this so that I can give you credit for your posting. Thanks. Mr. Domingo
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Passage from "The Other Paris"
The assigned passage is an excerpt from "The Other Paris," a short story by the Canadian writer Mavis Gallant. Explain how the author uses narrative voice and characterization to provide social commentary.
Okay I'm going to start things out. This is a completely different piece of writing that we have gotten so far..so I'm just a little confused about the prompt. When it says explain how the author uses narrative voice and characterization to provide social commentary, what does it mean by the social commentary? When I looked up the definition it said, "a spoken or written act of rebellion toward an individual or group", meaning the speaker's negative outlook on those who marry for love? Any suggestions? And if that is the correct use of social commentary, then I would also appreciate some input on how the author uses "narrative voice" to establish these ideas?
As Mr. Domingo said, social commentary is how the author feels about society at the time (1953). The author portrays a society where individuals feel an overwhelming need to conform to societal ideals. He shows this through Carol's rejection of an "unsuitable medical student with no money and eight years' training," (16) her listening to college lectures, and her prompt acceptance of the proposal because of Howard's "qualifications" (that he was reliable, could provide, and had something in common). Howard does not want to be "just a person who fills in at dinner" (73) does not enjoy "collecting old pottery or making littler casserole dishes," (67) and marriage had not even occurred to him until his sister advised him to. The author disapproves of this conformist society because he portrays the proposal itself as over a mediocre lunch, and quite unexpected because they have only known each other for three weeks. He also shows the negative aspects of this society by showing how they try so hard not to disagree, they end up being both displeased (as shown by the champagne) or embarrassed (when religion is mentioned). The author also contrasts Carol's theory on the right conditions creating love by having it rain all of the time. I was wondering, do the above points cover (but are in no order) syntax, diction, and tone (which is the narrative voice).
I think that Gallant uses her narrative voice and characterization to mock society's take on the institution of marriage. Her characters, Carol and Howard, have been pressured by society to marry at an early age for all the wrong reasons. They marry not for love, but for a set of pre-established requirements that society has arbitrarily deemed acceptable. Her tone is satiric; she treats her characters with a sort of amused contempt that serves to emphasize that Carol and Howard's obsession with the artificial ideals that society has imposed on them is not only ridiculous but also, ultimately, self-destructive. Gallant also points out the irony in the institution of marriage. True love - which is eternal - is ousted in favor of shallow ideals that are fleeting and can quickly change. Because Carol and Howard share no true emotional connection, their marriage may deteriorate the moment that Carol decides she no longer likes Irish setters. How can the foundation of such an important institution be so trivial?
Gallant uses her characters' folly and their need to conform to the societal ideal to point out the ironies and inconsistencies inherent in society's take on marriage. She mocks not the institution itself, but the way society has corrupted it.
As Jeremy and Michelle have discussed, Carol and Howard are both so insecure that the feel an urgency to conform to their society. Both Carol and Howard are aging and will soon be considered too old to marry according to societal expectations. I really like the way how Michelle describes Carol's and Howard's lack of understanding of the strong levels of commitment and importance in this institution. They view something that has been deeply valued by people of all cultures with such a trivialty that is almost disgraceful. Neither of them can even truly convince themselves that they will be happy in marriage. Carol deals with this problem by living a fantasy of what true love would really be like and Howard tries to prevent a life of lonliness through an action that was "quite out of character" (line 60). This only magnifies the fralities of humanity through the fear-based actions of these characters.
As Mr. Miclat and Ms. Pombrol mentioned, the author is trying to portray a couple who have been influenced to rid of their desires and to conform to the social norms of society. Carol, in the first paragraph mentions the ideal setting for when she falls in love and where Howard proposes to her. However, that idealistic dream never came true. Instead, Howard proposes to her over “a tuna-fish salad” at lunch. The author creates a tone of ironic humor, intending to create the humorous scene as bizarre and unintended. The author then furthers the incredulous scenario by mentioning that they had known each other for less than three weeks, and that their conversations were all about the office. But then, the author explains why Carol accepts, “She was under the illusion that in a short time she would be so old no one would ask her again.” Society has created the image that women must marry extremely young, and this had influenced Carol to quickly accept a proposal that was not based on true love. Carol, going along with the norms of society, admits the lack of a deep love connection. However, colleges lectured that all marriages really needed was a common interest. The author continues on his mocking by presenting “a liking for Irish setters” as the common interest. There is no profundity in this relationship that should result in a marriage. The commonalities that Carol and Howard have are not of preferences, but rather of coincidence, or by vagueness. This lack of profundity makes any conversation that has depth to be awkward and embarrassing. Continuing on the tone of mockery, the author carefully places the words “Howard, best of all, was sober.” That is the best thing Carol can come up with for Howard. Moving on, the author mentions that Carol “set about the business of falling in love.” The author criticizes this aspect of society by saying that things as profound as falling in love has fell to the clutches of business. Everything is superficial, and done for the benefit and profit of business. The author stresses the incapability of the Carol to fall in love because of the superficiality of their relationship, blaming something deep and profound on something as simple as the weather. Despite all of Carol’s efforts, Howard has no idea what her intentions are. He is “uncommonly cautious,” which causes Howard to not even consider the concept of marriage until his sister mentioned it to him.
The author used his irony to satire this couple attempting to make things right through conforms of society. His use of cleverly placed words furthers the incredulity of the situation and further helps him criticize the society and conformity. Actually, I’m scared because I have no idea how to say this properly in 40 minutes. This is definitely something new.
This is Monique again... I'm writing separate posts because my computer crashed the first time I was writing a post.
Besides the comparision of romanticism in lines 1-8 and reality in lines 9-10, I noticed that something was strange about the situation when Gallant wrote that Carol and Howard "had known each other for less than three weeks" (lines 10-11). There is some irony in the sense that they made a decision that will affect the rest of their lives in such a short time. This challenges some of our expectations that they should spend much more time in making this decision. Another source of irony was in that contrast of fantasy and reality I mentioned earlier. Lines 1-8 establish a typical scene in which we would expect love to flourish. In lines 9-10, the reality of the situation is revealed and completely challenges our expectations. The only word that prepares us for the irony is "imagined" (line 3), because it is a big hint that everything in lines 1-8 is not real.
Looking over "The Other Paris" the line that caught my attention the most was 23, "The fact that Carol was not in love did not dismay her the least." This is important because of the opening statement: "If anyone had asked Carol at what precise moment she fell in love.." (line 1). This is ironic because truthfully, she has no love for this man, rather she believed there would be no other chances for her (Line 16), which parallels Howard Mitchell's feelings because of his sister (line 69. So that statement resounds "Irony Trumps All!" (Mr. Domingo) Which also tights into the title "Another Paris" Another question one might add is, does religion play a role? Line 36 states "Carol and Howard where both vaguely protestant, although a serious discussion on religious beliefs would have gravely embarrassed them" To bring this into perspective, when she is proposed to they have wine. This is an allusion to the bible, where Jesus turns water into wine at a wedding. (John 2:1-10). "Both would have like champagne, as a more emphatic symbol of the unusual, but each was to diffident to suggest it" (line 19) Coincidence? One could see this, but the fact that they are "vaguely protestant" and "belonging to the same church" rather adds to it. Just from the title of the other excerpt's title "Fasting, Feasting" makes religion a case to be investigated.
The last thing I had to say was that Gallant uses different sentence lengths to have a different impact on the reader. When Carol is in fantasy land, Gallant uses long, uninterrupted sentences to create a sense of flowing order (ex. lines 1-7). When reality hits, Gallant uses short sentences or sentences that are interrupted by dashes to create a blunt, rude awakening for the reader to get a sense of reality (ex. lines 11-23). Gallant uses medium length sentences when Carol of Howard are trying to convince themselves that they will like marriage. It provides a midpoint between the fluidity of the long sentences and the abruptiveness of the shorter sentences.
If anyone else has anything to add on syntax, diction, tone, or characterization (which I'm sure will be interesting), I'm all ears!
Quick word. I would also like to mention that as characters, neither of them are willing to go out and chase what they desire. "Each was too diffident to suggest it" exactly portrays the idea that they both lack the confidence and are unwilling to order champagne "as a more emphatic symbol of the unusual" In essence, the author is not only criticizing the society and its attempts at conformity, but also those who conform to these societal norms. This can be further proven when it says, "Undaunted, she waited for better times" Carol is simply just waiting for something to happen instead of trying to go out there on a limb and attempt to make the love a reality. She is strictly following the rules that society has set out for her, that love flourishes in the right conditions. This not only proves that Carol is a conformist to societal norms, but also that the author strictly disapproves of the use of such methods by making it rain the entire time Carol is waiting. Howard, on the other hand, was influenced by his sister to get married. He himself was not spurred to try to get married because of his overcautiousness. However, his sister, among the people of society, influenced Howard that he must get married soon, and Howard fell for the societal trap. Howard, at the first chance he gets, proposes to a girl whom he barely knows, yet knows is a partner whom society can deem competent and nice. With this, the suthor is also criticizing Howard's willingness to conform to societal norms.
Therefore, the author is criticizing society and the conformists.
I know this post is going to be very short, but I just had a quick question. What definition of "sober" is intended? Not being drunk or being dignified and somber? To comment on Monique's syntax findings, it creates a sort of shocked feeling, as well as all of these ideas coming rapidly- all pushing towards marriage.
I agree with Eric that Gallant is criticizing society on its ideals of marrriage. During the 1950's (seeing that at the end of the passage notes 1953) it was a norm for women to marry right after high school or during college, and justifies the social pressure that Carol is feeling towards marriage. It was also considered that if a woman doesn't marry during her twenties, she would be an old maid which is exactly Carol's thought (and her illusion) that motivated her accept Howard's proposal. Gallant also criticizes love/marriage ideals when she mentions Carol remembering what she learned in her college lectures on marriage. For example, when Gallant states "...a common interest, such as a liking for Irish setters, was the true basis of happiness, and that the illusion of love was a blight imposed by the film industry , and almost entirely responsible for the high rate of divorce." (Lines 26-30). The culture and media during this time was a major factor in influencing women that getting a husband was more important than getting a college degree. We could assume that Carol is in college or at college level education, hence her naive thoughts causing her impulsive acceptance to getting married. I also noticed the connection of diction in that sentence, between "Irish setters" and "blight" (you know, the potato blight, that was a factor to the surge of immigration of Irish immigrants to the U.S) ; this could be a coincidence, or a way to connect two ideas in her choice of diction.
I also agree with Monique how Gallant uses different sentence structures to convey different impacts on the reader, which could be followed by how Gallant uses detail in those sentences. This gives insight on the stereotypicality of women's thoughts on marriage, when Carol imagines a romantic night in Paris and love requiring the right conditions : "Given a good climate, enough money, and a pair of good-natured, intelligent (her colllege lectures had stressed this) people, one had only to site back and watch it grow." (lines 50 -53). Carol is starting to follow the stereotype of a wife, showing her dependency on petty social ideals to check off conditions on her marriage.
Why does Howard become so moved by his sister's warning of him becoming "...a person who fills in at dinner"? I know that the disintegration of interest between Howard and Carol would cause some absense of liveliness in their marriage, but it does it have other meanings as well?
To answer Tatiana's question, I believe that Howard becomes moved by the question because he is influenced to believe that without a marriage, he has no social status. Rather then being a guest at the dinner, he would be a filler that is only there because no one else could possibly make it. This idea of marriage being a social status is shown throughout the excerpt. Carol marries Howard for financial security and Howard marries Carol out of desperation. The marriage is not natural in the sense that Howard was acting "out of character", and in response, Carol began the "business of falling in love". Love comes naturally. You shouldn't make it a business to fall in love or else your with the wrong person.
Anyways, did anyone catch what the weather could possibly symbolize in the fourth paragraph?
In response to C Victory, I think that Gallant uses weather to further emphasize his ironic tone. It is a bit ironic that Carol is relying on something (that is so unrelated to marriage) for the love to finally set it. By marriage and love on things like the college lectures, the geranium, and the weather Gallant seems to ridicule the marriages that were occurring during his time. To me the geranium stood out the most because the speaker seems to belittle love in such a way that contradicts popular idea of love.
To answer Jeremy’s question I think that Gallant intended for sober to mean “not intoxicated”. In my class, I think Mr. Hilborn made a brilliant point about how something so insignificant to love, like being sober, played such a huge role in why Carol chose to accept Howard’s proposal. I completely agreed with his point and I think that this example emphasizes the ironic tone that Gallant is attempting to create.
I forgot to ask this question in the socratic seminar: Do you guys agree with Gallant’s views about love and marriage and do you think that today’s some of today’s marriages are similar to the situation of Carol and Howard?
Adding on to Tatiana's mention of media, I found that in the excerpt there was much blame placed on the media for the marriage of two people who were simply not ready for it. Gallant blames the film industry for the high rate of divorce (lines 28-29). In my opinion, a majority of movies tend to make the people who watch them fantasize of falling in love and experiencing romance. These scenes are grinded into the subconscious and make people obsessed with recreating the rehearsed moments, as seen in Carol's fantasy of her ideal proposal that was unmet by the harsh reality of pitiful tunafish. In addition, when Carol was proposed to for the first time, it was to an "unsuitable medical student with no money and eight years' training still to go." Who defined him as unsuitable? The media, of course, and its portrayed image of what was acceptable of an individual in society- wealth being a main factor, which really should not matter in the long run when it comes to love and marriage.
Moving on, since when were there college courses that taught about love? Gallant seems to think that education is also corrupting society. A college lecture taught Carol about common interests, and among the common interests Carol shared with Howard was religion. This similarity should have brought them together, according to these college lectures. However, it was said that going further into the topic of Protestantism would have severely embarrassed them. So something that apparently should have brought the two together for marriage would, in contrast, produce negative effects as well. In addition, these college lectures stressed the presence of intelligent individuals in order to fall in love (line 52). This is highly in opposition to many cases of successful marriages. Thus making a mockery of college education and its undermining of marriage.
To answer C Victory's question about what the weather symbolizes in the fourth paragraph, I believe that the weather represents the sort of hardships or faults that love must overcome, or it will die. In the beginning of the fourth paragraph is says, "love required only the right conditions, like a geranium". The author is comparing love to a flower because since it is winter, a flower cannot grow and is likely to die before spring comes around where it can blossom. Carol is blaming the weather and trying to find reasons to fall in love, for like a flower their love is fragile.
I agree with Eric and Tatiana on the basis of how Carol and Howard were pressured into marriage by the norm of their society of the time. Those who did not have children and remained single were frowned upon. Carol had only known the man for three weeks before accepting a marriage proposal due to social constraints on what age marriage was suitable. When Howard's sister visits and "who advised him to marry some nice girl before it was too late", this shows how he only proposes to Carol because of being pressured by his sister or in other words society. Carol even refuses to marry an "unsuitable medical student" because he has no money to his name and is thus deemed unacceptable to society and unable to support what she would call a happy marriage. So basically this marriage is based off of two people listening to society, rather than their own instincts.
This story is also conveying the idea of how much television and music have burned into our minds romantic ideals and this unrealistic perception of love, as when it says “the illusion of love was a blight imposed by the film industry”. Americans, as well as Carol in the 1st paragraph, have this idea of love as a fairytale, with the guy on one knee in the middle of Paris. But as we realize further on when we are married and it doesn't turn out the way we had hoped, we want divorce. We aren’t willing to work on the relationship because television has told us that it should be love at first glance and meant to be. This story is conveying the idea that a marriage based on a common interest or on reliable terms is more likely to last than a relationship merely based on the ‘oolala’ factor.
In the third paragraph it says that, “Carol and Howard were both vaguely Protestant, although a serious discussion of religious beliefs would have gravely embarrassed them”. Anybody have any ideas on what this means? I was thinking that perhaps they’re afraid of how society will perceive them if they discuss something other than their boring lives. Suggestions?
As I read "The Other Paris" I thought about how Carol stood up to her beliefs that she learned at the college course. She learned that in a successful marriage there had to be a common income, religion, financial background and other things. She believed that if those were found she would have a successful marriage. That's why she accepted the marriage while not being in emotional love with Howard.
Furthermore I noticed that Howard had ordered wine while the proposal. Does that mean something holy is happening because wine symbolizes the blood of Jesus?
Since the excerpt takes place in Paris, France, isn't it ironic that in a city symbolically known for love, Carol is not in love with Howard?
I agree with the previous posts in that Carol believes that society is being fooled by the media in thinking that people propose or get married because they are in love. She compares love to a geranium, meaning that with the right conditions, it can grow.
I don't know about you guys, but I get the impression that Carol is considering her proposal and eventual marriage as a business deal or proposition. In the poem, she even attends college lectures, basically doing research on marriage. I get the image of her pitching this idea in a conference room, using a pointer or laser to show her ideas on how to live in a lasting marriage. This is also shown through her serious and professional tone. Carol appears to believe if the two parties hold common interests and backgrounds, then the marriage would be foolproof.
Howard seems to be on the same page as Carol, thinking of the engagement and eventual marriage as a business deal also. The excerpt states that he does not really look after himself at home and he apparently needs a wife to clean up after him. Another contrubuting factor to this 'business deal' is that his sister practically scared him into it.
I think that the author was trying to say that society is so blinded by media's idea of engagement and marriage ,that they cannot see the truth, which is that marriage lasts due to common interests and similar backgrounds.
Did anyone get anything in reference to syntax that could provide social commentary?
I agree with the pervious of how the marriage between Carol and Howard revolve around satisfying the standards placed by social norms of a proper marriage. Obviously, the marriage lacks emotional attachment. Rather than focusing on true love and emotions towards one another, both Carol and Howard marry for the wrong reasons. Apparently society claims that the earlier one marries the better. And thus with that being said, both Carol and Howard marry due to the fact of others pressuring them to marry "before its too late." Like Eric and Sabrian mentioned, other factors, such as economic interests, are tied into the decision of marriage. Through the usage of characteriztion of Carol and Howard, the author expresses irony satirically in order to convey her denouncement of society's distorted outlook of marriage.
Hannah Pollock
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
Okay I'm going to start things out. This is a completely different piece of writing that we have gotten so far..so I'm just a little confused about the prompt. When it says explain how the author uses narrative voice and characterization to provide social commentary, what does it mean by the social commentary? When I looked up the definition it said, "a spoken or written act of rebellion toward an individual or group", meaning the speaker's negative outlook on those who marry for love? Any suggestions? And if that is the correct use of social commentary, then I would also appreciate some input on how the author uses "narrative voice" to establish these ideas?
Jeremy Miclat
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
As Mr. Domingo said, social commentary is how the author feels about society at the time (1953). The author portrays a society where individuals feel an overwhelming need to conform to societal ideals. He shows this through Carol's rejection of an "unsuitable medical student with no money and eight years' training," (16) her listening to college lectures, and her prompt acceptance of the proposal because of Howard's "qualifications" (that he was reliable, could provide, and had something in common). Howard does not want to be "just a person who fills in at dinner" (73) does not enjoy "collecting old pottery or making littler casserole dishes," (67) and marriage had not even occurred to him until his sister advised him to.
The author disapproves of this conformist society because he portrays the proposal itself as over a mediocre lunch, and quite unexpected because they have only known each other for three weeks. He also shows the negative aspects of this society by showing how they try so hard not to disagree, they end up being both displeased (as shown by the champagne) or embarrassed (when religion is mentioned). The author also contrasts Carol's theory on the right conditions creating love by having it rain all of the time.
I was wondering, do the above points cover (but are in no order) syntax, diction, and tone (which is the narrative voice).
Michelle Pombrol
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I think that Gallant uses her narrative voice and characterization to mock society's take on the institution of marriage. Her characters, Carol and Howard, have been pressured by society to marry at an early age for all the wrong reasons. They marry not for love, but for a set of pre-established requirements that society has arbitrarily deemed acceptable. Her tone is satiric; she treats her characters with a sort of amused contempt that serves to emphasize that Carol and Howard's obsession with the artificial ideals that society has imposed on them is not only ridiculous but also, ultimately, self-destructive. Gallant also points out the irony in the institution of marriage. True love - which is eternal - is ousted in favor of shallow ideals that are fleeting and can quickly change. Because Carol and Howard share no true emotional connection, their marriage may deteriorate the moment that Carol decides she no longer likes Irish setters. How can the foundation of such an important institution be so trivial?
Gallant uses her characters' folly and their need to conform to the societal ideal to point out the ironies and inconsistencies inherent in society's take on marriage. She mocks not the institution itself, but the way society has corrupted it.
Monique McClain
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
As Jeremy and Michelle have discussed, Carol and Howard are both so insecure that the feel an urgency to conform to their society. Both Carol and Howard are aging and will soon be considered too old to marry according to societal expectations. I really like the way how Michelle describes Carol's and Howard's lack of understanding of the strong levels of commitment and importance in this institution. They view something that has been deeply valued by people of all cultures with such a trivialty that is almost disgraceful. Neither of them can even truly convince themselves that they will be happy in marriage. Carol deals with this problem by living a fantasy of what true love would really be like and Howard tries to prevent a life of lonliness through an action that was "quite out of character" (line 60). This only magnifies the fralities of humanity through the fear-based actions of these characters.
Eric Hum
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
As Mr. Miclat and Ms. Pombrol mentioned, the author is trying to portray a couple who have been influenced to rid of their desires and to conform to the social norms of society. Carol, in the first paragraph mentions the ideal setting for when she falls in love and where Howard proposes to her. However, that idealistic dream never came true. Instead, Howard proposes to her over “a tuna-fish salad” at lunch. The author creates a tone of ironic humor, intending to create the humorous scene as bizarre and unintended. The author then furthers the incredulous scenario by mentioning that they had known each other for less than three weeks, and that their conversations were all about the office. But then, the author explains why Carol accepts, “She was under the illusion that in a short time she would be so old no one would ask her again.” Society has created the image that women must marry extremely young, and this had influenced Carol to quickly accept a proposal that was not based on true love. Carol, going along with the norms of society, admits the lack of a deep love connection. However, colleges lectured that all marriages really needed was a common interest. The author continues on his mocking by presenting “a liking for Irish setters” as the common interest. There is no profundity in this relationship that should result in a marriage. The commonalities that Carol and Howard have are not of preferences, but rather of coincidence, or by vagueness. This lack of profundity makes any conversation that has depth to be awkward and embarrassing. Continuing on the tone of mockery, the author carefully places the words “Howard, best of all, was sober.” That is the best thing Carol can come up with for Howard. Moving on, the author mentions that Carol “set about the business of falling in love.” The author criticizes this aspect of society by saying that things as profound as falling in love has fell to the clutches of business. Everything is superficial, and done for the benefit and profit of business. The author stresses the incapability of the Carol to fall in love because of the superficiality of their relationship, blaming something deep and profound on something as simple as the weather. Despite all of Carol’s efforts, Howard has no idea what her intentions are. He is “uncommonly cautious,” which causes Howard to not even consider the concept of marriage until his sister mentioned it to him.
The author used his irony to satire this couple attempting to make things right through conforms of society. His use of cleverly placed words furthers the incredulity of the situation and further helps him criticize the society and conformity. Actually, I’m scared because I have no idea how to say this properly in 40 minutes. This is definitely something new.
Live Huminationed
This is Monique again...
ReplyDeleteI'm writing separate posts because my computer crashed the first time I was writing a post.
Besides the comparision of romanticism in lines 1-8 and reality in lines 9-10, I noticed that something was strange about the situation when Gallant wrote that Carol and Howard "had known each other for less than three weeks" (lines 10-11). There is some irony in the sense that they made a decision that will affect the rest of their lives in such a short time. This challenges some of our expectations that they should spend much more time in making this decision. Another source of irony was in that contrast of fantasy and reality I mentioned earlier. Lines 1-8 establish a typical scene in which we would expect love to flourish. In lines 9-10, the reality of the situation is revealed and completely challenges our expectations. The only word that prepares us for the irony is "imagined" (line 3), because it is a big hint that everything in lines 1-8 is not real.
Andrew Garcia
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
Looking over "The Other Paris" the line that caught my attention the most was 23, "The fact that Carol was not in love did not dismay her the least." This is important because of the opening statement: "If anyone had asked Carol at what precise moment she fell in love.." (line 1). This is ironic because truthfully, she has no love for this man, rather she believed there would be no other chances for her (Line 16), which parallels Howard Mitchell's feelings because of his sister (line 69. So that statement resounds "Irony Trumps All!" (Mr. Domingo) Which also tights into the title "Another Paris"
Another question one might add is, does religion play a role? Line 36 states "Carol and Howard where both vaguely protestant, although a serious discussion on religious beliefs would have gravely embarrassed them" To bring this into perspective, when she is proposed to they have wine. This is an allusion to the bible, where Jesus turns water into wine at a wedding. (John 2:1-10). "Both would have like champagne, as a more emphatic symbol of the unusual, but each was to diffident to suggest it" (line 19)
Coincidence? One could see this, but the fact that they are "vaguely protestant" and "belonging to the same church" rather adds to it. Just from the title of the other excerpt's title "Fasting, Feasting" makes religion a case to be investigated.
Monique again...
ReplyDeleteThe last thing I had to say was that Gallant uses different sentence lengths to have a different impact on the reader. When Carol is in fantasy land, Gallant uses long, uninterrupted sentences to create a sense of flowing order (ex. lines 1-7). When reality hits, Gallant uses short sentences or sentences that are interrupted by dashes to create a blunt, rude awakening for the reader to get a sense of reality (ex. lines 11-23). Gallant uses medium length sentences when Carol of Howard are trying to convince themselves that they will like marriage. It provides a midpoint between the fluidity of the long sentences and the abruptiveness of the shorter sentences.
If anyone else has anything to add on syntax, diction, tone, or characterization (which I'm sure will be interesting), I'm all ears!
Eric Hum
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
Quick word. I would also like to mention that as characters, neither of them are willing to go out and chase what they desire. "Each was too diffident to suggest it" exactly portrays the idea that they both lack the confidence and are unwilling to order champagne "as a more emphatic symbol of the unusual" In essence, the author is not only criticizing the society and its attempts at conformity, but also those who conform to these societal norms. This can be further proven when it says, "Undaunted, she waited for better times" Carol is simply just waiting for something to happen instead of trying to go out there on a limb and attempt to make the love a reality. She is strictly following the rules that society has set out for her, that love flourishes in the right conditions. This not only proves that Carol is a conformist to societal norms, but also that the author strictly disapproves of the use of such methods by making it rain the entire time Carol is waiting. Howard, on the other hand, was influenced by his sister to get married. He himself was not spurred to try to get married because of his overcautiousness. However, his sister, among the people of society, influenced Howard that he must get married soon, and Howard fell for the societal trap. Howard, at the first chance he gets, proposes to a girl whom he barely knows, yet knows is a partner whom society can deem competent and nice. With this, the suthor is also criticizing Howard's willingness to conform to societal norms.
Therefore, the author is criticizing society and the conformists.
Live Huminationed
Jeremy Miclat
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I know this post is going to be very short, but I just had a quick question. What definition of "sober" is intended? Not being drunk or being dignified and somber?
To comment on Monique's syntax findings, it creates a sort of shocked feeling, as well as all of these ideas coming rapidly- all pushing towards marriage.
Tatiana Quiapo
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I agree with Eric that Gallant is criticizing society on its ideals of marrriage. During the 1950's (seeing that at the end of the passage notes 1953) it was a norm for women to marry right after high school or during college, and justifies the social pressure that Carol is feeling towards marriage. It was also considered that if a woman doesn't marry during her twenties, she would be an old maid which is exactly Carol's thought (and her illusion) that motivated her accept Howard's proposal. Gallant also criticizes love/marriage ideals when she mentions Carol remembering what she learned in her college lectures on marriage. For example, when Gallant states "...a common interest, such as a liking for Irish setters, was the true basis of happiness, and that the illusion of love was a blight imposed by the film industry , and almost entirely responsible for the high rate of divorce." (Lines 26-30). The culture and media during this time was a major factor in influencing women that getting a husband was more important than getting a college degree. We could assume that Carol is in college or at college level education, hence her naive thoughts causing her impulsive acceptance to getting married. I also noticed the connection of diction in that sentence, between "Irish setters" and "blight" (you know, the potato blight, that was a factor to the surge of immigration of Irish immigrants to the U.S) ; this could be a coincidence, or a way to connect two ideas in her choice of diction.
I also agree with Monique how Gallant uses different sentence structures to convey different impacts on the reader, which could be followed by how Gallant uses detail in those sentences. This gives insight on the stereotypicality of women's thoughts on marriage, when Carol imagines a romantic night in Paris and love requiring the right conditions : "Given a good climate, enough money, and a pair of good-natured, intelligent (her colllege lectures had stressed this) people, one had only to site back and watch it grow." (lines 50 -53). Carol is starting to follow the stereotype of a wife, showing her dependency on petty social ideals to check off conditions on her marriage.
Why does Howard become so moved by his sister's warning of him becoming "...a person who fills in at dinner"? I know that the disintegration of interest between Howard and Carol would cause some absense of liveliness in their marriage, but it does it have other meanings as well?
To answer Tatiana's question, I believe that Howard becomes moved by the question because he is influenced to believe that without a marriage, he has no social status. Rather then being a guest at the dinner, he would be a filler that is only there because no one else could possibly make it. This idea of marriage being a social status is shown throughout the excerpt. Carol marries Howard for financial security and Howard marries Carol out of desperation. The marriage is not natural in the sense that Howard was acting "out of character", and in response, Carol began the "business of falling in love". Love comes naturally. You shouldn't make it a business to fall in love or else your with the wrong person.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, did anyone catch what the weather could possibly symbolize in the fourth paragraph?
Dino Digma
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
In response to C Victory, I think that Gallant uses weather to further emphasize his ironic tone. It is a bit ironic that Carol is relying on something (that is so unrelated to marriage) for the love to finally set it. By marriage and love on things like the college lectures, the geranium, and the weather Gallant seems to ridicule the marriages that were occurring during his time. To me the geranium stood out the most because the speaker seems to belittle love in such a way that contradicts popular idea of love.
To answer Jeremy’s question I think that Gallant intended for sober to mean “not intoxicated”. In my class, I think Mr. Hilborn made a brilliant point about how something so insignificant to love, like being sober, played such a huge role in why Carol chose to accept Howard’s proposal. I completely agreed with his point and I think that this example emphasizes the ironic tone that Gallant is attempting to create.
I forgot to ask this question in the socratic seminar: Do you guys agree with Gallant’s views about love and marriage and do you think that today’s some of today’s marriages are similar to the situation of Carol and Howard?
Andrea Umali
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Adding on to Tatiana's mention of media, I found that in the excerpt there was much blame placed on the media for the marriage of two people who were simply not ready for it. Gallant blames the film industry for the high rate of divorce (lines 28-29). In my opinion, a majority of movies tend to make the people who watch them fantasize of falling in love and experiencing romance. These scenes are grinded into the subconscious and make people obsessed with recreating the rehearsed moments, as seen in Carol's fantasy of her ideal proposal that was unmet by the harsh reality of pitiful tunafish. In addition, when Carol was proposed to for the first time, it was to an "unsuitable medical student with no money and eight years' training still to go." Who defined him as unsuitable? The media, of course, and its portrayed image of what was acceptable of an individual in society- wealth being a main factor, which really should not matter in the long run when it comes to love and marriage.
Moving on, since when were there college courses that taught about love? Gallant seems to think that education is also corrupting society. A college lecture taught Carol about common interests, and among the common interests Carol shared with Howard was religion. This similarity should have brought them together, according to these college lectures. However, it was said that going further into the topic of Protestantism would have severely embarrassed them. So something that apparently should have brought the two together for marriage would, in contrast, produce negative effects as well. In addition, these college lectures stressed the presence of intelligent individuals in order to fall in love (line 52). This is highly in opposition to many cases of successful marriages. Thus making a mockery of college education and its undermining of marriage.
Hannah Pollock
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
To answer C Victory's question about what the weather symbolizes in the fourth paragraph, I believe that the weather represents the sort of hardships or faults that love must overcome, or it will die. In the beginning of the fourth paragraph is says, "love required only the right conditions, like a geranium". The author is comparing love to a flower because since it is winter, a flower cannot grow and is likely to die before spring comes around where it can blossom. Carol is blaming the weather and trying to find reasons to fall in love, for like a flower their love is fragile.
I agree with Eric and Tatiana on the basis of how Carol and Howard were pressured into marriage by the norm of their society of the time. Those who did not have children and remained single were frowned upon. Carol had only known the man for three weeks before accepting a marriage proposal due to social constraints on what age marriage was suitable. When Howard's sister visits and "who advised him to marry some nice girl before it was too late", this shows how he only proposes to Carol because of being pressured by his sister or in other words society. Carol even refuses to marry an "unsuitable medical student" because he has no money to his name and is thus deemed unacceptable to society and unable to support what she would call a happy marriage. So basically this marriage is based off of two people listening to society, rather than their own instincts.
This story is also conveying the idea of how much television and music have burned into our minds romantic ideals and this unrealistic perception of love, as when it says “the illusion of love was a blight imposed by the film industry”. Americans, as well as Carol in the 1st paragraph, have this idea of love as a fairytale, with the guy on one knee in the middle of Paris. But as we realize further on when we are married and it doesn't turn out the way we had hoped, we want divorce. We aren’t willing to work on the relationship because television has told us that it should be love at first glance and meant to be. This story is conveying the idea that a marriage based on a common interest or on reliable terms is more likely to last than a relationship merely based on the ‘oolala’ factor.
In the third paragraph it says that, “Carol and Howard were both vaguely Protestant, although a serious discussion of religious beliefs would have gravely embarrassed them”. Anybody have any ideas on what this means? I was thinking that perhaps they’re afraid of how society will perceive them if they discuss something other than their boring lives. Suggestions?
Jose De Soto IV
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
As I read "The Other Paris" I thought about how Carol stood up to her beliefs that she learned at the college course. She learned that in a successful marriage there had to be a common income, religion, financial background and other things. She believed that if those were found she would have a successful marriage. That's why she accepted the marriage while not being in emotional love with Howard.
Furthermore I noticed that Howard had ordered wine while the proposal. Does that mean something holy is happening because wine symbolizes the blood of Jesus?
Since the excerpt takes place in Paris, France, isn't it ironic that in a city symbolically known for love, Carol is not in love with Howard?
Also
Sabrina Evans
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
I agree with the previous posts in that Carol believes that society is being fooled by the media in thinking that people propose or get married because they are in love. She compares love to a geranium, meaning that with the right conditions, it can grow.
I don't know about you guys, but I get the impression that Carol is considering her proposal and eventual marriage as a business deal or proposition. In the poem, she even attends college lectures, basically doing research on marriage. I get the image of her pitching this idea in a conference room, using a pointer or laser to show her ideas on how to live in a lasting marriage. This is also shown through her serious and professional tone. Carol appears to believe if the two parties hold common interests and backgrounds, then the marriage would be foolproof.
Howard seems to be on the same page as Carol, thinking of the engagement and eventual marriage as a business deal also. The excerpt states that he does not really look after himself at home and he apparently needs a wife to clean up after him. Another contrubuting factor to this 'business deal' is that his sister practically scared him into it.
I think that the author was trying to say that society is so blinded by media's idea of engagement and marriage ,that they cannot see the truth, which is that marriage lasts due to common interests and similar backgrounds.
Did anyone get anything in reference to syntax that could provide social commentary?
Unzi Park
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
I agree with the pervious of how the marriage between Carol and Howard revolve around satisfying the standards placed by social norms of a proper marriage. Obviously, the marriage lacks emotional attachment. Rather than focusing on true love and emotions towards one another, both Carol and Howard marry for the wrong reasons. Apparently society claims that the earlier one marries the better. And thus with that being said, both Carol and Howard marry due to the fact of others pressuring them to marry "before its too late." Like Eric and Sabrian mentioned, other factors, such as economic interests, are tied into the decision of marriage. Through the usage of characteriztion of Carol and Howard, the author expresses irony satirically in order to convey her denouncement of society's distorted outlook of marriage.