Sunday, September 11, 2011

The Way We Are

www. newyorker.com/reporting/2007/02/19/070219fa_fact_sedaris?currentPage=all


Response to "The Way We Are"

Sedaris uses details to illustrate the points of his reflective article. The very first sentence is "In Paris they warn you before cutting off the water, but in out Normandy, you're just supposed to know." The reader's first impression is that the narrator is used to the big city, and therefore has led a convenienced lifestyle. Furthering this are the two paragraphs musing about making coffee when there's no water, and the reader infers that not only is the narrator not very rugged, but he's incredibly out of place in the setting as well. He wakes up at about ten in the morning, a time at odds with that of his neighbors and boyfriend Hugh. By the use of diction, the reader finds that he thinks they feel that by doing so, they are better than he is. Sedaris accomplishes this with the simple sentence of "I only know that they're incredibly self-righteous about it, and talk about the dawn as if it's a personal reward, bestowed on account of their great virtue." Embedded in this sentence are clues to the narrator's resentment, such as 'self-righteous,' 'personal reward,' and 'great virtue.'

Another conclusion that the reader draws is that the narrator is often at odds with Hugh. Details conducive to this perception lie in the narrator's obvious exasperation with what are frequently Hugh's best of intentions, but none-the-less inconvenient and unnecessary ways of doing things. These include Hugh doing laundry by beating clothes against a river rock instead of in a tub, and deciding to grind his own flour for the fun of it. Backing up the details is Sedaris's use of diction. Upon finding Hugh at the river with laundry, the narrator asks "Who ARE you?" and imagines that in Hugh's ineptness, he would transport a baby "hanging, red-faced, by its gums." It's this sort of imagery, among them the previously mentioned descriptions of coffee, that hook the reader's attention and ensure that he visualizes what the narrator is describing and does so with the tint of exasperation in the diction.

Sedaris's main point is about roles, and other's assumption that people are black and white, or "cut and dried," as the narrator muses after the weed-buying interaction. The fact that the wife was acting in an ungrateful, nagging manner equivalent to a bitch and her husband in a 'pity-me' mentality shows Sedaris making the point that some people tend to follow a role. He even does this with the narrator's brother speaking in a boastful, yet condescending way about his brother being gay: "Has hisself a cocksucker.... and everything." The use of 'hisself' only serves to emphasize how limited in education and knowledge the brother really is. However, other, there are the rare, mentality-conscious individuals who try to stay out of such boxes and recognize that people can be much more complicated than simplistic life-views allow. The narrator acknowledges that there are no roles then he think that though "Hugh might do the cooking, and actually wear an apron while he's at it.... he also chops the firewood, repairs the hot-water heater, and could tear my arm off...." This imagery is important to readers, as the narrator chooses not to verbally engage his unenlightened brother, Big Mike, or his wife, but instead shares his insights with the reader through train-of-thought.

In the end, Sadaris closes with the imagery of the narrator throwing Hugh's bunch of flowers through the window and using thir water for his coffee. This in itself makes more of a statement that Hugh may be missing the value of his partner in exchange for his environment than the narrator's closing decision to argue with Hugh that he is "all the beauty he will ever need."

obvious exasperation "Who ARE you?

3 comments:

  1. I think that your first paragraph should be split into two. First you talk about how details effect the story, (and give examples), then you talk about diction effecting the story, which seems like a different paragraph since you go into detail and cite examples.

    I disagree about Hugh missing the value of his partner. I think that all the interaction between those two are meant to be a positive thing, without negative undercurrents. I don't mean that I don't think their perfect, but I think that their relationship is supposed to be to the greatest extent two humans can manage.

    Really nice essay, it all makes perfect sense :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you used your techniques to back up your essay nicely. The way you give good examples of the details, diction, and imagery, is great (good choices on those examples).

    I also disagree about Hugh missing the value of his partner. I think it's just that they are two different people and their personalities are different so when the narrator says that he is "all the beauty he will ever need" it's just reinforcing their feelings not saying Hugh missed the point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Chris, that the first paragraph should be split into two, if you are going to mention and support both Diction and Details. Although, good job with the evidence of details and diction. You used a quote and backed it up in a way that easily made sense. In the second paragraph you state that Sadaris uses diction to back up his examples, but you dont really elaborate on how. If you are going to make that statement, make it clear to your audience why you think that. Overall, a great essay, and very well written. good job!

    ReplyDelete