Thursday, September 4, 2008
Thoughts on "The School"
I really enjoyed "The School" by Donald Barthelme. It was very funny and also clever. Barthelme process of constructing the pattern of introducing subjects and then revealling their fate which is of course death. This in intersting because he begins with the students planting trees before the trees died. Then he takes it a step further from trees to animals which also died. Then he takes it to the ultimate level by incorporating a human which had the same fate as the trees and the animals. Even though the pattern is obvious, I still didn't think he would have the Korean orphan die as well. Then just when I thought the climax of the pattern was reached, Barthelme seems to "take the cake" with his peculiar comedy when reminiscing about some parents dying from suicide, drowning, car accidents and strokes. Barthelme's story then takes a "left-turn" when he writes abut the students asking the teacher to make love with his assistant because they never seen it before. Just as George Saunders stated in "The Perfect Gerbil", the ending which consisted of a knock on the door and the gerbil entering as the students become excited, leaves many questions. With the story ending at that point, all questions remained unanswered. However, I think Saunders overly discts this short story. I believe that Barthelme wrote this story mainly for comic relief. Not to eliminate possibilities of a serious underling message, but if so, the story as a whole is not to be discted and analyzed in a sort of philosophical manner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
During our class discussion, I realized I did not like this story as much as other students. I do not hate it but I certainly did not like it as much as Saunders. Its a little funny that i did not like it for the same reasons that Saunders loved it. The pattern of the things associated with the school dying was boring. I felt that the teacher was telling a children's nursery rhyme. You know the one with leaves on the branch, and the branch on the tree, and the tree in the whole and the whole in the grown, and the green grass grows all around all around and the green grass grows all around. I've heard it. I've sung it. I know it. I knew what was going on when the salamander kicked the bucket. Like Saunders I enjoyed the ending. I enjoyed that Barthelme did not just leave the green grass to grow but left a new seed to plant.
Thanks for your post, Tyrike. I'm really interested to hear what you thought. And Joanne, I agree that the plot pattern of things dying gets old pretty fast. The reason I like the story is the ending, really: when the children start speaking in non-childish diction and ask for a demonstration of love-making because they are "scared," it seems audacious somehow. It makes me feel that the rules have been shifted.
If we are to blow this up to a complex symbolical structure you could regard "love making" as the counter-action against death. These kids (with remarkable analytical skills) may, due to circumstances, have become aware of the psychological nature behind death and its damping trails of somberness and decided that a little physical action would counterbalance their already disturbed feelings. Kids need "an assertion of value" because they're "frightened", which makes you wonder what they're so frightened about, and if we follow the story chronologically, the above hypothesis comes to mind. Whether observing a couple perform sex with the mantle of "love" thrown on top of it as a relief to psychological stress is another subject all together. If so,you may as well watch two dogs perform the same feat and see if it has the same effect.
On the other hand I don't know if it has any sense to over-analyze this otherwise eccentric story. Should we just understand it for its constant replenishing of rising action and let it be, or is there something else?
Just some thoughts.
At first, when reading this story for some reason, it really made me think about the innocence of the children. I guess it is because I have a younger sister who you can say has not always has good luck with pets, and no one seems to know what happend to her two bunnies and her guinea pig amd this was in a short spsn of time.
I was suprised at the end with the language of the children. It really caught my attention. I enjoyed this story even though i didn't think that it was the greatest I have ever read, but it did suck me in and have me wondering what was going to happen next. I could not believe that he took it to the extreme of the children asking the teacher to make love with the teaching assistant. I think that this is also representing the children and how they are so curious and will say just about anything.
I found the story very entertaining, but in a curosity sort of way. All these horrible things were happening and I wanted to know what the resoultion would be. This is an awful comparasion, but it is such as when a car crash happens or a person is pulled over by the cops. Everyone's curiosity perks up because of something bad. The uncertanty really does work like a plot device. The ending is such a shocker, and it keeps the audience even more intrigued even after it's over. I think a lot of analyzing can be done over this story, but in the end it did the job by being a story that people keep talking about.
I think your question is a good one, William: why should we think, as the children seem to think, that watching two people have sex will somehow relieve psychological stress?
Here's another question for you all: why the reluctance to over-analyze? What does it mean to over-analyze, anyway? How do you know how much analysis is too much analysis?
In this story, it seemed as if everything the children took an interest with, died. The school seem to bring tragedy to all that came near it. However it was a good story and it seemed to make the children stronger in many ways. They looked at life differently after they faced so much in that short period of time
Over-analyzing, to me, in this case, is positing a new hypothesis based on an already made assumption to the point of actively trailing away from the main idea to finally set its conclusion in absolute obscurity (like that whole previous phrase). It's like building a pyramid upside down hoping it will stand tall.
Often times I believe that when it comes to analyzing other's creative piece you may add more meaning to it than it was originally intended to have, ultimately making your own version of the story. Stepping into these thorny grounds is what I'd believe is over analyzing a piece--highlighting a legitimate symbol of a piece, on the other hand, wouldn't be, particularly if it was intended to be discovered. Such Obvious Statements tend to be discovered quickly (e.g).
Post a Comment