Pensamiento - Literatura

Analysis

§1. In April 2005 I had to select a story among a few and analyze the issue of violence for a PhD course. I chose "My Son the Murderer" not only for its title and its poetry. As a reader who is critical of the structures and values prevailing in our society, I am convinced the writer is using a poetical personal statement to expose violence, and this is what I endeavor to explore.

§2. The theme is human tragic destiny, the futility of human efforts, whether the tragic destiny is accepted or not. Considering the 20th century killed the gods, the path opened by the Greek tragedy evolves-if gods decided on our destinies before, society's power structures should be held accountable nowadays. What is the cause of the Son's intense anguish -posed by the authoritative voice of the narrator in the opening paragraph? The information in the story points entirely to the war, the true murderer ; the crucial letter in the story is one coming from the draft-board, not the explanation the Father hopes for. The Son (the writer?), seems to refuse to explain what is obvious. In the story there is nothing that leads us to think the Son might have a mental crisis unconnected to the fact of the war. What triggers incommunication between the Son and the Father? Their failure to take action-at least in words-about Harry's conscription.

§3. The quality of literature is often its capacity to echo a complex flow of meaning. The story is intended to be read emotionally (poetic use of language, point of view) and in the context of our time (determinate meanings). Reflecting on this may lead to a fuller understanding of the literary strength of this elegy on the impossibility of love against the background of a bitter exposure of the reasons-human violence.

§4. Transactional reader-response theory. Determinate meanings in the story come from facts presented by an omniscient narrator who tells the story in the third person-opening paragraph, present (504) and second half of the story, past (507-10)-and from two internal focalizers, the main characters, son and father. The Son, Harry, is a 22-year-old man who just graduated and has received the call-up. Although the first half of the story (Part I) illustrates his anger towards his father (505-7) we soon learn about his deepest worry (506). He is caught in the complex world of a fear of death (§18), but this is presented indirectly. In Part I, through the Father, Leo, we learn about the rest of the characters: the Mother and Sister and himself are worried about Harry, but they do not mention the war as possible cause of his distress, as if Harry was the problem himself, at least for not accepting the (unnamable) situation, for his intellectual resistance: the Mother's Harry, you'll feel better if you work (506) and the Sister's "It's hard to deal with a person who won't reciprocate you" (506). Leo talks about Harry with a workmate (506-7) and both men exhibit a contrasting attitude to Harry's, acceptance: Moe's "Still in all we got to live" (506) and Leo's "Nothing is nothing, it's better to live" (510). (Obviously, all is useful advice, but unsuitable now.) Through Harry we learn war bothers him (506) (§16). The rest of the characters do not speak about the war, even though Harry is to be recruited soon (§14).

§5. Focus is sustained by the very elements which create indeterminate meanings: lyricism, point of view, chorus. The drama is presented poetically, condensing and echoing deeper meanings through perspective, imaginery and language. Poetry is used where a rational interpretation is not possible or unwanted-possibly, deemed useless.

§6. The story opens with the narrator presenting the two main characters in the third person-present but after this, for all Part I, it shifts the point of view to the eyes of those characters alternatively, and without using typographic support. The effect for the reader is that of being drawn into somebody's mind. Also, creating indeterminate meanings (in whose mind are we?), especially by means of the chorus, and this makes us focus more on the pain than in learning details about each character. A careful reading solves indeterminacy to a great extend, but not totally, as if the writer thought that clear attribution to each of the two main characters played against this focus. Let us consider further who is behind the story. a) The story is a heterodiegetic narrative on a son and father at a certain time; b) The narrator is the Father, who writes to include his son's point of view out of guilt and intense pain resulting from his son's "death". A father who writes as if saying, "Son, I did know, it's just I didn't manage to face it next to you"; c) Narrator and Son are the same person, a son who writes this story to include his father's point of view out of guilt and intense pain for his father's death. As if he wanted to say, "Dad, I knew about your suffering, but I couldn't reach out to you". The fact is that it does not matter who is behind, but noticing terrible pointless suffering. The Son's suffering is measured by his desperate anger and final numbness; the Father's, by his desperate concern and hopeless activity-watching his Son and recurrently asking questions which show his love but expose his voluntary blindness.

§7. In the ending (510) again the effect of unannounced changes in perspective strengthens the poetic underlying indeterminacy and make us focus in the fact that both characters undergo a painful process, and that in spite of their different attitudes, radical non-cooperation and radical acceptance, everything is hopeless.

§8. Are the title "My son the murderer" and the chorus lines the Father's? We will see how both elements contribute to indefinite meanings which help us focus in the emotional drama itself, not in its details. The story is structured by the changing chorus lines sang by the Father, "My Son + descriptive phrase" which function like the Greek chorus, like accompanying commentary in the production of this elegiac song-apparently the Father's, perhaps the readers'/narrator's, or even the Son's. The title, "My Son the Murderer," is the sole phrase the Father (?) does not utter in the story. The chorus: if we just consider the focalizers, "My son the stranger, he won't tell me anything" and "My son the prisoner" are probably the Father's comments. "My temporary son" feels closer to the Son's. "My son with the dead hand" could only be the Son's-when he touches the TV set he is alone. The next chorus line will appear later, towards the end, "My son who made himself into a lonely man". This is most problematic to assign: it is not true that the Son is in the state he is in as a total result of his will ("who made himself into"), so it could be the statement of a father who keeps refusing to deal with the true conflict; on the other hand, following interpretation C (§6), the statement could be some ritual punishment the Son inflicts on himself.

§9. Before this last chorus line on page 509 we could have encountered: "My son the murderer", but we do not-he is not a murderer. "I ought to murder you the way you spy on me," "If you do this again don't be surprised if I kill you," "If you write me another letter [a letter not sent to a classmate] I'll murder you" (509). The notion of murder appears in the text only as a verb , stated by the Harry, who uses it only after his recruitment has just been confirmed, preceding the description of the second final persecution by the Father, which leads both characters to metaphorical death (§17). This Father would not call this Son a murderer, but this Son might say it of himself both as anticipation of what is so violently being demanded of him (go to war and kill) and as ritual literary reparation out of guilt.

§10. My thesis is war is a direct cause of the drama-the senseless violent world humans have built. From a social point of view, the root of the drama relates to the violence of war imposed on men and to the violence of the patriarchal model for men as imposed on men (§§11-16). The experientialist approach or metaphor theory as applied to literary criticism will serve me to illustrate a literary resource pointing to the relevance of the war in the story (§17). From the point of view of characters as individuals, my analysis will be psychoanalytic, on how the fear of death caused by the impositions of war leads to death and incommunication (§18).

§11. "[M]en are not permitted to fail at anything they try because failure in any domain implies failure in one's manhood" (Tyson, 86). The destructiveness of the patriarchal role for men is clearly posed, though it is not focused-avoid naming what is noticeable. The core issue leading Harry to anguish, an anguish that moves defensively into anger and eventually wanes and leads to metaphorical death, is the war and the impossibility of questioning, or neutralizing, war and the role of men. Probably, Harry is far from identifying with the patriarchal values of manhood-his father does not fit the model either. Harry has studied at a US American university in the sixties, as we learn from the text and contextual knowledge: the story was published in 1973 and Harry probably watches the Vietnam War on TV. Universities at this time were full of students analyzing sociopolitical issues critically. Considering the information in the story, there are two social sources of pressure on the young man: war and employment. The war is the decisive pressure element, because the Son has already been sent the call-up (506) and going to war means murdering or being murdered (§9). According to patriarchal values, a man is meant to be willing to prove his manhood for his "fatherland," willingly. Feeling afraid of war/death, being unwilling to believe war makes sense, that killing is a manly duty, leads patriarchal people to self-destruction, even if they object to that ideology. A secondary cause contributing to the youth's depression is supposing he survives the war, or supposing his efforts to avoid conscription succeed, he will face the must of succeeding economically in a world which seems to have little to offer to his interests-if a Man does not succeed economically he is a failure, in patriarchy.

§12. Harry watches a war on TV. Weapon development in the first half of the 20th century changed the nature of war: utter annihilation was possible.

[The generation which] grew up under the shadow of the atom bomb. inherited from their parents' generation the experience of a massive intrusion of criminal violence into politics: they learned in high school and in college about concentration and extermination camps, about genocide and torture, about the wholesale slaughter of civilians in war without which modern military operations are no longer possible ... Their first reaction was a revulsion against every form of violence (Arendt, 14). If you ask a member of this generation two simple questions: "How do you want the world to be in fifty years?" and "What do you want your life to be like five years from now?" the answers are quite often preceded by "Provided there is still a world," and "Provided I am still alive." . To the often-heard question Who are they, this new generation? One is tempted to answer, Those who hear the ticking. And to the other question, Who are they who utterly deny them? The answer may well be, Those who do not know, or refuse to face, things as they really are" (Arendt, 17-18; 1969).

§13. Harry is aware of what the world looks like. His inactivity is relative. His intellectual activity is focused in the war. Not only he follows the TV news and the papers. He performs some action to avoid being conscripted (at least, writing a letter) and he tries to explain to his parents he is not feeling well. But these weak attempts to influence events are hopeless, he knows it: he cannot stop the war and his parents cannot help him escape. Harry's anger is a measure of his desperation. His action and his anger is temporary. He eventually embraces yielding, but he does not yield to absurd action, like his father. He yields to temporary death, which is at least dissenting.

§14. Harry's verbal reactions against his parents breeds on despair-they refuse to understand the obvious. The Father knows which his son's problem is but refuses to deal with the issue ("Who are they who utterly deny them [this new generation]?. Those who do not know, or refuse to face, things as they really are," op. cit. ). The episode of the Father getting the letter from the draft-board and giving it to the Son with no comment ( i.e. "My son the soldier") illustrates the Father's consistent "not wanting to see". Instead of talking to him about ways to escape, Leo is obsessed with finding out another explanation. If the Father had acknowledged the situation, this episode would be completely different. The reasons that explain the Father's blindness are probably rooted in what brings father and son together eventually-not in touch, just close, to the same point: "We meet at the edge of the water" (510). Hopelessness, extreme impotence. Harry knows that if his plea to the military fails, the only way to escape is fleeing to Canada "or somewhere I can go" (506). This is not discussed (supported) in the family. It is presented showing such vulnerability it reads like a childish, hopeless lullaby. Why the Son does not ask his parents to help him flee may indicate he knows his parents cannot help him. He will not put them in that position. Here we find love, not murder. But how can a Man state that? A Man speaks using violence, not love.

§15. In our culture, when we feel vulnerable we follow an unconscious move towards our parents, even if we know that is not the solution-parents are a cultural symbol of protection. Harry knows his parents cannot save him from the war. He knows they are trying to deny that the war is the problem. He feels desperate, incommunicado , and he expresses it initially through anger. He should flee. But he cannot go away. Perhaps he does not leave because he does not know how to reach Canada, but probably the reason is deeper: he cannot move away from his parents in the midst of a depression. Staying is not the answer. It exposes how far the parents are from being able to help him. It ads to tragedy. But suffering-not madness-involves being in known landscapes, close to your loved ones, as if there you could find grounding. Even in his fits of anger, the Son's words are non-judgmental towards his parents-he shouts I don't want., leave me alone , but not You did this. or You should.. At the end, when metaphorical death takes a place, the Son's words are still non-judgmental (§7).

§16. I would like to sum up my feminist analysis. First, Harry is suffering because he has a realistic assessment on events. He feels overwhelmed by impotence, but he has tried to do something about it. Harry knows about unemployment, he knows there is a war and that he will be taking part. "I'm twenty-two., a college graduate, and you know where you can stick that," "I expect to be drafted any day" (506). Harry follows the news on the war. "At night I watch the news programs" (506). He has written to the military after the first call-up. "There is a draft-board letter here for you. . Did you write them another letter?" (508). Second, his anger towards his parents is mostly the result of the impotence caused because he understands his and their situation. The incommunication problem is not only a result of the Son's refusal to speak, it is actively constructed by the parents, too. The parents' selective perception of reality-their insistence in the dangerous situation their son is in and in not dealing with the causes: how is it possible that they do not see that a youth just finishing his studies is bound to be terrified by the fact that he has to fight a war? Probably, the Son has lead an intellectual life distant from macho willingness. The Father's words "Harry, don't worry so much about the war" (507) push Harry further into incommunication. His father's only mention of the war implies helpless acceptance and the expression of a willingness to look after his son like a mother (507), a return to childhood, days passed. Also, Harry is not being totally uncooperative: he looks for a job (505) and tries to explain.: "I want the opposite of temporary, but where is it? Where do you find it?" (506), which reads: I'll get killed, I'm terrified . But they keep pretending he is the problem.

§17. Let me go back to love's opposite-war. A literary example will support the thesis that the root of the drama is war. A fundamental contrast in the story is presented as embodied in notions of "hot" and "cold": the "Anger Is Hot" (Harry) and "Violence Is Hot" (War), and "Death Is Cold" (Harry and Leo) conceptual metaphors. When the family is dealing with the issue of Harry finding a job and the mother mentions that if he doesn't like what he is finding he could take something temporary , Harry's anger reaches a climax (Anger is Hot): "He starts to yell. Everything's temporary. Why should I add more to what's temporary? My gut feels temporary. The goddamn world is temporary". This is immediately followed by another "hot" climax (War is Hot): "I watch the war . It's a big burning war on a small screen. It rains bombs and the flames go higher". This is an opposing extreme of the scene preceding the end, which is a "cold" climax. The omniscient narrator describes Leo's final persecution of his son by using physical and psychological elements transmitting the cold and damp, and its metaphorical extension, helpless hopeless loneliness, some kind of death (italics mine):

He thought of taking a taxi ., but no taxi came by . The next bus came by fifteen minutes later ... It was February and Coney Island was wet, cold, and deserted . There were few cars . and few people on the streets. It felt like snow . Leo walked . amid snow flurries , looking for his son. The gray sunless beaches were empty . The . were shuttered up. The gunmetal ocean , moving like melted lead, looked freezing . A wind blew in off the water and worked its way into his clothes so that he shivered as he walked. The wind white-capped the leaden waves and the slow surf broke on the empty beaches with a quiet roar .

He walked in the blow . searching . and then he walked back again . . he saw a man on the shore standing in the foaming surf. Leo hurried ... The man on the roaring shore was Harry, standing in water to the tops of his shoes (509).

§18. Psychoanalitically, war is likely to be the cause of the conflicts affecting the characters because a fear of death leads to a fear of life and a need to break links with others. The fear of death leads to the fear of intimacy, which would add to the explanation of Harry's refusal to communicate. The fear of death leads to the fear of life because if you risk living life knowing you are bound to die, you risk suffering, especially in a context of war. Thus, you must not feel. (Military training has taken this into account-acquainting soldiers with horror before leaving them in the midst of wars has been used to make them capable of carrying out any "order".) Finding no other solution, Harry needs to die emotionally to stop the fear and the pain. From this approach, anger towards his father is also explained because his father is putting pressure on him to feel, to become attached.

Harry, your father loves you. When you were a little boy, every night when I came home you ..

I don't want to hear about that any more. It's the very thing I don't want to hear. I don't want to hear about when I was a child. (507)

 

Next: Conclusion

Please, quote the author and the site: michelle renyé, at mujerpalabra.net.

Another quotation style: michelle.We Meet at the Edge of the Water. We Stand with Our Feet in the Ocean. On the Murdering Qualities of War. An essay based on Malamud's 'My Son the Murderer'." Mujer Palabra. 2005. Path: Pensamiento. Date of Access <https://www.mujerpalabra.net>.