B. A. III- Literatures in English- Short Stories (Sem. VI)

Princess September by W. Somerset Maugham

In Princess September by W. Somerset Maugham we have the theme of confusion, identity, jealousy, resentment, freedom, trust, control and innocence. Taken from his Collected Short Stories collection the story is narrated in the third person by an unnamed narrator and from the beginning of the story the reader realises that Maugham may be exploring the theme of confusion. Several of the King’s daughters have had different names in order to suit the King’s whims. This may be important as a person’s name forms part of their identity and by changing some of his daughter’s names so often the King in reality is not allowing each daughter to discover who they may be. September on the other hand is sure of who she is. Unlike her sisters who are not only confused but all the name changing has made them bitter. This might be important as it is possible that September’s sisters are jealous of September. She has never had any other name apart from the name September and as such has not had to deal with the confusion of having her name changed so often. It is also possible that September’s sister’s jealousy stems not only from the fact that September has had only the one name but also because she has a bird that is unlike any bird that her sisters have. September’s bird is free to fly around the palace and September’s room and to leave when he wants. While the parrots that September’s sisters have are confined to a cage.

In many ways the parrots’ lives mirror that of September’s sisters. They too are trapped in a cage (the palace) and like the parrots are limited in what they can do. With none showing any real ability to do anything in particular. Whereas the parrots are meant to bring joy to September’s sisters the reality is that September’s sisters are most likely bored of the parrots. Which may be one reason as to why they tell September to put her new found bird in a cage. They dislike the freedom that the bird has which may be a reflection on the fact that September’s sisters themselves do not feel free. Rather than seeing September happy her sisters want September to feel as they are feeling, miserable and unhappy. At no stage in the story does the reader suspect that any of September’s sisters are looking out for her. If anything they are preying on her innocence and trying to impose their own negative influence onto September. In reality it is clear to the reader that September’s sisters resent September.

If they themselves cannot be happy they do not think that September should be. It is as though each sister cannot see past their own self-importance or ego. Their number one priority is themselves. Though September is a happy child she still nonetheless at times needs reassurance and advice from her older sisters. However the advice given is not always for September’s benefit. It is as though September does not realise that she cannot trust her sisters due to the fact that they are jealous of her. September is different from her sisters because she has a bird that can sing sweet songs to her. Unlike the parrots that each of September’s sisters have which can only say two phrases. September’s mother is also an interesting if not cold character. She has no feelings when it comes to September’s parrot dying. She in no way comforts September. Though some critics might suggest that the reason for this is because the Queen has so many children it is more likely that the Queen is not a warm-hearted person just like her daughters (with the exception of September).

The fact that September marries a King and lives a happy life is also interesting as Maugham may be suggesting that should a person do good things. Like freeing the bird from the cage. Good things will happen to that person. Also should a person be open to change as September has been. She is after all the only one in the story who leaves the palace when bringing the bird for a walk. Then life will be full of good fortune. If anything by listening to the bird rather than to her sisters September has learnt the importance of freedom and what freedom means. She may have tried to control the bird’s environment when she put him in the cage but she changed and freed the bird. Who was allowed to sing as he wished to sing. How happy the bird was is noticeable by the fact that he returned to September which may suggest that not everything or everybody needs to be controlled. Free will is important. Something that September’s sisters would do well to learn. They have lived an ugly life in whereby they have attempted to control not only their environment but September’s too. The reader aware that each sister has been driven by jealousy.

  

“Loot” by Nadine Gordimer

“Loot” by Nadine Gordimer is quite an extraordinary story. It is not a lineal narrative, not even a coherent one. It is pervaded by poetry and symbolism. It has a dream-like texture. It can be read as an allegory of South Africa´s attitude towards their recent past. And, in more general terms, as an attempt to think over the relations between life and desire and, on the other hand, the relations between memory and social links. No doubt it can be understood in different ways. Notwithstanding the efforts made, there is always something left unexplained. After thinking the story through, we have arrived at the following interpretation.

There was a man who wanted an object without knowing exactly what it was. He was a well-known member of the apartheid regime. Once the regime was overthrown he decided to withdraw from the new society. He felt that in the new order there was no place for him. He reached a point in which nothing seemed to catch his attention any more. Then he retired. He bought a house not very far from the city, on the top of a hill facing the ocean. He wanted to be alone. He avoided all commitments. He pretended to be happy with this situation. The only thing he could do was wait for the object of his desire to appear. Meanwhile, he was really sad. The only meaning of his life was to wait. And he waited for a long time. He knew that the object would come as a surprise, from the realm of the unthinkable. Nevertheless, he had discovered but neglected some clues. So, we can presume, he was ambiguous about confronting his being in the world. A long time ago he had bought a picture of a great wave. An impending catastrophe was depicted there. The picture was the clue. During some years this picture occupied a prominent place in his bedroom, he could not help seeing it. But once he decided to place the picture above his bed. From then on, it was almost invisible. So he lost touch with the only link he had to the object he was looking for. He ignored how sad he was.

One night, while he was sleeping, the unthinkable happened. A big earthquake produced the withdrawal of the ocean. He then realized, suddenly, that the object was there, on the sea bed. He ran enthusiastically to the beach. There were lots of people there. They were looking for valuable items. And there were all kinds of things. They were fighting amongst each other, grabbing whatever seemed most promising. But not him, he was looking for the object. And then it was there. It was a mirror. Finally he had discovered what he had wanted all his life. As soon as he took possession of the mirror he was ready to return. However, neither he, nor the rest of the people realized that the big wave was behind them and was about to swallow them all.

A mirror? A mirror hidden in the ocean’s depths? Was that really the object he had missed without knowing so? Was this object not the cause of his death? How to make sense of these facts?

The ocean is the primordial source of all life. Besides the ocean stands for what is unconscious, what is hidden by repression because it is unacceptable. On the other hand, the mirror represents the possibility of knowing the image of oneself. We have an identity insofar as we have a mirror in which we can recognize ourselves. And what we recognize is our desire. We are subjects to a fault; we exist as long as we have a desire that provides us with a cause for our actions. So we have to conclude that what he wanted was to know his (real) desire. During his whole life he had been a man without a personal project, out of touch with his inner feelings. He acted out of habit, mechanically. Not surprisingly he felt that there was something that evaded him. When he retired, he concentrated on waiting for the object from which he believed he was going to learn a truer way of living. And it is significant that the only mirror in which he could make his desire visible was the one hidden in the sea. So the big catastrophe was the only possibility of reaching the answer he was waiting for. But this answer was of mortal consequence. That is to say: the moment he saw his image was the prelude to his death. So we have to ask, what did he see in the mirror? Why was he taken by the great wave? Why was death his redemption? It is clear that he expected a kind of salvation from his waiting. It is also clear that what he found was his death. In a certain sense he was already dead. His life was empty, deprived of joy. The desire to desire was what kept him living. So there is no other conclusion but to accept that what he saw in the mirror was his own emptiness, that there was not a “primordial and forgotten desire” that he could stick to in order to enjoy living. His expectation kept him living, preserving him from this truth. Redemption was only a false hope. The capacity to desire depends on our relations with our fellow humans. The expectation of desiring outside human relations is a myth of an impossible self-sufficiency. A pure personal desire, not formed in social interaction, would be an instinct. And we human beings are not defined by instincts. In the end, the belief in a destiny that runs outside the social can not be upheld. The confrontation with the mirror made this truth visible to him. During his whole life he maintained the hope that beyond his commitments to politics there was something innocent and unspoiled in him, something that would appear in due course. But it was not true.

He died while he was sleeping, which is, after all, a peaceful way of dying. He left this world without knowing what was happening to him. In his dream he confronted his hopes’ lack of substance. He was liberated of a life he never managed to take beyond social habits, despite of his naïve illusions. His self deception was to think he was not affected by the things he did insofar as he thought he had a deeper essence, that will be revealed later on life.

II

He dreamt about a big earthquake, a major catastrophe. An event such as that represents the desire for the end of a situation and, perhaps, the desire for a fresh start. At the beginning of his dream, he just watched what was happening. After the sea drew back, making the sea bed with its treasures visible, people rush to loot anything that had a price. “Orgiastic joy gave men, women and their children strength to heave out of the slime and sand what they did not know they wanted, quickened their staggering gait as they range, and this was more than profiting by happenstance, it was robbing the power of nature before which they have fled helpless. Take, take; while grabbing they were able to forget the wreck of their houses and the loss of time-bound possessions”.

Not a very flattering conception of human beings. They forgot their losses thanks to the acting out of the drive to loot. Human beings are seen as scavengers. They want to posses even if they do not have a real need. To posses is a compensation for their meaningless lives, even more so if possession was taking place in a kind of orgiastic festival, full of a joy enhanced by a sense of danger.

The image evokes a feeling of rejection of the human condition. It appears to be eager, selfish and aimless. Totally unworthy and despicable. In this scenario the dreamer locates himself as a character that is different insofar as he is looking for something definite. But, as we have seen, there was no reason for him to live. He thought he had a pure desire but as soon as he faced the mirror, confronting his emptiness, he realized that life was not worth living. Neither for him, nor for the others. In a certain sense he chose to die. The others were killed in his dream because they were thought of as undeserving to live. In effect, after the big change brought about by the falling of the apartheid regime, South Africans did not see their past, they dedicated themselves to taking whatever was at their reach, consume and loot were their catchwords. These attitudes worked as a kind of compensation for the lack of those social links that would allow them to have more rewarding lives. In any case this image of the others as eager and unhappy is a further justification for not wanting to live. So the story condenses, in a cryptic (prudent?) way, a very harsh assessment of the post apartheid South African situation. In the end, the looters and the man killed by the big wave will accompany the bodies of “those dropped from planes during the dictatorship”. So in the end all of them will become spectres beneath the ocean. Nothing has been learned. There is no memory. In a certain sense these bodies have not been properly buried. Despite of being unwanted they are alive insofar as they cannot be forgotten because they do not have a proper place in the collective consciousness. They will be brought to the public realm, periodically, by people claiming justice. Their existence represents an open wound. The white perpetrators, the black victims and the looters. So in the end the lesson is clear: no society is possible without the elaboration of a memory that can separate the present from the past.

III

The enunciation of the story is quite peculiar. It starts with the narration of the earthquake and people looting the seabed. These events are presented as if they have occurred. But behind these seemingly objective events there is a personal fantasy not deprived, however, of a certain truth. In any case the existence of this (white) person is revealed by a narrator who tells the story to a listener who, in the middle of a personal communication, is supposed to believe and understand the whole plot. But things are more complicated, the narrator that tells the story is a fictional character. It is a mask used by a writer. A mask that is necessary to prevent the story’s inverisimilitude spoiling it. Finally the story is presented as a sort of myth told by someone to someone. In effect, if the dreamer died while sleeping, how can we know his dream?

Let us summarize the problem of enunciation. The first part of the story is narrated from the third person. The perspective is objective and detached. We have just one character, the people who are looting. But, as we are going to realize this description is just a part of a dream. A dream elaborated by a person who is the only personal character of the story. Thus, the whole story is about this character and his view of the world. This view seems, however, quite realistic. And the lesson is that it is very difficult to learn from life. On the other hand, how is it possible to tell the dream of a person who is supposed to die during his very dream? The only possibility is assuming a mythical or allegorical perspective. What is told is not an objective truth, not even a plausible plot, it is a fantasy. The fact that is narrated in the present tense could indicate it being a fable; something that describes and explains the present situation. It is a narrative that is fabulous, just like a dream. So the rules of logic are not applicable. That is the reason that explains the appearance of the figure of the writer after the first scene: “But the writer knows something no-one else knows, the sea change of imagination”. So the change of perspective is announced. The objective tone of the narration is abandoned. Now the story is told as it if were a rumour that circulates in the context of a speaker to listener relationship. A negative feeling that Nadine Gordimer wants to share with us, her readers.

Let us go back to the title. What kind of life is possible without desire? And what kind of society is the one that has no memory? Gordimer suggests that a life without desire is based on a mixture of habit and fantasy about something that will not arrive. And despite what its owner might think, it is a life in despair, sad and largely deprived of joy. On the contrary, a more liveable life implies to be in touch with one’s ways of enjoying. But, at the same time, inscribing this enjoyment in relations in which nobody is hurt. Society teaches us what to desire but if this teaching is not articulated with our particular historical and biological configuration then we have the divorce between habit and fantasy. On the other hand, a society without memory is one in which social links are fragile, where resentments are there, waiting for being acted as violence. So collective action is almost impossible. Each individual looks after himself.

  

“The Child” by Premchand

      

      The story contains various issues of Indian society and psychological aspects of Indian mindset. The story starts with an introduction of an illiterate Brahmin servant “Gangu” who thinks he is the superior among all the servants because he is “Brahmin”. The owner of house is the narrator of the story and he could be Premchand himself. The rigid mentality of Gangu irritates his master again and again but he is not much affected with this kind of behaviour. One day Gangu confesses his love towards a widow named Gomti Devi, and he also marries Gomti, who has betrayed three husbands before her marriage with Gangu. Gomti gave birth to a child, a baby boy just after six months of her marriage with Gangu and Gangu accepted that child as if that was his own child.

      

     Premchand has used Indian-English words likesyce – coachman, bhang – an herbal narcotic and intoxicant and mohalla – neighbourhood. The language is very simple which reflects emotions of innocence of Gangu and his relation with his master, here we can read the master - slave relationship, but Gangu was not slave anymore, there was a relationship of respect and honour on each side. Gangu has left the job because he did not want to spoil his master’s reputation because of his marriage with a widow. The another important observation is reference of Shakespeare in this short  story, when master tells Gangu that Gomti will betray you too by saying,

“Have you ever heard the old saying, ‘Frailty, thy name is woman’.”

         

     The interesting part of this story is change in the psychology of characters, first Gangu was a rigid Brahmin and was not allowing anyone to disrespect him but when he falls in love with Gomti, he forget everything and marry her. On the other side, the master who was not interested in caste system, he was against that marriage and he was happy when Gomti run away and left Gangu, even when Gangu has shown his child to him, he was taunting Gangu about his child’s birth just in six months. At the end, master has realized that what he was doing was not appropriate because he was an educated man and a writer but he learned a lot from an illiterate Gangu, and then he apologize Gangu and went to meet Gomti.

     This story contains Indian society and culture very minutely. We can read and observe that Gangu is an illiterate Brahmin but though he has proud upon his cast as Brahmin. Gomti is a widow and remarriage of widows was a general practice, and the afterlife of widow and exploitation is also mentioned in the story. Issue of poverty in Gangu’s life and his social life is also important in story. The Child is a symbol of love between Gomti and Gangu as well as a symbol of awareness on the part of a narrator.

“Dead Men’s Path,” by Chinua Achebe

“Dead Men’s Path,” a short story by Chinua Achebe, begins in the year 1949, with Michael Obi, who has just been appointed headmaster of Ndume Central School. He was educated to be progressive, and he has been brought in by the mission to change the way things are done at the school. Through a conversation with his wife, Nancy, the reader learns that both she and Michael are looking forward to his promotion. She is eager to live in a more modern environment, with a modern garden.

She envisions herself rising with her husband. As wife of the headmaster, she fancies herself as a queen, and looks forward to the admiration and envy of the wives of other professors at the school. There is just one problem with her plan—Michael’s colleagues are young. They are not married. There are no wives to be jealous of her. While Nancy is not enthused by this information, Michael is. He tells Nancy that without wives, the professors will be able to devote more of their time to their work and the school.

Michael falls silent, withdrawing into himself, and when Nancy asks him what he is thinking, he says that he is ruminating over what an incredible opportunity this is for them. He plans to show the others at Ndume Central School how a school ought to be run.

Together, they work to achieve their goals. Michael insists on higher standards of teaching, as well as higher aesthetic standards, relying on Nancy’s input and help with the gardens and grounds. One night, Michael is frustrated to see an elderly woman walk through a flower bed. He inspects the garden and discovers there is a path from the village to the bush, through the school’s compound.

He asks another teacher about the path and learns that it connects the villagers’ temple to their burial grounds. He learns also that there was an argument the last time the school tried to close the path, but Michael is determined that it not cut through school grounds. He is worried that the Government Education Officer, on his visit next week, will think poorly of the school’s progress. He comments that the villagers might hold pagan rituals in a schoolroom. With sticks and barbed wire, the path is blocked.

A priest comes to see him three days later. The priest tells him the path must be open because not only do the villagers’ ancestors travel on the path, but that it is also the path by which the spirits of those about to be born travel to the village.

Michael’s response is to say that the purpose of the school is to get rid of such beliefs. “Dead men do not require footpaths,” he says. He adds that the school will teach children to laugh at such ideas as the priest holds. Michael suggests that a new path be constructed, and offers to have his students help build it. This new path would go around the school compound, not through it.

When a young woman dies in childbirth in the village, a diviner determines that large sacrifices must be made to appease the ancestors who cannot use the footpath. Michael discovers that the barriers have been pulled down along with a school building, and the gardens destroyed.

The school is in a state when the Education Officer arrives, who blames the trouble between the village and the school on the latter’s overzealous headmaster.

Chinua Achebe’s works often explore the aftereffects of European influence on Nigeria, the country he is from. In Dead Men’s Path, Michael and Nancy both use Christian names. In fact, the reader does not know if they have other names, or what they are. Achebe informs the reader early on that both of them value modernity. Michael is employed by a mission—it is presumed that this is a Christian mission.

Upon arriving at Ndume Central School, he decides to block the footpath used by the villagers. He later offers a compromise, but not until the priest stands up to him. He could have approached the villagers with a compromise first, and perhaps they would not have reacted by destroying the gardens and grounds to make a sacrifice.

Both Michael and Nancy are concerned with what others think of them. Nancy wants to be envied, and Michael wants the approval of the Government Education Officer. Both of them are denied these good opinions, by circumstance in Nancy’s case and by his own actions in Michael Obi’s case.