"You have to read the biographies of her life to find out what her husband was really like. Perhaps he had good moments? Perhaps she wanted him to seem this way? Nobody knows but the children."
Ginny - what do you know about S. Jackson's husband? He makes an appearance in both of these stories - I didn't see really "bad moments" in either of these two stories, but maybe missing something. I hesitate to bring to your attention this article about "Charles" as we are enjoying our own memories and the story is such fun to read.
This article suggests there may be something pathologically wrong with Laurie. You don't want to hear that, I know. But the author makes a point. I guess I still haven't forgotten "The Lottery" and the rather detachedl way Jackson approached that long-held tradition of that community. I hope
Jude is around to comment about this. The entire article is here in this link -
THE DISTURBED PSYCHOLOGICAL STATES OF THE PROTAGONISTS IN THE STORIES CHARLES BY SHIRLEY JACKSON AND LAMB TO SLAUGTHER BY ROALD DAHL "Charles by Shirley Jackson and Lamb to Slaughter by Roald Dahl which are stories - easy to identify with the stories but it is not the execution or approach in both of these stories that make them quite unique, rather
it is in the treatment and the characterization of the protagonists. In both of these stories, the protagonists are
characterized in a very vivid way revealing an underlying or different dimension in their natures, very accurately portraying the protagonists as people with seriously disturbed psychological states, whether permanent or temporary.[/b]
...In both of these stories, though, the main thematic is the psychological state of the protagonists. The first story has something to do with what is known in psychology as
projection where the troubled person projects himself unto other people whether real or imagined, to attract the attention of people close to him her like the parents, in the case of the story.
The author already foreshadows the kind of protagonist that is in the story with the following conversation that Laurie has with his father
'He sure did, Laurie said. Look up, he said to his father.
What his father said, looking up.
Look down, Laurie said. Look at my thumb. Gee, youre dumb. He began
to laugh
insanely. (Jackson)'
This early, the author already offers a glimpse of what Laurie actually is the aimless and pointless act of asking his father to do purposeless things like looking up or looking at the thumb suggests that
Laurie has something going in the upstairs department this, as well, is validated by the kind of laugh that the protagonist elicits, insane according to the author. 'my sweetvoiced nursery-school tot replaced by a long-trousered, swaggering character who forgot to stop at the corner and wave good-bye to me (Jackson) here, we have Jackson revealing the emergence of a new and different person from the boy who used to be sweetvoiced.
The use of the words replaced and character in this particular line reveals that the narrator no longer knows her son the way she used to.
Moving on in the story, we have more revelations of the character of the boy being one who seems to be indifferent and ill-mannered, which
points out to something being seriously wrong with his social and family life.Laurie slid off his chair, took a cookie, and left, while his father was still saying, See here, young man. (Jackson)
the author portrays the character as one who seems to be detached from the things around him, taking no notice of his own father.However,
it is not what the boy does that proves disturbing in this story but the fact that the boy uses an imagined person to reveal his own personality to his parents. Now,
proof of this projection as it is called in psychology is the fact that Laurie refers to Charles as being a separate and different person, as in the lines describing Charles. Here the author accurately suggests that i
nstead of just using a different name or projecting his misgivings to another existing person, the protagonist creates another person in his mind and uses this Charles character to reveal himself to his parents. Now, why is this, because young boys normally are able to speak to their parents with much frankness and candor In this case,
the reader begins to question the relationship of Laurie with his parents, because if he is not able to communicate directly with them and uses a dummy to tell them things about him, then something must be wrong with his relationship with them. ...both of the stories tackled dwell on the characterization of the protagonists and
this characterization reveals that both of the characters are mentally unhealthy. In the first story, the protagonist, because of his problems with his parents, projects himself unto an imagined character, In both of the stories, the psychological make up of the characters is undeniable and the fact that both stories have been crafted really well makes these stories worth the read.
Let's watch Laurie in the Grippe story - to see if there are any signs of detachment as he grows older - If I've figured it right, he's about 10 now?
Pedln, did you notice interaction between Dad and Laurie? If there had been an "unhealthy" realtionship between the two, the father and the son - perhaps it was the temporary sort suggested in the article?
