Skip to main content

In "Once Upon a Time," do the husband and the wife cause their own tragedy?

Looking at the story, it is difficult to argue that the husband and wife were not at least partially responsible for the death of their son. Their fear of "people of another color" leads them to put up outlandish and ineffective security measures; unaware of the lethal nature of some of the measures after a childhood surrounded by them, the son decides to play a game within the vicious teeth of the wire coil. And yet it is obviously not by design that the son dies, and so the question still remains: is it their fault?


To decide whether the husband and wife caused their own downfall, let's take a look at the foreshadowing in the story to see where the author intended for the blame to be placed.


The first element of foreshadowing is present on the sign that the homeowners association provides for the gate: YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. The reader is meant to see these words and recognize that the family has begun to walk an unwise path. It is a rather odd phrase to put on a sign, after all, and therefore it makes sense that it must serve another purpose during the story.


Later, it is revealed that the son regards the security measures as toys:



The little boy was fascinated by the device and used it as a walkie-talkie in cops and robbers play with his small friends.



Playing with an intercom is not a worrisome act in itself, but it shows that the son is too comfortable with the security measures. He does not see them as precautions but rather as toys. He is only a child and cannot be blamed for such things, but the practice does not appear to be discouraged.


The next bit of foreshadowing occurs in conjunction with the installation of the wire coil: the security company who installs it is called DRAGON'S TEETH, a name that brings the reader back to the theme of fairy tales.


Finally, the "wise old witch," the husband's mother, brings the family gifts in the form of bricks for the wall and a book of fairy tales for the boy. The “wise old witch” is a reflection of the South African government, which promoted racially-based hatred and irrational hysteria; that she provides both the inciting action and the means of the downfall places a fair proportion of the blame not only on the character in the story but on the government in Gordimer’s allegory.


So whose fault is it, in the end? It is accurate to say that the man and wife caused their own downfall, having fallen victim to hysteria and installed the lethal fence, but to say that they alone caused their son’s death is to place too much importance on them. The “wise old witch” is just as much a contributing factor, and ultimately the various causes are inseparable: fear begets fear and hatred begets hatred until atrocity occurs.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more