Skip to main content

In "Thank You, M'am" how is the $10 Mrs. Jones gives Roger actually quite a sacrifice?

The main character in Langston Hughes' short story “Thank You, M'am” doesn't have much, other than a big body and an even bigger name: Mrs. Luella Bates Washington Jones. That's why the end of the story is such an ironic surprise to the reader.


When Roger, the young thief, turns to leave, Mrs. Jones gives him $10 and tells him to buy himself some blue suede shoes, which was what he tried to steal the money for in the first place. Ten dollars doesn't sound like much, especially today. But to give it some perspective, let's look at what prices were like when this story was published, in 1958. In 1958 the average price of a loaf of bread was 19 cents, a gallon of gas was 25 cents, and a postage stamp was 4 cents. Minimum wage at that time was $1.00 an hour.


So let's look at it this way, in giving Roger $10, Mrs. Jones has given him the equivalent of 50 loaves of bread, or 40 gallons of gas, or 250 postage stamps. We don't know how much money Mrs. Jones made in the hotel beauty shop, but she probably worked for something around minimum wage, which means she may have given Roger more than a full day's wages after he attempted to steal from her in the street.


We should also look at how Hughes describes the setting of where she lives. He establishes her precarious financial situation when he tells the reader that she was a “roomer,” which means she rented a room, not an entire apartment. She has a hot plate and an ice box, instead of more expensive appliances like a stove or refrigerator. She also has a day-bed, which is a bed that can convert to a couch, because she doesn't have enough space for both.


Ten dollars was no small sum for someone in Mrs. Jones situation. Her gift to Roger was generous, both financially and morally.  

Comments

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 ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.