Skip to main content

In "Charles," why did Laurie’s parents take so long to find out the truth about Charles?

There are several textual clues that can be used to support inferences as to why it took so long for Laurie's parents to discover the truth, but there is no direct statement made in the story that explains it.


The opening paragraph describes Laurie as a sweet-voiced nursery school tot who has turned into a swaggering, belt wearing boy who forgets to say goodbye to his mother. One could infer that one of the reasons the parents are slow to figure out the truth is because they are having difficulty letting go of the image of their sweet young son. They close their eyes to the changes going on in Laurie that go beyond his physical appearance.


The author gives several clues throughout the story that show that Laurie's behavior is similar to Charles's. He shouts raucously on two occasions: once on his first day home from kindergarten, and once the first day Charles has to stay after school. He speaks insolently to his father, saying "Hi pop, ya old dust mop" and telling a joke "Look up, look down, look at my thumb, gee you're dumb." He also spills his baby sister's milk. 


But because of the invention of Charles, the parents don't suspect Laurie, they simply think that Charles has been a bad influence on their son. 


It is interesting that there is no communication between adults in this situation until the PTA meeting at the conclusion of the story. The teacher doesn't call Laurie's parents to tell of his unruly behavior in school. Laurie's parents don't talk to the teacher or other school personnel about their concerns about Charles. Laurie's mother is desperate to meet Charles's mother at the PTA meeting, but she doesn't make any efforts to try to get in touch with her prior to that meeting. 


The invention of Charles appears to be the perfect ruse for Laurie to deflect the truth and consequences for his bad behavior.

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

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.
Post a Comment
Read more