Skip to main content

Who would the antagonist be in "A Piece of Steak"?

At first glance, it may seem as though Sandel, the fighter who opposes Tom King, is the antagonist of the story. Roughly two-thirds into the story, it even states 



The third round began as usual, with Sandel doing all the leading, and delivering all the punishment. 



However, even though Tom King does not fight back, it turns out Sandel is not the true antagonist of "A Piece of Steak," as evidenced by this quote a little bit further on:



His gloves had already been removed, and Sandel, bending over him, was shaking his hand. He bore no ill-will toward the man who had put him out and he returned the grip with a heartiness that made his battered knuckles protest.



"A Piece of Steak" is atypical of many stories because it does not have a person who is the antagonist; instead, the antagonist is simply old age. In the beginning of the story, Tom King sees Stowsher Bill crying in the dressing room and cannot fathom why such a prized fighter would be bent over in tears. 


As the story continues, however, it becomes evident that Tom King is no longer in his prime. Though he was once the best fighter in the world, age and time have caught up to him. Toward the end of the story, it states:



King did not attempt to free himself. He had shot his bolt. He was gone. And Youth had been served. Even in the clinch he could feel Sandel growing stronger against him. When the referee thrust them apart, there, before his eyes, he saw Youth recuperate.



This shows that it doesn't really matter who the opponent is—youth will always prevail. The fact that the word "Youth" is capitalized throughout the story shows that it holds a place of reverence, and Tom King realizes that he has lost his somewhere along the way. It is his turn to become the once-prized fighter, bent over in the dressing room in tears. 

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