Skip to main content

In Tuck Everlasting, why is the cottage considered a "touch-me-not" cottage?

The touch-me-not cottage is the house that the Foster family lives in.  It is called the touch-me-not cottage because everything appears so incredibly neat and ordered that to touch anything might mess up the perfection.  That's the main reason why people actively avoid the Foster cottage.  The house is uninviting because of its perfection.  



On the left stood the first house, a square and solid cottage with a touch-me-not appearance, surrounded by grass cut painfully to the quick and enclosed by a capable iron fence some four feet high which clearly said, "Move on—we don't want you here."



Winnie herself feels stifled in her own home.  It's why she is contemplating running away.  Later, when she finally arrives at the Tuck household, she is amazed as the disarray of everything.  She is not disgusted or appalled at the Tuck household though.  On the contrary, she is amazed at how welcoming it feels.  It feels like a family lives there, loves living there, and loves living there together.  


The "touch-me-not" motif has been borrowed and used in other books and movies too.  In Gary Schmidt's book The Wednesday Wars, Holling Hoodhood lives in "the perfect house."  Everything is so neatly ordered and placed for the proper appearance that Holling is not allowed to play and be a kid in his own home.  It's not an inviting place.  The film Ferris Bueller's Day Off  does the same thing with Cameron's house.  Here is what Ferris has to say about Cameron's house. 



"The place is like a museum. It's very beautiful and very cold, and you're not allowed to touch anything."



In all of those cases, the "touch-me-not" concept is meant to highlight a very unwelcoming aura about the location.  In each case, a perfect looking house doesn't always indicate a perfect home and family on the inside. 

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