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

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