Skip to main content

What was the real reason Kikuji was asked to go to the tea ceremony in "Thousand Cranes"?

In the story, Kikuji was invited to the tea ceremony by Kurimoto Chikako, his father's (Mr. Mitani's) one-time mistress. Kurimoto invited Kikuji because she wanted him to meet a young lady who was taking ceremonial tea lessons from her. In reality, Kurimoto had arranged the miai (or prospective bride-viewing) to spite Mrs. Ota, who was also another of Mr. Mitani's mistresses.


Kurimoto's jealousy was predicated on the fact that Mr. Mitani had left her for Mrs. Ota when he was alive. Accordingly, Mr. Mitani reportedly kept Mrs. Ota as his mistress until the day he died, while Kurimoto was relegated to the background as a sexless but "convenient fixture." To act insult to injury (where Kurimoto was concerned), Mrs. Ota stayed youthful-looking and beautiful even as she, Kurimoto, struggled to embrace her ambiguous feminine identity.


When she made her invitation to Kikuji, Kurimoto understood that Mrs. Ota and her daughter would be in attendance. Nevertheless, Kurimoto reveled in her ability to upstage Mrs. Ota; she wanted to show her nemesis that she still had some influence over Kikuji's life. As if to indicate her spiteful intentions, Kurimoto used a specific tea bowl to serve Miss Inamura. Miss Inamura was the girl Kikuji was supposed to meet; she wore a thousand-crane scarf to the tea ceremony. The bowl itself had been initially owned by Mr. Ota. Upon Mr. Ota's death, the bowl was inherited by Mrs. Ota; she later gave the tea bowl to old Mr. Mitani (her lover). Mr. Mitani then gifted the bowl to Kurimoto Chikako. Essentially, Kurimoto's use of the tea bowl was a tactless move on her part.


So, the real reason Kikuji was invited to the tea ceremony had very little to do with courtesy. Kurimoto ostensibly invited Kikuji so that he could meet with Miss Inamura. However, Kurimoto's real intentions were to make Mrs. Ota jealous of the supposed influence she still has in Kikuji's life.

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