In Frank Norris’ Fantaisie Printaniere, the topic of wife-beating is once again the main focus of the short story. One of the main connections this text made with our prior readings was through its usage of low-income and poorly educated characters in the story. The fact that the two male characters in the story are both unemployed and alcoholics is made clear early on in the story. It seems that unemployment and alcoholism are reoccurring themes in our readings.
Another connection between Norris’ story and other texts we have read about domestic violence is that the women clearly lack an education. I find this annoying because it seems as though that the woman’s intelligence level is used as an excuse for her bad treatment. In this case, the author obviously went out of his way to make it known that the women were uneducated. For example, “’Ah, yes," said Trina loftily, "little scars, little flesh wounds like that! You never had any bones brokun. Just look at that thumb," she went on proudly "Mac did that with just a singul grip of his fist. I can't nevur bend it again’”(Norris 3). Here Norris purposely misspells words and uses poor grammar like double negatives, not to mention that the women are arguing about which one received a harder beating. This is a stark difference from the narrated parts of the story. For example, “The fact of the matter was that the night before Ryer had come home sober and had found occasion to coerce Missis Ryer with a trunk−strap. By a curious coincidence McTeague had come home drunk the same evening, and for two hours Trina had been hard put to it to dodge his enormous fists and his hurled boots” (Norris 2). Here, the author uses much more educated language almost to separate himself from the situation at hand. The deep contrast between the slang used by the characters and the eloquence used by the narrator make me question whether or not the author is suggesting domestic violence exclusively occurs in “poor dumb” families.
Fantaisie Printaniere is an entertaining yet sad story about wife-beating. However, the fact that it was obviously written by an educated person about uneducated people takes away a lot of the author’s credibility in my opinion. It seems that because the characters are “stereotypically poor” and “stereotypically stupid”, their actions are justifiable and almost expected. I find this to be sad, and I hope that our future readings will finally break this stereotype.
Trevor, I found your perspective really interesting. I think your observations are thought provoking, and one thing you could fine-tune would be your stating of an argument. Instead of "I find this annoying..." you could maybe frame it as "Norris's characters create a gap between the reader and the text and because of that..." I think this would guide the paper a little more specifically.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I find your premise a little flawed, in that I don't think that Norris is using the fact that his characters are poor and uneducated to "justify" anything. It seems as though you're concerned with the fact that the things we've been reading have been so focused on lower class people, when the same type of abuse occurred in other classes of people as well, which is a valid concern.
ReplyDeleteYour argument centers around the fact that Norris' characters speak in a dialect, which is written out phonetically, but I think that you're grasping at straws to say that in doing so Norris is judging his characters. The way I see it, as people who are legitimately poor and uneducated, that's simply the way they speak. Dickens and Twain wrote dialogue in dialect as well, but that doesn't mean that Dickens was judging Oliver Twist and justifying his position in life by the way he talks.
Trevor, I agree with your overall message that Norris, similar to many other authors we have read thus far, portrays domestic violence in the lower class from an upper class perspective. However, I have to disagree with you when you say that the author is trying to highlight ONLY the women's lack of intelligence through the broken dialogue. In reality, this is probably one of the points Norris is trying to get at, but we don't know what the male characters speech sounds like because it isn't present. Isn't it possible that they speak just as much slang or broken English as their wives? Overall, I like your argument and curiosity about further readings the response just needs some development!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think your response provides good insight into the gap created by an author who is educated writing about an uneducated lower class. Obviously for some others, like Cobbe, this creates a distinct classist bias in their writing. For Norris though, I wonder if his writing, which you point out 'goes out of its way' to make obvious the lack of education is more predicated on that fact that he wants to enlighten readers to how ridiculous their own personal stereotypes of the lower class are.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was an interesting point. I also noticed the lower class vernacular that the women used but didn't think much about it until I read your post. I especially like your point about the distance between the women's language and the narrator's language. I think you could definitely expand upon your idea about the "deep contrast" between the characters and the narrator's language.
ReplyDeleteThis was an interesting argument that you have made, but of course you used examples from the text to support what you wanted to say. I would make your first paragraph focus more on the argument itself rather than the readings we are doing in this course. It is a good comparison that you are making, but it draws away from what you want to say later on in your essay. I thought your last paragraph brought out many interesting points about how the author uses educated language and the characters are using slang. Your argument brings up a point that many can overlook, but when reading over the language itself, one can see that there is a difference between how the author writes and how he has the characters speak.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel like you are trying to tackle a lot of topics here. It seems that you touch on the issue of classism that we have been talking about in class (that domestic violence takes place only amongst the poor and uneducated) as well as the portrayal of the abused women as uneducated themselves - hinting at the issue of blame. I, personally, am more interested in your reading of the women as uneducated and, thus, (according to the piece) deserving of abuse than I am the other,as it would begin a discussion of "fault". Either way, I would say, choose one and discuss it more thoroughly so that your entry feels more developed.
ReplyDeleteI think you're getting at something really interesting here by exploring the question (and perhaps the stereotype) of whether or not domestic violence really is more common among lower-class individuals.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think this post falls short of really digging into that question. If Norris really is presenting the idea that the poor and the uneducated experience domestic violence more often, what do you make of the weirdness surrounding the progression of the argument between the two women? Is it possible that the story is meant more as a satirized depiction of one of the excuses used to justify wife beating? And if so, how would that effect our reading of the story?
I agree with many of the statements already written in response to your work. Your paper deals with the subjects of classism and stereotypes, and I think your most intriguing point lies within the treatment of the women being portrayed as "stereotypically stupid" by a more educated-sounding narrator. In the short story, both husbands are revealed to have committed some kind of fraud in terms of their respective businesses. McTeague, in particular, lies about his education in order to hold a better place in society--could the narrator be doing the same thing?
ReplyDeleteAlso, your phrase of, "I find this annoying because it seems as though that the woman’s intelligence level is used as an excuse for her bad treatment." would read better if written, "...intelligence level is offered as an explanation for her bad treatment" or "...intelligence level justifies her bad treatment"
You have good ideas and you're making good connections, but you need to go further into analyzing those and developing a thesis. Remember that this is a close reading, not a string of observations. I think bringing in another text for comparison could make a really strong essay, but you need to bring in specifics instead of generalizing. If you want to focus on class (which seems to be your main argument, that socioeconomic status effects the amount of domestic violence), then bring in the Cobbe article (or a different text you feel supports this) and use quotations from that text as well to illuminate your reading of Fantaisie.
ReplyDeleteAlso, make sure you're not guessing what the author's intention was for writing what's written. Instead, focus on what IS written, and use that to develop your claim.
The relationship between class and brutality is an interesting topic to explore. I think if you focus more on analyzing how the text (or texts) illuminate this issue, and develop your thoughts into a clear and focused argument, you'll do great. Try to avoid writing in first person. Although this is a blog, it's still important to be formal and make a claim.
Your argument doesn't seem to fully appear until the second paragraph, but in such a short close reading I think it's important to present your thesis at the very beginning so you can go straight into analyzing the text. You do a good job of exploring the implications of your claim, but I think if you added some more analysis for the quotes you could pull out a stronger proof for your argument.
ReplyDeleteTo make your argument strong you should stay away from words like "seem", you should be confident in the connections you are making. I also think you should expand on the quotation you used. The quotation is so large that I think you should spend more time on it, or shorten the quotation. I also think you need to narrow down your argument, you are jumping around a lot.
ReplyDeleteAs some others have commented, I feel as though your thesis is buried. The last two sentences really tell me about what your trying to argue, which change the way I read the piece entirely. You make a generalizations that alcoholism and unemployment are reoccurring themes and then shift your view to how under educated women are also prevalent in the story. It might be worth removing the alcoholism and unemployment statement entirely and focusing solely on developing your argument about unemployment.
ReplyDeleteYou're headed in a good direction by questioning the stereotypes of those in low-income families. There is an array of examples throughout our reading that perpetuates these generalizations on the poorer members of different societies. Perhaps focus on one of the stereotypes in the short story (speech patterns, alcoholism, unemployment, etc) and frame your argument on what its purpose is.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this post was a vent session, and I enjoyed that! Add some more structure and a clearer focus, and it would be very interesting. You touch on several issues, unemployment and alcoholism in the first paragraph, then lack of education and classism in the rest. I would suggest that you look at where you are at the end of your post, and start from there -- you could give more attention to classism and unjust stereotypes, which is what you discuss for the bulk of your writing.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a disconnect between your first paragraph and the rest of your short essay. The second paragraph could have been broken up into two paragraphs in order to keep the flow of your paper. Toward the end of the second paragraph I felt that you became a tad redundant and sounded more of a summary. I like how you mention that the language the narrator uses separates himself from the situation at hand in which he is an outsider looking in.
ReplyDeleteI liked that you were honest in your opinions about the text. I think your essay could be interesting if you focused on challenging the author's credibility to such a topic, such as how he came to have knowledge of these kinds of behaviours. this might be too involved a focus for such a short piece, but it could be neat for a longer essay
ReplyDeleteTrevor, you raise an interesting perspective by using the narrator's diction vs. the character's diction to bring out the socioeconomic stereotypes which are enforced by this piece. However, the paper does not have a clear thesis, and therefore struggles with organizational issues. The essay begins with discussing how this piece is similar to other works we've read in class, and ends talking about stereotyping in Fantaisie Printaniere. With a clearer thesis this paper will find more focus. Also, it would be interesting if you used some of the other works we've read in class, given that they are mentioned in the first and final paragraphs.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI could not find an argument until the very end, but it was not well developed. Your argument should be stated in the first paragraph and your evidence should come after. Also try to avoid phrases with first person like, "I find this annoying" because it is distracting to the reader. Just stating your opinion does not matter you need to form your argument around evidence and analysis. Also eliminate the filler words and it should flow better.
ReplyDeleteYou highlight an interesting topic involving Norris's writing. However, I think your argument was a little hard to find and a little confusing. I think if you spent time working on your wording and more analysis of the quotes you provide, you would have a stronger argument. Doing this, readers would have an easier time finding the point of your close read along with evidence supporting the claim you make.
ReplyDeleteI think you argument is on the right track but needs some fine tuning to be fully functional. Delving into the class structure of these separate couples is a new approach that I find interesting. But I don't believe that their is anything in the text that justifies their beatings. You can argue that the men blame their positions in society to why they feel the need to beat their wives. If you did take that path, it would be interesting to the struggle of power both inside and out of the relationship.
ReplyDeleteI like the direction of your topic, and the topic itself. I especially like your last few sentences in the third paragraph where you question Norris and whether he is connecting domestic violence exclusively to "poor, dumb" families. To strengthen your paper, you could possibly delve into some outside information, or something from Domestic Tyranny, that would counteract this statement.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your connection between Frank Norris' story and our past texts. I didn't really think of it as an educated person implying that uneducated people who are poor should be expected to have domestic violence in their families and that this is acceptable but after reading your close reading of the article I found this to be a very interesting point. When reworking your close reading I might bring in some evidence from our past readings to support the overarching theme that you mentioned.
ReplyDeleteI like the direction of your topic. I also read this and thought that this story strengthened the stereotypes of domestic violence. I think the only thing you need to mention is why these stereotypes are untrue. I think you should mention that domestic is not limited to the poor, that it also is prevalent in upper class too.
ReplyDeleteI think you pose a valid argument yet finding a thesis would help your argument and unpacking each quote would also make it easier to follow and find places where the reader can either agree or disagree with the points made. This blog seems to just tell us what happens within the texts rather than showing us and explaining its relevance to both the goals of the text and your argument.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting argument with good use of evidence. I liked that you talked about the women's intelligence and how it connects with the perception of bad treatment. I also liked how you brought in outside sources besides the story to strengthen your argument. One thing I would change add some background to the class during the time period as it would help make the author's intelligence more pronounced.
ReplyDeleteI understand where you are coming from with this argument, however I don't particularly understand why you presented your position in this manner. When reading this I felt that this was more of a judgment made about the author's own personal opinions, instead of being in the spirit of a close reading and focusing on the text itself. You should focus more on what is going on within the story, instead of just about the appearance or the vernacular that the author decided to write it in.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting the way you found victim blaming occurring in the story and felt that the wives appear to be being blamed for the abuse they incur due to their lack of education. However, I would question whether or not the author chose to write the dialogue of the women in a way to represent them as being uneducated or simply to indicate a certain dialect or vernacular which he could have intended to lead readers to other implications not regarding a lack of education of the women speakers.
ReplyDeleteYour paper has a clear focus around the role low-income and poorly educated characters play in developing texts involving wife-beating; however, I had a very difficult time picking out an "argument" per say. To me, it felt a lot more like opinion. And while you did cite the text in many instances (nice job on that), I find the logic a little flawed. Specifically, I question your use of the women's dialogue within the story to demonstrate a low of level of education on three main counts: First, I disagree on the basis that Norris is writing dialogue reflecting the women's speech patterns and vernacular -- not their spelling. Second, I disagree on the basis that "poor grammar" is necessarily indicative of lower education. Thirdly, I disagree that the women arguing about which one received the harder beating makes them uneducated. Overall, I feel you have picked a rather controversial argument -- which is actually great! But it does mean that you really need to back up your ideas and explain them to convince the reader.
ReplyDelete