In
Marina Carr’s Low in the Dark, Curtains' narration throughout the play reflects the cyclical aspect of the characters’
time. In the story, the man uses the bicycle as the means for forward movement;
however, he chooses to abandon the bicycle for the woman, which no longer
allows him to enjoy the forward movement that the bicycle offered him. The
woman is unable to move forward, which ultimately traps the man alongside her in
the cyclical time. This can be seen through the characters of Bone, who represents
the man, and Binder, who embodies the woman.
Bone,
as the embodiment of the man in the story, particularly struggles with the
notion of being trapped. Throughout his relationship with Binder, Bone is hopeful
that their relationship will not continue in its cycle. In the beginning
stages, he states, “Maybe this time she won’t go” (21). Bone is hopeful that he
will be able to get out of the cycle that he and Binder presumably had.
However, he begins with the unsure term “maybe,” which suggests that Binder
staying is only a possibility and not likely to happen. Their cyclical
relationship is echoed in Baxter’s response. He warns:
She’ll
go! You’ll pick a fight with her and she’ll go! And then we’ll run up and down
the mountains till the anger is gone. And when the anger is gone we’ll drink
until you have forgotten her. And when you’ve forgotten her, we’ll play a few
games and then you’ll start all over (21).
Baxter can predict the ending of their relationship as well
as the process that Bone will endure after it ending. Because Bone has already
begun relations with Binder, he is subjected to her cyclical time; he does not
have the opportunity to move forward without her because he previously chose to
abandon forward movement when he originally entered into a relationship with
Binder.
Bone
expresses his desire to be free when he and Baxter reenact his interaction with
Binder. He accuses Baxter, who is acting as Binder, of wanting to trap him. His
contempt with this idea is highlighted by his response saying, “I want to be
free” (42). Both Bone and the man in the story do not want to be stuck in the
trap of cyclical time. Curtains highlights the moment where the man says, “‘Woman[...]I
threw my bicycle in the ditch for you, and this is how you repay me!’” (32). This
occurs after the woman restarts their conversation after they have walked “a
million miles,” as she turns to him and greets him by saying “hello” as if they
had not just endured that experience together (27). The man clearly notices that the woman has restarted their
conversation. He is angry because he left his bicycle, his means of forward
motion, to be with the woman. Bone did the same with Binder by leaving his
single life, his metaphorical bicycle, to begin a relationship with her.
Bone’s
entrapment is reflected by the continuation of Curtains’ narration of the man.
After she seemingly ends the story by suggesting that the man and woman would
never be together, it begins again in the same way as before. At the end of the play, Curtains' story
restarts with the same plot (99, 26). At this moment, Bone has also ended his
relationship with Binder, just as Baxter predicted. This reflects the alignment
of the two stories and suggests that Bone will restart his relationship with
Binder, just as the man meets the woman again.
Your thesis is clear throughout but seems to be stated too many times. It is explicitly detailed in the last paragraph so you might want to move that to the front of your close reading. Your supporting evidence is well done and clearly shows the connection between Bone and Binder's relationship to Curtains' story. All that is left is for you to answer the so what question.
ReplyDeleteI think you'd have a stronger argument if you argued that the idea of love keeps the men in the story in a perpetual cycle. I don't think that the men necessarily want to break the cycle (Baxter and Bone's re-enactments of past relationships seem to be a perpetuation of the cycle, not an attempt at moving forward in my opinion). I also don't agree with your statement that Bone abandoned forward progress by entering a relationship with Binder, and i think his relationship with Binder does allow him to progress in a very particular way--he is allowed to partake in the experience of motherhood. I think you're on to something here, and maybe by taking Binder out of the equation (as a representative of womanhood), you'll have a stronger argument. Hope this helps you in some way!
ReplyDeleteNicole,
ReplyDeleteGreat work so far with your close reading! I can really follow your comparison of the man and woman in Curtains' story with Bone and Binder's relationship. There was one moment where you say Bone choose to abandon forward movement when entering into a relationship with Binder that I didn't quite follow. How can you prove that he chose to do this willingly? Also, I think the idea of how Curtain's narration parallels the two would be cool to incorporate more. Overall, good job!
I think that you have an interesting topic to work with here and a good start - but I'm having a hard time following your argument in a few areas. In your intro you say that the woman is unable to move forward, insinuating that she is, in a sense, responsible for trapping bone - but you never address it later on in your paper. Where is this visible within the text? Couldn't it also be bone trapping binder or a mutual entrapment? Also, the claim that bone chose to abandon forward movement when entering a relationship with binder is slightly unclear to me and I think you could explain it more to make your argument stronger. I also think that you're lacking a so what here - meaning even if you prove everything that you are saying about the cyclical and entrapping nature of the relationship between binder and bone, what does that say about relationships in general/in our society? what impact is this supposed to have on the reader? Overall I think that what you're doing is very interesting and an amazing start - so just push it a little further. Nice work.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think this is great. It's focused and makes a clear claim. I really agree with a lot that Katie had to say right above me. These small problematic moments cause hangups in the paper, so smoothing them over is going to make a great finished product. The problems brought up are good because (at least in my opinion) it means you do have a narrow focus and an interesting claim.
ReplyDeleteGood job! I think you have a clear argument and some really great supports from the play. I think you are just missing the 'so what' aspect of your argument. What is problematic about the cyclical nature of their relationship. I agree with Katie that it might be a good idea to connect this significance to relationships and our society in general.
ReplyDeleteI personally love this close reading! It really focuses on a specific point in a very abstract and challenging play. One thing I think you should add is there is one point in the play where a character knowingly states their potential "relationship" is "over before it even began." (Searched the book and couldn't find where it was, but I'll re-post it later.) This statement really stood out to me and goes along with your "cynical society" lines. Also, as others have stated connect it to our society. Keep up the good analysis though, I really like where you are going with this!
ReplyDeleteI understand you're argument about Bone embodying the man and Binder embodying the woman, but I had a somewhat hard time following along with the rest. I think you're making a different argument at the end, so somewhere in the middle there is some sort of disconnect.
ReplyDeleteI had a hard time following your argument, but that might be because I didn't understand Curtain's story throughout the play. I think you have a good start, just make sure you're explaining everything clearly. One thing I did notice is it seems to be lacking a "so what."
ReplyDeleteNicole,
ReplyDeleteI think this is great start. I think you need to talk about what aspects of a man Bone embodies and what aspects of a women binder embodies, and potentially bringing in some evidence that supports that. Once you do that I think it will be easier to follow. Great Job!
There is a difference between cyclicality and stagnancy (not that you confuse the two in your post, but just something I started thinking of while reading it); maybe that is something you could think and write about. What's the difference between the man and woman (or Bone and Binder) being permanently together forever, and being intermittently together forever? I think it's a pretty common belief that, with "on and off" relationships, each successive reunion is less ideal than the previous one, because the relationship's been jaded by the failures of the past. So it's not a perfect cycle, but one that exists forever and also degrades forever. How does that affect the reading of the play?
ReplyDeleteI hope some part of that is relevant...
This is a great start, but I, like some of the other students have commented, got a little lost as the paper went on. I think you've pointed to something really interesting in the fact that Baxter can predict how Bone and Binder's relationship will go. Maybe consider working an element of prediction into your thesis, related to how everyone in the play seems to already know the story Curtains is telling.
ReplyDeleteI think you do a good job throughout your close reading of making your point clear. However, I'm not sure I follow your argument about Binder and Bone having had any previous relationships with each other. I thought Bone's previous relationships were with different women, so this part confused me. If you could point to exact evidence for their repetitive relationship that would be helpful. Also, it might help to clarify what exactly 'forward movement' is; would it be the progression of a relationship to marriage?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah, what is significant about this repetition, this cycle? I understand that being trapped in this sort of loop is a bad thing, but what commentary is being made in the plays beyond that?
ReplyDeleteI like your argument so far. However, as others have mentioned, there is still some imperfections in your close read. My suggestion would be to focus more on if you think Bone is willingly participating in the cycle or if he truly wishes for it to end. Also, it would be beneficial to consider the implications of this cycle on the rest of the play and perhaps if it is a bad or good thing. Hope that helps! But overall, good ideas so far!
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of the prior posts about elaborating on the male and female components of the characters. Also, possibly try and bring out more of the significance of the claim you make. Overall, great start and an interesting read.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you connect the story Curtain tells with Binder and Bones. You have good evidence to show the connection, but your paper is missing the "what if." I agree with the comments above me. You have a good start though, you just need to go deeper.
ReplyDeleteI really like your comparison of the bicycle and time. I think it would be really interesting if you dug a little deeper in the the significance and meaning of the bicycle though, and exactly what Bone's bicycle was, what it meant to him, and the reasons why he threw it away in comparison to the man in the story.
ReplyDeleteI'm really enjoying this piece! I was really intrigued by this idea in the text, and you support it well through your quotes. I would love to see you take a few steps deeper and get to the "So what?" of it all. An idea like this provides a lot of room to make us think!
ReplyDeleteI like the idea you've brought up, of entrapment. You say in your thesis that the woman is unable to move forward, and how so? why cant she/binder move forward? and if Bone resents his inability to move forward, how does that affect power relations? i think if you brought this up, it might strengthen your argument. i also like how your paper has a cyclical sense to it.
ReplyDeleteThe focus of your paper is very interesting. I think explaining the significance of the bicycle would help make your argument stronger. Also, as others have said, digging deeper into the 'so what' aspect of your claim would help your paper as well. Good start!
ReplyDeleteI personally love your paper! You clearly stated your argument and supported it throughout. You chose good quotes and analyzed them well. I felt like you do have a "so what?" because since Bones continues in the cycle he cannot be free. Good job :)
ReplyDeleteNicole,
ReplyDeleteYou have a great paper with good focus, but I think that you get away from your thesis a bit at times. Staying more focused on that thesis will really improve the overall quality of this essay.
I think you have a very concise point that when paired with the refinement that others have suggested can give you a really solid foundation to build off of. I think you could stand to use a bit more textual evidence throughout your paper to help solidify what you are arguing.
ReplyDeleteYou have a great start! This piece truly illuminates an aspact that might be glossed over. I think digging deeper into the gender relations will make the "so what" stand out. I think with more unpacking this wil be a great essay!
ReplyDeleteNicole,
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very promising piece, but there are a few things that you could strengthen. First, I think you should delve deeper into the comment you make that says, "The woman is unable to move forward." WHY is it that the woman cannot move forward? Is it significant that the man has the means (the bicycle, which he abandons) but the woman does not? Perhaps this could provide you with a start to a "so what factor" and further analyze the implications of your argument. I also think you could be a bit more clear in some portions of your argument. It's easy to get confused between the Bone/Binder story and Curtains' story, so you could work on differentiating the two a little better. I think it's also important to consider that while Bone represents the man in the story, his gender role is reversed quite a bit in the play. Overall, I think this is a well-written piece with great ideas. Push it a little further and you're on your way to a 4.0!
I think you have an interesting start. I would suggest refining your thesis. I think an argument that is more argumentative would be a more arguable way to go. Rather than talking about how he/she has lost his movement, I may concentrate on why that is significant, and what the relation with the female embodiment means. Just a suggestion. Then, I think the chunk quote that is in there, is not unpacked. It is almost in there as proof that the entrapment happens, but if your argument were more altered ever so slightly, the quote would become easier to analyze for significance and creating a so what. Good start, and very interesting choice!
ReplyDeleteI agree with the others, I think you have an interesting idea that could be refined and delved into a bit more. Nice start!
ReplyDelete