I really like drawing things back to the struggle between safety and freedom--two opposing ideals that must be chosen between. I talked about this dynamic in regards to The Bell Jar, and was also quite struck by it towards the beginning of Housekeeping. Sylvia and Sylvie seem to embody the two ideals of safety and freedom (Sylvia is safety and Sylvie is freedom). I think the beauty of their lives is that they are both very happy, but neither would be at all happy living how the other lived.
Sylvia and Sylvie are both similar in many ways. They are both happy because they know what makes them happy and they do it. They both seem to be obeying the law of inertia. And they both seem to force their lifestyle upon the kids they are in charge of. I wrote the last similarity earlier in the novel, but just now I realized that while they are also teaching their kids to do what they love. Just because Sylvia lives a sedentary lifestyle does not stop Sylvie from being transient, and Sylvie's transience does not stop Lucille from being sedentary. It seems that either finding your niche (coming of age) is inevitable, or having a parent that does what they love is good guidance and helps kids find what they love, even if it is different.
Sylvia embodies safety, and she does this though having a rigid routine, one which hardly alters even at the death of her husband. She is able to fall into this routine and it makes time appear to stop (she can imagine living with her kids forever). This does make it harder for her when her kids leave, but I think that if she had worried about that possibility it would have eroded the safety that she feels. Her life works for her because she always does the same thing, and she knows that one thing (housekeeping) fits what she wants to do. She is able to get over her husband's death because she can continue with the routine of her life, and act like nothing has changed. By following this safe routine, Sylvia does not have to ever think.
Sylvia embodies freedom by having no routine. She ever worries, but merely takes everything she encounters in stride. Her life seems to be difficult, especially given our traditional values, but it always works out for her. She becomes very resourceful, and is able to tackle all tasks that present themselves. Although she has no routine, she has gotten so used to dealing with new situations that overcoming the unexpected almost becomes a routine for her.
Sylvie's lifestyle appeals more to me personally, but for I do not think that neither safety or freedom is better than the other in an absolute sense. I think Sylvie realizes this (shown in her interaction with Lucille). I am not so sure that Ruth does at the end of the book, although she appears to for most of it (I discussed this in my last blog post if you are interested).
Do y'all understand what I am trying to get at with the whole safety versus freedom dynamic, and do you think that Sylvia and Sylvie are good personifications of it?
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Is there loss associated with coming of age?
I have been thinking about a lot of different things as we have read Housekeeping, and have though of many different topics I would like to explore further. This is mainly because I relate very much to Sylvie and Ruth, and have enjoyed the novel immensely, especially the more philosophical aspects. However, a topic that I want to explore here was raised on our last day of discussion, and I think that I would like to explore it further in a reflective response paper, so here goes:
Is there any loss associated with coming of age? I mean this particularly regarding empathy. Do you lose the ability to empathize deeply with those different from you when you come of age? Do you have to think that the path you chose is the absolute best path? Must you feel superior? Must you lose sight of all other options once you have chosen yours?
One thing that I really liked about Ruth and Sylvie were that they were so very accepting of other ways of life. When Lucille chose to leave, they both let her, knowing that what she did was best for her. This only made me like Lucille less when she didn't trust Ruth to be able to find her own way, and tried to convince her to leave Sylvie as well. Being quite relativistic in my outlooks, I think it is awesome that Sylvie let the children under her care discover the people they wanted to be, and accepted that no one future was objectively the best, but that it was a personal choice, and had to match each person's character. Ruth seems to understand this as well.
Unfortunately, after Ruth fully comes of age by crossing the bridge and leaving Fingerbone, she seems to lose sight of this acceptance, and appears to believe that her way of life is objectively greater than any others, instead of just the best way of life for her. Ruth seems to really pity Lucille for her way of life, just as Lucille pities transients. Before Ruth came of age she seemed to accept both as understandable (at least theoretically), although she was much more drawn to Sylvie's transiency. The book ends with Ruth feeling bad for Lucille, and though it is not like Ruth went up to Lucille and say "ha look I am super happy you aren't transience is superior to housekeeping or whatever boom I'm right you're wrong ha ha ha," Ruth's pity does imply a feeling of superiority, because it means she cannot imagine someone enjoying a lifestyle that is not her own.
One line that really drew this out for me was when--in the ridiculously symbolic ending to Housekeeping--Ruth commented that she could no longer see her old house from the train tracks as they rode past. To me, the symbolizes the fact that she has lost sight of what that life could have been, and can no longer understand the appeal of housekeeping.
Due to these developments, I began to like and sympathize with Ruth less after she came of age--though Sylvie still seems pretty bomb. If loss of empathy with other people and failure to accept or understand their life choices is a necessary part of completely choosing the lifestyle best for you and following it (my rough definition of coming of age) I can understand much more why Holden was so against the idea. Although I am not so sure that this is what he had in mind exactly when Holden tried to avoid growing up, it does seem to understandable factor in to his dislike of grownups, even if he does not specifically point to it as a cause. What do y'all think about that? Are there any other things you think I should take into account if I write a paper on this?
Is there any loss associated with coming of age? I mean this particularly regarding empathy. Do you lose the ability to empathize deeply with those different from you when you come of age? Do you have to think that the path you chose is the absolute best path? Must you feel superior? Must you lose sight of all other options once you have chosen yours?
One thing that I really liked about Ruth and Sylvie were that they were so very accepting of other ways of life. When Lucille chose to leave, they both let her, knowing that what she did was best for her. This only made me like Lucille less when she didn't trust Ruth to be able to find her own way, and tried to convince her to leave Sylvie as well. Being quite relativistic in my outlooks, I think it is awesome that Sylvie let the children under her care discover the people they wanted to be, and accepted that no one future was objectively the best, but that it was a personal choice, and had to match each person's character. Ruth seems to understand this as well.
Unfortunately, after Ruth fully comes of age by crossing the bridge and leaving Fingerbone, she seems to lose sight of this acceptance, and appears to believe that her way of life is objectively greater than any others, instead of just the best way of life for her. Ruth seems to really pity Lucille for her way of life, just as Lucille pities transients. Before Ruth came of age she seemed to accept both as understandable (at least theoretically), although she was much more drawn to Sylvie's transiency. The book ends with Ruth feeling bad for Lucille, and though it is not like Ruth went up to Lucille and say "ha look I am super happy you aren't transience is superior to housekeeping or whatever boom I'm right you're wrong ha ha ha," Ruth's pity does imply a feeling of superiority, because it means she cannot imagine someone enjoying a lifestyle that is not her own.
One line that really drew this out for me was when--in the ridiculously symbolic ending to Housekeeping--Ruth commented that she could no longer see her old house from the train tracks as they rode past. To me, the symbolizes the fact that she has lost sight of what that life could have been, and can no longer understand the appeal of housekeeping.
Due to these developments, I began to like and sympathize with Ruth less after she came of age--though Sylvie still seems pretty bomb. If loss of empathy with other people and failure to accept or understand their life choices is a necessary part of completely choosing the lifestyle best for you and following it (my rough definition of coming of age) I can understand much more why Holden was so against the idea. Although I am not so sure that this is what he had in mind exactly when Holden tried to avoid growing up, it does seem to understandable factor in to his dislike of grownups, even if he does not specifically point to it as a cause. What do y'all think about that? Are there any other things you think I should take into account if I write a paper on this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)