In life, one thing that we all have in common is the search for answers. We want to know why things happen. We want to know what to do. We want to know the future. And, most importantly, we want to know why we don’t know. We all want answers, but our methods of finding them are very different. Some people answer a question through research, others would rather just guess. Some people talk through their answers, others keep their thoughts to themselves. Sometimes circumstances will cause us to change the way that we answer a question or solve a problem. I know that through my own experiences that I respond differently to problems and questions when I am under a lot of stress. As I was reading Raymond Carver’s “Popular Mechanics” I took particular note of the way that the characters were behaving. It seemed to me that the main character’s situation was causing him to react differently. If he had really wanted custody of the baby, I would think that the couple would have discussed the matter before he started to pack up his things. In my opinion the main character’s situation, the taunting from his wife, caused him to behave differently than he would have under more normal circumstances.
In my opinion, the literary element that is most crucial to the story “Popular Mechanics” is irony. The story itself is very short, and the reader does not get much insight into the lives of the characters, but the irony found in the last sentence gives the story the same amount of, if not more, power than a longer, more intricate story. Honestly, I am a bit torn by exactly what the author meant to communicate through the irony. On the one hand the entire point of the story could be very simple. The irony could be found in the fact that both parents wanted custody of the child and their struggle to obtain it is what lead to the unfortunate solution to the problem. This is the obvious way to look at the story, two parents, each fighting desperately for their child until their efforts solve the problem by killing him. This was what I had thought that the author wanted to communicate through the story at first. When I read it a second time a thought occurred to me. Maybe the man did not actually want to keep the baby, maybe he wanted to hurt his wife. She was the one taunting him and telling him to leave, could it be that he wanted revenge? There would really be no better way to get back at the woman than to take away her child. If this is the case, then the point that author is trying to communicate is very different. If the irony is simply that the fight kills the child, then both parents would be equally effected. On the other hand if the man wanting custody of the child was a form of revenge, then emotionally both parents might be affected equally but the death of the child would be more of a lesson for the wife. Ultimately it was her behavior that caused the fight that killed her baby.
The thing that I found most intriguing about the story was the man leaving. I constantly wondered why. What do you think happened? Was it a slow steady build of things that finally sent him over the edge or was it a quick reaction to a one-time argument or problem?
I found myself wondering the same things. I did wonder what had gone on between these two, I did wonder if this had been a quick decision at the end of a petty argument. The problem is that the story is so vague about any information that would give relevent clues about details of what was happening. The story focuses on what is happening at that moment and doesn't give the reader(us) any room for judgement one way or another. However, what I got from the story was that these two people were at the beginning of the end, or at their resolution point and they have now just created more turmoil and chaos for themselves.
ReplyDeleteCarver leaves this story very vague when it comes to the background details of the couple. We are only told that they are fighting, but never why. I believe Carver does this because he does not think that these details are important to the core meaning of his story. I think he leaves this out in an attempt to get his readers to focus on the meaning behind the story, and not the details of the actual plot.
ReplyDeleteI think that they have been fighting for some time now, but something just triggered the final straw that caused this outburst. I picked this up through his relations of looking at the snow melting, which takes time not instantaneously.
ReplyDeleteHi Mejan,
ReplyDeleteI think the whole story speaks to the selfishness of today's relationships. In a world where divorce is so common because we are a society that puts ourselves number one over the planet, our community and even our own families we leave and not only leave, but tear apart the children we are supposed to protect. It takes two people to separate, but only one person to put the childs needs above their own and do what is best for the child instead of what they selfishly insist on having all to themselves.