The Difference Between 3 and 2

From the beginning of the book, Self-Help by Lorrie Moore clearly displayed a very unique and interesting writing style. Many of Moore’s stories in this collection were written in second person, which for me was an unusual point of view to write a narrative from. As I was reading these stories, I noticed that sometimes I would read a story and not even realize that it was written in second person. One example of this was when I read the short story “Amahl and the Night Visitors: A Guide to the Tenor of Love”. This story is clearly written in the second person, as the reader is the main character in the story. But somehow I managed to read the entire story feeling as if I was a spectator, watching these events play out before me. I read the story seeing this conflict between Trudy and Moss, not even realizing that I was Trudy in the story. I think the reason why I was able to read the whole story like a third person narrative was because of how often Trudy’s name appeared. The character that I was supposed to be had a name and was referred to as Trudy often, which confused me into thinking that this was not a second person narrative. However once I found out that this indeed was a second person narrative, my perspective on the story changed completely.

After realizing that this story was written in second person, I was shocked and I went back to reread the story keeping this in mind. I found that the experience was entirely different the second time around when I read the story as it should have been read in the first place. I learned that the second person narrative made the story itself much more engaging. When I read the story as if I were a spectator, I didn’t feel very invested in the characters, as I had nothing to do with them at all. Trudy’s problems and doubts about her husband were her problems, not mine. I was watching someone struggling with their own difficulties, and my only job was to hear out her story. But when I read the story keeping in mind that I was Trudy, Trudy’s problems and doubts became my own, and I felt responsible for the different choices that I made in the story. Reading this story with me in Trudy’s shoes provided a much more immersive experience. I was able to sympathize more with the thoughts that Trudy had and choices that she made, as I realized that I might not act very differently under such circumstances.

Overall, I learned a lot about the second person narrative through “Amahl and the Night Visitors” and the collection as a whole. I realized how much more interesting a story can be just by changing the point of view. I never knew that you could write such great stories using the second person. The immersive and engaging experience that a second person narrative provides truly makes it a special style of writing. Did others really enjoy the way that Lorrie Moore used the second person? Do you agree that it was much more engaging than if the story had been written in third person?

Did Teddy Really Die?

From what I have heard and read in class discussions and on the blogs, I think most of us agree that Teddy did in fact die at the end of the story. Obviously there is a lot of evidence that points to this conclusion within the story. However I think that it is possible to make an argument using Teddy’s own ideas that Teddy did not die. I’m not trying to say that I believe this, but rather I bring this up merely as an interesting debate topic. I (like everyone else) agree that Teddy did die. But if Teddy himself were to read this story, I think that he might come to a different conclusion than what most of us did.

Recall Teddy talking about the orange peels early on in the story. Teddy was very intrigued by the orange peels and the fact that if he hadn’t seen them, he wouldn’t know about them, which means he wouldn’t be able to say that they even exist. He also says later on that when he leaves this room, he may only exist in the minds of his acquaintances. The idea that Teddy brings up here is similar to that of the falling tree in the forest: If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound? This philosophical question essentially strikes at whether or not reality requires perception. If no one was able to witness an event, did it actually, in fact, occur? Let’s go back to Teddy’s “death” scene. We never see Teddy die and neither does Bob Nicholson. The only person that we know of that could have seen Teddy die was the owner of the screaming voice. But we can’t say that for sure either. So the question is this: If reality is dependent on perception, then since nobody witnessed Teddy’s death, did Teddy really die? Or even if someone else perceived Teddy’s death, is his death then only real in the sense that the one who sees this perceives it to be real? Remember Teddy’s story of Sven and his dog. Teddy said that if Sven dreams that his dog died, then the death would not be real when he woke up. But if Sven’s dog died in real life, then it would only be real to Sven until he dies. Sven’s dog’s death is only reality while Sven, living, thinks that it is real. If this is true, then even if Booper or other spectators perceived Teddy’s death, it would only be real as long as any living witnesses thought it to be real.

I’m not sure if my argument made sense to you guys, but what I was trying to convey was this: Maybe Salinger was trying to get us to draw a connection between Teddy’s death and the orange peels that were mentioned earlier. Perhaps Salinger purposefully prevented his audience from perceiving Teddy’s death so that no matter how much evidence they had of Teddy’s death, it may still be left in ambiguity. If you believe that reality is dependent on perception, then Teddy’s death would not be true for you, since you as the audience never perceived his death. However if you believe that reality is independent of perception, then you could safely conclude, based on the evidence from the story, that Teddy did, in fact, die.  

Arthur: A Caring Friend or another Deceiver?

            When I read the short story Pretty Mouth and Green My Eyes, I pretty quickly concluded that the girl spending the evening with Lee was Arthur’s wife Joanie. From the discussion I heard in class, most people seemed to agree, as there is a lot of evidence in the text that points to this conclusion. However there was a divide in the class as to whether Arthur was aware of this or not. Some people seemed to think that Arthur suspected Lee of being with Joanie, and others thought that Arthur didn’t suspect Lee at all. There is more room for debate with this topic than whether Joanie was with Lee or not, as Salinger never gave enough evidence to make it obvious which one is true. I don’t think there is clear-cut evidence to prove either side completely, but I am of the opinion that Arthur didn’t suspect Lee at all.

            The first impression I got of Lee was a backstabbing friend, and I honestly didn’t like him much. 

He seemed caring and thoughtful from the way he “comforted” Arthur, but knowing that he was cheating with Arthur’s wife made me dislike him. I disliked him because no matter what he said or looked like on the outside, just the fact that he was cheating revealed to me an unforgivable characteristic. In my mind he became a sort of antagonist, and so Arthur, as the victim, became the character that I rooted for. I started supporting Arthur as I read the story, and I didn’t want Arthur to be deceptive like Lee was. So in a way I hoped that Arthur never knew about Lee being with Joanie and therefore wouldn’t do things that would make him into an antagonist as well.

When Arthur called Lee back, some people thought Arthur lied to Lee about Joanie returning because he wanted to test Lee and deceive him. When I read this part, I thought that Arthur lied to Lee because he was thankful that Lee comforted him, and didn’t want his friend to keep worrying about him. I had the idea that Arthur was actually a caring friend. This is because when Arthur first called Lee, Arthur asked Lee three times whether he woke him up. I took this as evidence that Arthur wanted to make sure he wasn’t bothering Lee in any way, even though his own situation was a much bigger deal than Lee getting enough sleep. In the midst of his own troubles, Arthur seemed to still look after his friend’s interests above his own.

            This is the way I interpreted the story, but I do realize that it is a perfectly legitimate claim that Arthur did in fact suspect Lee of cheating with his wife. What do others of you think? Do you think Arthur knew of this or not? Did you like Arthur and root for him in the story as I did?