Contrasting the Implied Author and the King

         In Isaac Babel's "How it was done in Odessa", two men, one young and one old, sit on the cemetery wall discussing the success of a boss of a Jewish gangster mob in Odessa, Russia. The young man, the implied author of this story, asks old Reb Arye-Leib how Benya Krik could have become the King, when many other contenders seemed to wield more strength, power, and ingenuity. Arye-Leib's answers this question with a narration of the life of Benya Krik and how he came to be the boss of the gangster mob. Babel uses the contrasting qualities of the young man and Benya to devise the explanation, with Arye-Leib saying "That's why he's the king, while you thumb your nose in the privy."
         The young man with "spectacles on [his] nose and autumn in [his] heart" is characterized most directly by the narrator Arye-Leib's description of him. Arye-Leib begins his explanation with "Cease playing rowdy at your desk... Imagine for a moment that you play the rowdy in public..." He illustrates the young man as a man who is so full and active in the mind and in writing, however cannot put any of those ideas into action. He highlights the young man's vigor in the pursuit of knowledge, but idleness in practice. Another indirect inference of the young man's character can be drawn from his writing as the implied author of the story. In the beginning where the few seconds of story-time is passing in silence and in waiting, the implied author fills the discourse time with "A man who thirsts for an answer must stock himself with patience. A man possessing knowledge is suited by dignity.", implying that he is of an intellectual and subdued character. So what is the key difference in the young man's character and Benya's? According to Arye- Leib it is that "You would have done nothing. But he did something."
        The reason why Benya Krik became King was because he did what the young man and others did not. When charged with the task of raiding Tartakovsky who had survived nine previous raids and "had already once been buried", he just replied, "'O.K.'" and carried it out. He also successfully provided five thousand roubles down and fifty a month to the mother of a deceased son, out of Tartakovsky's pocket. Lastly, Benya Krik swore to kill the murderer of the deceased son and was able to announce the man's death at the son's funeral. This last act earns him the title of the "King" from a trembling yet awe-inspired spectator. It was not that the deeds made the King, but the King was made by his willingness to carry out the deeds. Benya was a man of determination and will who always carried out what he said he would. It is apparent that Arye-Leib regarded the ability to take action as the key to climbing to the top of the rope ladder, and not any personal qualities such as strength and power that the young man seemed to highly regard.

Wait...Whose Gardens?

             As opposed to focusing on the plot pieces presented in "Kew Gardens" by Virginia Woolf, I find the method in which the content was presented to be most fascinating. The entirety of this story is set up as though it is all one giant tapestry of beautiful sights and sounds. In this story it is difficult for the reader, or the assumed narrator for that matter, to pay attention to one single aspect of the chosen garden setting. As I looked through the lens provided by Woolf, I imagined this story as being told through a sort of prism with dazzling images of a near fairy tale being cast all around me.

            Woolf opens her work with a detailed description of the flowers that exist in the garden. With such vivid, bright, and almost surreal imagery being presented right from the start, it is difficult to look at the rest of the story without a slight lenience towards a dreamlike quality. The events that follow the prefaced description of the garden seem unreal. The characters, while exceedingly present, still came across as detached and unattainable to me. For example, the man introduced at the very beginning of the story is initially presented with clues that would lead one to believe that he has a very rich backstory. The man walks in front of his wife deliberately and blatantly seems to be regretting the fact that his wife is not someone else. Personally, this issue of longing and regret raises immense curiosity within me. The reader would imagine that the rest of the story is going to continue to elaborate on the man and his discontentment with his current status, however; no further information is given to this piece of the story. Instead, Woolf jumps to the description of another set of individuals that have found themselves in the Kew Gardens on that very same day.  

            With the introduction of each new set of characters, a new conflict or item of interest is also presented. While the reader may inquire many things about each of the characters found in the garden, very little substantial information is given. In this story, the setting in which the action unfolds is much more significant that the characters involved in said action. That being said, if the characters are not so important, I find it incredibly interesting that Woolf would choose to make the characters so attractively complex. The fact that through the description of character the reader is exposed to a more comprehensive description of the setting is something that I find to be very unique and fascinating. The Kew Gardens are clearly a strange place with many exciting stories to be told. Through Woolf’s chosen method of storytelling the garden thus becomes all the more intriguing and the focus/point of the story can be related to the intricacy of the Kew Gardens and the peculiarity yet inexplicable monotony of the people that frequent such places. 

-Kelsey Ferrell

Kew Gardens- The Relationship Between Humans and Nature

Virginia Woolf’s Kew Gardens is encompassed in nature and how it intertwines with human life, whether we know it or not. She begins her short story by describing an “oval shaped flower-bed” but then something else comes into the picture, humans (83). Eleanor and Simon had a “curiously irregular movement not unlike that of the white and blue butterflies” (84). This man and woman, with their children, become the focus, but are still able to be a part of the natural scene around them. What I noticed about their story is that while the humans become the focus, nature is still present, as if one cannot exist without the other. We as humans need nature to add balance, peace, and a sort of freedom to our lives.

It is interesting how Simon flashes back to his first love, a woman he wanted to marry, and thinks their fate depended on a dragonfly. At first I thought it rather strange that Simon, after being married to Eleanor, and having kids, is reflecting on this moment with his wife. But then I realized that we are all stuck on the past, and as sad as it is to say, it’s only human to dwell on something that can never be. And maybe the dragonfly symbolizes the hand that nature has in human life. Even though humans like to believe that we control our own destiny, it’s not always the case. And the old man who chases after the lady in black, he seemed to be searching for someone who has long since been gone from his life. At the same time, Woolf parallels the lives of different humans and the snail. The snail is always present, with his “stained red, blue and yellow” shell and is always trying to reach his goal (84). His view of the world is smaller and practically invisible to a mere passerby but he still goes about his daily life the same way the humans in Woolf’s story do.

I think Woolf is trying to show the relationship between humans and nature through her short story. But she does so in a way that is a little odd at times. I think her take home message is that we, as humans, need to pay attention to the beautiful creation of nature because it plays a larger role in our lives than we know (or maybe some of us are aware). Through the colors Woolf so vividly uses to describe both nature and human life, she paints a picture of pink, green, blue, red, and yellow, all meshing together in the end to form one single world. 

Activity: Short Friday

Now that we've read three chapters of Chapman's commentary, we have a number of critical concepts at our disposal: character, setting, chronology, plot, discourse, etc. However, I want to return to Chapman's discussion of "getting the point" in Chapter 1. Re-read that section (pages 11-12) and work with your group write a strong statement of the point of "Short Friday." Before you start writing, you may want to talk about Singer's approaches to character, setting, chronology, etc., and how he uses one or more of these to signal to the reader what his point might be. Try to push past any initial resistance to the story you might have; assume that this story has something to say to a college student in North Carolina in 2013, and that it's your job to find it.

Reading Quiz September 3

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1eTObSlq28BR-2W4pzkcWWHnI2p-1QtpNE3pMUXt6m7A/viewform

Freaky Friday:

In Short Friday, Isaac Singer takes the reader into the lives of a devoted and devout couple, Shmul-Leibele and his wife, Shoshe. Shmul-Leibele is described as a man who was ultimately unsuccessful in mastering a trade, but where he lacked in skill, he made up through being an honorable man; his moral compass often guided him to buy only the best materials and consistently return scraps to his customers. Shoshe, in short, is a “God-fearing woman” who many found admirable through her diligence and honesty (68). The story primarily focuses on the piousness of Shmul-Leibele and Shoshe and the heavy influence that religion had in their lives. Through Shoshe, the reader is introduced to a major component of the story, the role that food and food preparation plays in their religion and how Singer’s descriptive writing and placement of props is strategic in illustrating the characteristics of the couple.

The reader is first introduced to food through Singer’s description of Shoshe, in which he describes her occupation as kneading dough and states that she would venture “…off to the forest to gather berries and mushrooms, as well as pinecones and twigs for the stove” (67).  A detail that I skimmed initially yet later sparked my interest when rereading; I believe that the description is not necessarily a tangent in Singers description, but instead a heads up to the reader that we should keep an eye open for the presence of food (and even the stove) throughout the story. When preparing for Sabbath, the couple would often deprive themselves during the week and then prepare lavish feasts in honor of the Holy day. The food preparation and consumption assisted in expressing the characteristics of the couple. For instance, Shoshe would often make sure each dish was well cooked by sealing the oven tightly shut with dough; to me, this exemplifies that Shoshe was a very diligent and routine woman, and in a way, she goes through somewhat drastic measures to get the perfect end product—which is how I view her relationship with both God and the afterlife. Likewise, Shmul-Leibele would always treasure the mouthfuls of Shoshe’s extravagant meals, exclaiming “Ah, Shoshe love, it’s food fit for a king! Nothing less than a taste of Paradise!” (68). This simple statement tells us a lot about Shmul-Leibele’s personality; it shows that food was an outlet for him to express his happiness and gratitude to Shoshe (which he sometimes found difficulty in), it shows that he had a ritualistic and routine personality because he stated this gratitude at every Sabbath meal, and also, this seemingly perfunctory statement introduced the significance that Paradise had in his life.

When the plot reaches the shortest Friday of the year, for which this story took place, Shmul-Leibele went throughout his usual pious schedule and found himself especially longing to be home, but certain holy laws would not permit him to do so. As he entered his hut, the room “made him think of Paradise” largely in part to the aromas that came from the oven along with the “scents of the Sabbath supper” (71). After eating the typically delicious meal and reciting psalms and several prayers, the couple was taken over by exhaustion, which brought a wrap to yet another successfully executed Sabbath—so they thought. In the dead hours of the morning, Shmul-Leibele had a sudden urge to make love to Shoshe, so he allowed himself to do so after assuring himself that “the great saints also loved their wives” (72). After making love, they both fell asleep only to be awakened by a mutual nightmare. The snow surrounding their hut, combined with the fumes from the oven, had caused them to become asphyxiated. As they both laid there, side by side, they try to recount what could have caused this unfortunate event to occur. Promptly turning to their scapegoat, food, for an answer. Shoshe perplexed over the situation, stating that they both “went to sleep hale and hearty” and that they had “arranged a proper Sabbath…an entire chicken neck and tripe.” They were no longer left with an appetite, for the two of them “had no further need of food” (73). As they were finally embracing death and preparing for the Angel Dumah, Shoshe had one final thought, “she was curious about the Sabbath meal. Had it been removed from the oven? Who had eaten it?” (74). I am still unsure how to comprehend Shoshe’s final thoughts, but if I had to guess, I would say that she was simply going to what was familiar and comfortable to her. She had often used food as an outlet to express her love for both her husband and God and wanted to insure that she had done everything she could have done with the food before the angels came to retrieve her. An angel had finally arrived to take the couple to their true Paradise.

-Jason Trull

Short Friday, Long Afterlife

            Because religion is one of the most controversial subjects in politics, international relations, and even everyday life, it definitely lends itself to be a central topic of great literature. Isaac Bashevis Singer is a prime example of an author who incorporated religion into his writing, as his Jewish upbringing is reflected in many of his works. “Short Friday” is no different, as it is based around a Jewish tailor, Shmul-Leibele, and his wife Shoshe.

            Although Shmul-Leibele and Shoshe are explicitly stated as “pious” and “God-fearing,” I could not help but feel that the story was going to end on a somewhat somber note. The lack of plot (the first half of the story was exposition) and especially the lack of conflict suggested (at least to me) that there was some sort of impending tragedy. No story of literary merit contains perfect characters and a completely optimistic plot. Things only really began to get interesting, in fact, when Shmul and Shoshe's human flaws began to show through their saintly dispositions. Shmul's lust for his wife and Shoshe's desire to please her husband instead of keeping the Sabbath as her first priority ultimately led to the couple's death. While the message that this turn of events portrays seems somewhat depressing at first (do our human imperfections always lead to our downfall?), it is apparent that Singer approaches the couple's death from a more positive perspective. 

            At first it seems ironic that the most arguably faithful and dedicated Jewish couple’s lives are abruptly taken from them. From the implicit evidence that Singer gives us, it is clear that Shmul-Leibele is one of the most devoted Jews in his village, especially since he was amongst the “first ten worshipers” at the synagogue. Once Shoshe refers to the “true world” that they are in after their death as “Paradise,” however, I realized that Singer meant for their death to be more of an inspiration than a tragedy. The Sabbath is what both Shmul-Leibele and Shoshe lived for week after week, and every time Shmul-Leibele stepped into his home on the Sabbath, “the room made him think of Paradise.” This connection between the couple’s most celebrated holiday and heaven suggests that ending up in “Paradise,” albeit earlier than they had planned, was their ultimate goal. Perhaps Singer is trying to show us that even in spite of our flaws, if we remain devoted to and unwavering in our faith (or whatever passion we may have) then our final destination will be exactly where we strived to be.