These two stories by Cheever pull me into deep waters. It's not the purification experience of swimming that the "Goodbye, My Brother" narrator believes in. Rather, these waters are like the ocean that long ago drowned the father of that story, the waters that always drown our fathers because they are the whole of our backstory--they are where the past exists.
In "Goodbye, My Brother," we find Cheever referencing old myths and old bloodlines, traditions and the way our readings and reinventions of traditions might help or harm us--on this point, I find find the story to be steadfast in its ambivalence.
In "The Five-Forty-Eight," the crazy victimizer, Miss Dent, is also the victimized. She too draws on the past, quoting Job from the bible, a man who suffered greatly and was not perfect. In the end perhaps Miss Dent succeeds in getting through to the blind and somewhat cruel Blake. Cheever leaves this up to interpretation.
The title had me curious, so I searched for "5:48" on the internet. The result: Matthew 5:48 is part of the Sermon on the Mount and is "the final verse of the final antithesis, and a summary of Jesus' earlier teachings." (This is from wikipedia; go look up more about it if you wish; it involves the conundrum of perfection.)
Miss Dent quotes Job to Blake: 'Where shall wisdom be found?' it says. 'Where is the place of understanding? The depth saith it is not in me: the sea saith it its not with me. Destruction and death say we have heard the force with our ears.'
Keep this idea in mind when reading Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man Is Hard to Find."
P.S. This posting is a mini-lecture, not an model for the comments I'd like from you. For that, stick to the syllabus's instructions of writing about technique/elements and how Cheever might influence your writing.
One of the things I noticed about John Cheever while reading his two stories how he showed the different character’s personality using significant details. For example, there is powerful image where the narrator goes to see Lawrence standing on the dock “look[ing] particularly saturnine” with the fog all around him. This image is part of the build up from the previous scenes in which Cheever hints at Lawrence’s pessimistic and gloomy nature by showing the reader his actions without giving a sense of his personality. For instance when Lawrence first shows up at the mansion the narrator mentions a view of “ the voyage of no import” in that it gives the reader a sense of what Lawrence would have said before we actually met him. In a way it leaves a sense of mystery of Lawrence on why he acts the way he does.
ReplyDeleteI really liked reading John Cheever because there is this very dark atmosphere that is threaded through the two short stories, which I absolutely love. His pieces also showed me that dark stories could exist in a realistic fashion without using any supernatural or post-apocalyptic characteristics. As a result I found myself wanting to write a story similar to his pieces, a dark story that is realistic and literary fiction. It also helped me see the time period of a short story can be anywhere from one day to many in which there is a beginning, a middle, and an end. I have to say that this is one of the first short stories that I’ve actually enjoyed because it incorporates everything that I love to write dysfunctional families, psychology, and mysterious characters. The only thing that bothered me was the character Lawrence from “Goodbye, My Brother” because I really wanted to find out what made Lawrence so gloomy and pessimistic. But I couldn’t find anywhere the reason though I have a feeling that the reader assumes it is because of the father’s death. In any case, John Cheever would be part of my literary tree because the characteristics of his stories will help strength my own writing.
I have to agree with Hannah about what she said with Cheever showing personality through details. This reminded me of the Burroway reading we just did because one of the things she stressed was showing and not telling. I found this particularly noticeable in his story The Five Forty Eight. He really set up Blake's character well I thought by using the fight with his wife, especially when Blake told his wife that he won't speak to her "for two weeks." Also when how Blake judged Mr. Watkins because of his "long and dirty hair and corduroy jacket."
ReplyDeleteAll of these detail made me side with Miss Dent, even though she was the one threatening him. I could see why she had such strong feelings against him. It also reminded me of the Burroway reading because the author wasn't outright in his judgement of Blake, but carefully guided us to form our own opinion that he is very judgmental himself. This gives me more examples on how to really build the personality of a character by using details in the story, and I think will help me to incorporate that into my own writing, which is something that I tend to have trouble with.
Reading through Cheever’s works, the common occurrence of physical and emotional darkness is more than evident through the in-depth details. A cold, rainy evening, a journey by train through a tunnel, and poorly lit, worn down districts – we can picture the dimness quite easily. Images such as these can leave the impression of insecurity, hopelessness, and death, all of which can be powerful and threatening to the human soul. Additional details, such as the decreasing number of spectators as described during Blake’s journey to Shady Hill, add onto the sense of insecurity and hopelessness; initially the crowds were significant in size – in the office environment and the men’s bar – reduced to nothing within the districts of Shady Hill.
ReplyDeleteFrom the second example, I have noticed that Cheever and I have something in common as it comes to writing. He writes fictional stories that are dark – I write fictional stories that are dark. However, unlike Cheever, who develops the thoughts, feelings, desires, and the various elements that make the characters, in addition to adding great detail to the surrounding settings, I pay too much attention to details, often going overboard! After reading the examples, it is my belief that Cheever’s writing will promote me to even out the details of the settings and the thoughts and emotions of characters.
John Cheever paints a picture of Blake through describing his relationships with others. A seemingly successful businessman, Blake is someone who lacks any sort of empathy. Cheever speaks of him getting in a fight with his wife over not preparing dinner in a timely manner in which he shows her the calendar and lets her know he will not be speaking to her for two weeks. You could see Blake is not much of a family man also because of the apparent lack of relationship he has with his son, who began spending the majority of his time at a neighbor's home. It does not seem that this staunch businessman holds many friendships either when Cheever details the disdain two of his neighbors hold toward him as well (likely because of his judging, calculating ways.)
ReplyDeleteI think Cheever paints Blake's apathy best when he spoke of how Blake would categorize the downtrodden-looking people he observed while on the train. "He had classified almost all of them briefly before he buried his nose in the paper" (p 172) as if looking away before feeling any type of compassion for these people. Although apparently the main subject at hand is the situation between Blake and Ms. Dent, it is fair to say that one learns more about Blake from just the way he treats Ms. Dent, his family, and those on the train, than from the particular mad-wrath of Ms. Dent. This tool of giving background on the way the protagonist treats others is a good way to show their true character rather than just using the main conflict (Ms. Dent v Blake) at hand.
In the 'Five-Forty-Eight,' I noticed immediately that Cheever pulled me into the story. "...he saw her," I quickly wondered who was it Blake was seeing. This goes on an on, with deep detail, but leaves the reader continuing to wonder who "she," is. I think this style is important because it keeps the reader focused and intrigued by the story, and we are all hoping and waiting for what seems to be a highly anticipated conclusion, right from the get go. I can see myself writing in this manner because it is very mysterious and seems almost a bit elusive.
ReplyDeleteThe relationships with others in this story is rather interesting. Blake's emotions seem a bit off, in an awkward kind of way. Cheever's method of description is unique in that much of it is very closely attached to Blake. I also noticed that there was very little dialogue within this story, and the portions of dialogue were short and to the point. I did not like the story's influence on me, in that sense, because I am a dialogue heavy writer, and usually focus much of my character development through dialogue. To me, that seems easier to establish tone and a character's personality.
Unlike the past few comments that focused on "The Five-Forty-Eight," I found myself more drawn to "Goodbye, My Brother." While "The Five-Forty-Eight" is a little more sensational, I find that the relationships in "Goodbye, My Brother" just pull me in so much more. Or maybe I'm just drawn to the story because of my own struggles of acceptance with my sister. We all acknowledge that there are those in our families that we don't like as much, but it's not something we often discuss, and not often in detail. We like to keep our family-worlds simpler, ignoring the shortcomings when we can.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that Cheever used Lawrence as the observer of these shortcomings even though the narrator is the one who is actually noticing them and telling the reader. Even something as simple as telling us that Odette is a a huge flirt during the backgammon game and that Lawrence would notice this tells us so much about all three characters (the narrator as well, I mean). I agree that I would like to know more about Lawrence's attitude's origin, but since we are seeing it through the eyes of his brother, perhaps it makes sense that we don't know.
I suppose my favorite part of the piece is the confrontation the brothers have, when Lawrence spells out the realities within their family for his brother. His brother's response is his own reality of their family- "You're a gloomy son of a bitch." And he is! He is a gloomy son of a bitch, but many of the characters Lawrence calls foolish ARE foolish, and I think it's safe to say that both brothers are "right."
When reading Cheever's work one thing that I immediately noticed was his attention to detail in the way he described not only the characters but the setting in order to set the mood for the story. Both pieces were heavily detail oriented and dark which was mostly due to his use of detailed information to paint a clear picture of what the characters are expierencing. In doing so, he adds a new layer to his work and creates a new dynamic for the characters to interact in whether it be from the cloudy sky or the murky sea in "Goodbye, My Brother."
ReplyDeleteOne thing I felt I could learn from Cheever's writing was to make use of such attention to detail even if I think it is too much. Often time, I will find myself adding a lot of detail and then feeling as though the reader does not need all of the information I have given, and that it makes the story boring. One thing I think I could take away from reading these stories is to hold on to those details because they may help the reader create and accurate picture of what I am trying to convey in my stories.
While I was reading the two stories by John Cheever, the biggest detail about his writing style was his attention to detail. It fascinated me how the details built up to give the reader insight into the various sides of a character's personality. At first I thought he was putting forth too much much effort in stories explaining relationships and why the main character's relationships with others were that way. Then I realized there was an aspect of the character's personality being presented in these stories so that by the end the reader feels as though they have intimate knowledge of the character. The reader has earned this knowledge of the character by interpreting the details Cheever presents rather than merely being told the different aspects of the character's personality, which gives the reader a stronger connection to the piece.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though I can only hope to be able to add the level of necessary detail to a piece as well as Cheever is able to. I mean any one can ramble on about details they have thought up but in the end aren't relevant to the story and then end up just restating the details they had hoped to add more subtly. I have a similar feeling to Alisha about what I can take from Cheever; I need to learn to figure out what details a reader will find interesting because what might be boring to me could be fascinating to another.
I found Cheever's plots to be very interesting, but I felt that his writing style sometimes left something to be desired. In "Goodbye, My Brother," for instance, the narrator seemed too intent on explaining everything to the reader. There were plenty of opportunities for the author to reveal motivations or inner thoughts through the characters' actions or words, but more often than not, the narrator simply stated these things, ignoring the advice to "show, don't tell."
ReplyDelete"The Five-Forty-Eight" also used this device, but only once. When the main characters left the train, the narrator explained why exactly the light had been left on in an empty room, despite the fact that neither of the characters could possibly have known that information. The difference in this case was that the narration was given in the third person, while "Goodbye, My Brother" was written in the first person. Moreover, the third-person narrator in "The Five-Forty-Eight" often conceals a great deal more than the first-person narrator in "Goodbye, My Brother," despite the fact that the former should know a lot more than the latter seems to know. Information about the main characters' motivations is given out only sporadically, although even the character whose perspective we follow is actually privy to all of this knowledge beforehand. It seems counter-intuitive, but it's also a very clever trick to keep the reader interested.
Overall, I did find "The Five-Forty-Eight" a more interesting read, partly because of the narrator's concealment. At the same time, though, I was also glad to read "Goodbye, My Brother." In fact, I took the compilation's introduction of Cheever to heart and paid more attention than I normally would to Lawrence's side of the conflict, and found that I actually identified more with his pessimism than with any other characteristic in the story. While his treatment of the other characters is irritating, his general outlook on life is understandable, and personally I sympathize with it.
~Ryan Wilk
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that I noticed first about John Cheever is his attention to detail. He describes things in enough deatil to give his readers a clear picture of what is happening. I felt that he used enough description to capture me. His detailed descriptions were dragged out a little too much for my taste, but his writing style worked, because his attention to detail did not stop the story from moving forward. I realized this while reading "The five-forty-eight" At one point he spent a whole page pondering the meaning of Mrs. Compton's dying smile. It was odd hearing someone talk about one smile for a whole page, but he used just the right abount of detail that I didn't loose interest.
I think I can apply this to my own writing. Sometime when I write, I find myself useing to little detail, and my readers don't understand what is going on. Other times I spend so much time describing little things that I stop the story from moving forward, and the reader looses interst. By looking at John Cheever I think I can learn to find the right balance.
Cheever's "Goodbye, My Brother" is a story that sort of sneaks up behind you. Frankly, while reading it, I was almost bored. The arrogance of the Pommeroy family was insufferable ("I am happy to recall I am a Pommeroy -- that I have the nose, the coloring, and the promise of longevity...that Pommeroys are unique” p 149). Similarly, I was utterly uninterested by Blake, upon first remarks. I mean, the guy is actually pissed about Mr Watkins's distasteful haircut and corduroy jacket. But it's the disgust the reader has for these people which eventually adhere them to the story. In both of these pieces, there's an overwhelming sense of a lesson being learned. As readers, the “lessons” both Blake and the narrator of “Goodbye, My Brother” learn (humility, arguably) are important to us because of Cheever's expertise in characterization. When the narrator of “Goodbye, My Brother” realizes how idiotic the football and bride costumes are, in that beautiful moment when he walks outside and talks to Lawrence, we are at once sympathetic and exhausted of him – an emotion we often only feel about someone we've known over a great length of time, and care about deeply.
ReplyDeleteReading Cheever has thus helped me consider the delicate balance of character – how, as fiction writers, we sometimes must demand a begrudging alliance between our readers and our characters In order to capture that starkly human element which all good stories must possess.
In Goodbye, My Brother, John Cheever demonstrates an understanding of some of the techniques in Janet Burroway’s “The Writing Process” and “Showing and Telling.” His use of significant details, which Burroway describes as a detail that “appeals to one of the five senses [and also] conveys an idea or a judgment or both” (Burroway 27). In dramatic parts of the story, Cheever turns to these details to clarify meaning and to intensify the emotion of a particular scene. For instance, the morning after Lawrence’s fight with his mother over the condition of the house, Cheever says “The sea that morning was a solid color, like verd stone” (Cheever 154). Taking something like the ocean, which is perpetually dynamic, shifting, swelling, and almost alive even, and immobilizing it by calling it a stone is an absolutely significant detail. It not only appeals to our sense of sight but also could be a metaphor for the dying relationships within the Pommeroy family.
ReplyDeleteAnother hint of Burroway in Cheever’s story is the idea of “The Incongruity.” The whole of Goodbye, My Brother revolves around the fact that Lawrence is so wildly dissimilar to any other member of the family. He doesn’t fit in, they don’t understand him, and he incongruent Pommeroy oddity. The family spends a significant amount of time talking behind Lawrence’s back, trying in whatever way they can to figure him out. They “talk wrathfully about Lawrence; about how he had grown worse instead of better, how unlike the rest of us he was, how he endeavored to spoil every pleasure” ( Cheever 154). The other family members cannot piece Lawrence together, so naturally they turn to the offensive and blame him for their lack of communication. Even by the very end of the story, the narrator is stuck asking “Oh, what can you do with a man like that.” Here, again, Cheever makes note of the sea, how it was “iridescent and dark,” returning to the stone imagery from earlier on (Cheever 166). The tension and separation between Lawrence and the rest of the family (the incongruity), becomes clearer when compared to Cheever’s descriptions of the physical world around them.
Obviously, Cheever is a man who has control over his craft, and is one on a long list whose writing can benefit my own. I admire his ability to use those significant details, and use them subtly. It isn’t as if Cheever is coming out and saying “Lawrence and his mother screamed at barked at each other, and the sky churned a deep red as if it were on fire.” That’s a blunt version of how my significant details usually turn out—so obviously made-up and transparent that instead of deepening the emotion, it makes it dry and mundane. Cheever’s details were used in a way that required some level of thought, since I wasn’t being beat over the head with them (as I would have been with the red sky line). Reading Cheever makes me want to focus on creating poignant significant details that bring life—or death—to my own writing.
My only prior knowledge of John Cheever stems from an episode of Seinfeld, in which George's fiancée, Susan, discovers a box of love letters from Cheever, all of which were addressed to her father. Though the letters were fabricated, their contents were blatantly illicit accounts of their sexual encounters. That being said, I knew not what to expect from Cheever's fiction.
ReplyDeleteTo my surprise, Cheever’s writing wasn’t homoerotic or liberal. I found both of his stories to be emotionally complex, with full-bodied characters that feel genuine because they are largely candid, but it's what they conceal that makes them feel three-dimensional. Cheever uses character dilemmas to illustrate his scathing commentaries on the moral foundations of those who make up the wealthier middle-class.
"Goodbye, My Brother" offers a glimpse of the tensions and ties between a largely alienated gentile family that is reunited at a summer home built by their deceased patriarch. The family attempts to mask their grief with trite conversations, tennis, backgammon, swimming, masquerades, and lots and lots of alcohol. Tensions rise when the narrator’s estranged misfit brother, Lawrence, begins to openly gripe about the deterioration of the house, saying, “We could all be drowned.” (p. 152) Ironically, the family’s father died drowning, and Lawrence’s assertion symbolically suggests that the family is sinking with the proverbial ship. The mother desperately suggests a conversation shift, “Let’s talk about politics or the boat-club dance.” (p. 152) Her desire to maintain a façade of normalcy exemplifies the phoniness of the family dynamic. The family’s costumes, which were also scrutinized by Lawrence, represent another manifestation of the family relying on façades to mask their anguish. Though “The Five-Forty-Eight” seems more surreal, but symbolically illustrated character dilemmas are equally prominent. The superficiality and shallowness of Blake and the other characters is epitomized by the commercialized and objectified world in which they live. I look forward to emulating Cheever’s character renderings—with great sensibility and poise, yet mysteriously broken and vulnerable.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete