Insanity and Godot

The official definition of insanity, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, can be defined as “a severely disordered state of the mind usually ocurring as a specific disorder” or the “unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand that prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or that releases one from criminal or civil responsibility.”

While that is the official definition, another definition has been popularized in our modern culture that has been falsely mis-attributed to famous figures such as Albert Einstein or Benjamin Franklin: “the definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting a different result.” This is the definition that has been popularized through pop culture and mutlimedia. It is often featured in our favorite movies, TV shows, and books, leading watchers and readers to believe that it is, in fact the official and nationally accepted definition. It has become the cultural definition of insanity, unique to our own society and culture and has most likely reached other corners of the world. We, as a society, often hear this definition since it has been popularized so much, but it is actually an incorrect definition of insanity. Despite it being officially incorrect, modern culture and society has come to accept this definition, so it can be said that, within our culture, we have developed a second definition for the term that has a unique meaning depending on context since it is so widely accepted and used.

According to the popularized cultural definiton of insanity, the simple act of repeating mistakes defines insanity, but I believe this claim is actually insane because it implies that even if the goal is impossible, trying different methods to attain that goal makes the process sane. I believe that if the goal is impossible, doing anything and trying multiple methods to continually achieve failure is insane. When someone knows that something is impossible and they still continually try to acheive it is, I believe, a form of insanity. There is also the belief that in order to meet the requirements of insanity, people must actually be insane and have certain mental illnesses and that also speaks true to the opposite that people without any measurable mental illnesses are completely sane, but, if we look at these perspectives with the popularized definition in mind, we see that this too is insane. People can do insane and crazy things without having mental illnesses, so the conventional standards for insanity do not necessarily convey insanity as we understand it.

The official definition, unlike the popularized saying, is a term that is not necessarily used in colloquial or everyday conversation. When people call others insane, they are actually using it in a sense that is more relatable to the definitions of stupidity or idiocy. Insanity is actually a legal distinction not a medical one. The official definition of insane carries with it a legal presence in that it can only really be used in a legal standing when judgement is being presented upon a person. It determines a person’s legal state of mind and determinese the guilt or innocence of their actions. Despite most people’s assumptions it is never used in the medical field as it encompasses a wide variety of illnesses and is now an outdated term within the medical world.

In Waiting for Godot we see how Vladimir and Estragon wait for Godot each day, hoping that they will finally meet their friend, but continually failing to do so as Godot never shows up once and often cancels the meeting. As the readers, we see how Vladimir and Estragon meet up and wait for Godot everyday, fulfilling the popularized, cultural definition of insanity. They do the same thing everyday and expect for the results to be different each time. The setting shows how time is passing around them but the two characters are obviously oblivious to everything that goes on around them. They are completely concentrating on their mission to wait for a friend that may be nonexistent. We also see how Vladimir and Estragon always seem to meet up with each other at the exact same spot every single time. They also seem to do the same things and have the same arguments in each encounter. Adding on the the insane vibes, they also seem to reset each day, not really remembering what happened before and sort of just repeating themselves on loop. According to our cultural definition of insanity these two are definitely crazy and can even be seen as the epitome of insanity.

Insanity Vs. Instability in A Streetcar Named Desire

           In Tennessee Williams drama, A Streetcar Named Desire, Blanche DuBois abrupt accusation of being raped by Stanley results in her being committed to an insane asylum. There doesn’t seem to be a valid medical reason as to why Blanche was emitted to an asylum other than her absence being convenient for her sister, Stella. When discussing her sister being sent away Stella states, “I couldn't believe her story and go on living with Stanley.” The question, “Is Blanche insane?” is brought into question as her past is unveiled. Blanche first appears to be a mature and protective sister who seems genuinely concerned about her sister's safety due to her being in an abusive relationship. However, she may be categorized as being insane based off of her actions and speech. Considering the cultural background within the drama insanity does not accurately describe Blanche’s character, her consistent nature of lying in order to reconstruct the life she had as a young woman reflects an unreliable character. Blanche is not insane she is an unstable individual attempting to survive in the reality she is apart of. The definitions of insane and unstable must be addressed to unveil why Blanche is unstable and not insane. 

           The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines the word insanity as, “The condition of being insane; unsoundness of mind as a consequence of brain-disease, madness, lunacy. Originally called insanity of mind.” (OED) Based off of this definition and the ambiguity of Blanche being professionally diagnosed with a medical brain-disease, she is not insane. An extended definition of insanity is, “Extreme folly or want of sound sense.”(OED) This extended definition disregards the cause of insanity deriving from any form of mental illness while narrowing the meaning of insanity to be the mental state of being foolish or being deficient in understanding. When considering this definition as well as the first Blanche is not insane, because she is conscious of the world and her interactions with the people she is surrounded by.  Although Blanche discusses how she wishes she was not living in her reality her ability to make the distinction between reality and her preferred reality proves she is not insane or mentally-ill. As Blanche and Mitch are spending time together she sheds light on why she constantly lies, “I don’t want realism. I want magic! [Mitch laughs] Yes, yes, magic! I try to give that to people. I misrepresent things to them. I don’t tell the truth, I tell what ought to be truth. And if that is sinful, then let me be damned for it!” (9.43) Blanche acknowledges that she fabricates truths depending on who she is talking to construct a magic type reality she yearns for. Blanche is an unstable character because she does not rely on one set of lies to fabricate her reality, she fabricates any lie(s) in order to feel apart of her desired reality. She has lied to the point of not knowing 

            Considering the background cultural issues such as gender, sex, and physical abuse Blanche lying and deceiving nature is not a form of insanity but rather a mode of survival in attempt to convince herself she can live in the reality she is attempting to construct herself. With Blanche losing the family plantation, being fired from her job, and having her ex-husband being a homosexual and killing himself, the stable life she was meant to have disappeared. The instability in her life extends to Blanche attempting to replicate her old life of being a wealthy, successful, and a married women. Both Blanche and Stella’s identity is dependent on their romantic relationships, reflecting the cultural background. When Stanley first hits Stella the tension among characters and within the narrative unwinds when physical altercations between spouses even between Eunice and her husband are normalized. Blanche is thrown into a reality where she must function with a husband (even if that husband is abusive) therefor is lies about having a rich boyfriend in order to pursue Stella in potentially leaving Stanley. Blanche is left no other choice but to adapt in a world that she herself is no longer apart of. Blanche is not mentally insane because she does not have a diagnosed brain-disease, she is unstable because she constantly lies in order to replicate a life in which is thrived in. Blanche is well aware of the lies she needs to tell in order to construct her dream like reality, if she didn't not know the distinction between both realities then she would have been insane.

Insanity: Blanche and the Ideal Woman

        According to the merriam webster dictionary, insanity connects to disorder of the mind and lack of mental understanding. However, a definition cannot fully express the characteristics of insanity because those who are insane are not all the same. A person is driven to insanity through experiences, and everyone has their own unique experiences throughout life. For the character Blanche, the initial discovery of her late husband’s sexuality drove her to insanity. Blanche discovers in “A Streetcar Named Desire” that her husband was gay, and this filled her with rage and hatred towards him. However, when he takes his own life because of the disgust she expressed towards him, Blanche’s once sane mind begins to unravel. Once part of a wealthy family, she loses the family’s estate, and must move in with her sister. However, before moving, Blanche had an affair with an under-aged student. This act captures how Blanche was no longer in her right state of mind after the death of her husband. In attempt to keep up the act of the “ideal woman”, Blanche wears fancy attire and criticizes her sister’s lifestyle. 

            Blanche is obsessed with being accepted by men, and criticizes those who are not “ideal”, such as Stanley. She wants to be seen as an “ideal woman” with money, youth, and intelligence. This idea also captures the obedience of women of the 1940s, and how they were expected to present themselves in a specific way, and stay at home to care for children, while the men went to work. She masks herself in dim lights to hide her real age, and wears expensive clothes from her past to create the illusion that her family still has money. This idea of being the “ideal woman” is embedded in her head because she is self-conscious, and questioning of whether she is good enough for another man, after discovering her husband was gay. By presenting herself as this youthful, grand woman, she is able to capture the attention of many men. However, her past catches up to her, as Stanley discovers her secrets and drives her to mentally break after he rapes her. The rape within this play captures how although she creates the illusion that she has power, money, and beauty, she is actually defenseless, helpless, and dependent of others because of her past mistakes. It is discovered that in her past not only did she have relations with a young boy, but she also had affairs with many men because she needed the reconciliation that she is “good enough” for men. 

            Blanche lacks the confidence to create a better life for herself because she has been mentally scarred by her past. Blanche is insane because she has created this fantasy world for herself, in which she believes she is still a successful woman. She is unable to understand that she is depending on her sister and Stanley, whereas Stanley is capable of seeing through her fantasy world. The rape scene also plays the role in breaking down that fantasy world, and presenting to Blanche the real world she lives in. The play was written in 1947, around the time of the second World War, a time in which women were fighting for more job opportunities. However, after the war, many women were expected to return to their roles as stay-at-home wives. This idealization is captured through Stella, and the superiority Stanley has over her. Stanley rapes Blanche in order to make her feel powerless, like the women who were forced to stay at home. This extraction of power drives Blanche to insanity because she feels defeated by man, and worthless. 

            The aspect of the stay-at-home wife affects the women at this time by making them feel dependent on their husbands, and men. This is clear through the character Blanche because she depends on men’s approval through sex, and admiration. However, when she is defeated by Stanley, who doesn’t approve of her past, and violates her, she is left defenseless, and mentally broken. This captures how the women of the time period felt. Blanche makes rash decisions that cost her her freedom in the end because she doesn’t have the mental ability to explain her past actions, or understand why her actions were wrong. If she had the ability to explain that she needed the approval of men because her husband cheated on her, and ended his life, then she wouldn’t be thought of as insane being that she would know the reasons for her actions. However, since she is unable to defend herself, she loses her mental stability, and is presented as an insane character.

word count: 768

A Streetcar Named Desire: Literary Version vs Film Version

In regard to the thematic content of A Streetcar Named Desire, it is apparent that there are various differences within the literary and film version of the play. In the literary work it can be seen that Tennessee Williams’s main purpose is that one must learn to deal with hardships in life rather than fantasize solutions because false fantasies hinder a person's development. Whereas, in the film version, Eliza Kazan’s main purpose is very similar yet different, the play visually imparts the notion of accepting the truth even though one may have to make crucial sacrifices within their life. The audience is able to recognize the minor difference between the two versions by comprehending the significance of the ending within both forms of the play.

The literary version focalizes the play around the complexity of characters, specifically Blanche Dubois. Blanche was unable to deal with the social and financial issues that occurred within her past, leading her to create a fake persona. In Scene Four, Blanche states, “I have an idea of some kind...Shep Huntleigh...someone with a million dollars” (Williams 66). The reader is able to see that the author is calling attention upon her tragic flaw. Rather than understanding and learning how to deal with her economic problems, Blanche decides to create a false solution. She fantasizes about a married millionaire man randomly acknowledging her and relieving her from all her financial restraints. For this reason, Blanche becomes seen a mentally unstable character. Conclusively, portraying the fact that her false imaginations hindered her success and development. Although, Blanche is the main focus, Williams utilizes literary strategies such as allusion to convey the main purpose of the play. In Scene One, Blanche states, “They told me to take a street-car named Desire, and then transfer to one called Cemeteries and ride six blocks and get off at-Elysian Fields” (Williams 18). The author utilizes this literary strategy to foreshadow the tragedy that Blanche will undergo within the story. Williams introduces Blanche as a woman that aspires to live a healthy and wealthy lifestyle. Thus, explaining the reasoning as to why her first vehicle was named “Desire.” Her main goal is represented by the name of her destination, “Elysian Fields,” which is known as a lavish resting destination for Greek heroes. But, in order to reach her initial destination, Blanche must take a vehicle that is named “Cemeteries.” Therefore, representing the tragic downfall that she brings upon herself throughout the story.

The film version, however, focalizes the play around the life of Stella Kowalski. Stella throughout the entire screening of the play is caught up in issues between two important figures within her life: Stanley her husband and Blanche her sister. As a result, Stella becomes the main focal point since she is the one that is being the most effected. A visual performance of the play allows the audience to identify the significance of the characters. Stella and Stanley can be seen as a representation of the real world (reality), while Blanche can be seen as a representation of her false illusions. For such a reason, there is always tension between Stanley and Blanche (reality vs fantasy) when they collide. However, since Stella is always in the middle of the suspense, she much like Blanche, must learn to accept her own reality which is that both her sister and husband serve as negative figures within her life. Kazan directed the ending differently by showing Stella’s reaction after Blanche is taken away. Stella can be seen responding to Stanley’s calls by running upstairs with her newborn baby and saying “No I’m not going back...not this time.” Displaying the fact that she is willing to let go of her sister and passionate relationship with her husband to live a better lifestyle for not only herself, but her newborn as well. Hence, the fact that in order for one to develop as a person, one must learn to make crucial sacrifices when accepting reality.

Even though, both the literary and film version similarly portray the thematic content of the tragic play, they convey slightly different purposes. By reading the literary work, readers are able to understand the complexity of Blanche, along with the functions of literary devices; such as allusions within the film. Through this version, scholars are able to understand that the play mainly revolves around Blanche, along with her delusions, since they were the main reasoning for her tragedy. However, through a visual presentation of the theater piece, the audience is able to comprehend the importance of Stella. Scholars are able to recognize the fact that the play revolves around Stella since she is capable of accepting the truth even though she must sacrifice valuable relationships. Ultimately, showing that minor fixtures within the ending of the play lead people to perceive the significance of the thematic content differently.

Word Count: 809

Cultural Perspective Of Insanity: Vladimir and Estragon

Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot” (1954) is crafted from post-world war European society. Both world wars verify the philosophical insurgence of absurdism and existentialism in this play, which supports how Beckett subjects his main characters to questionable sanity Oxford English Dictionary defines insanity as “madness” or “extreme foolishness or irrationality”.  Totalitarian governments, colonization, economic reparations, and genocidal war are illogical actions, yet embedded by Western Europe, the United States of America, Japan and the Soviet Union in the first half of the 20^th century. This play confronts the insanity of this cultural period with the characters of Vladimir and Estragon.

            Vladimir’s storytelling of the thieves serves as general distrust in Christianity as well as a model of a specific societal flaw. This Bible story has several discrepancies between the four Evangelists who are said to have witnessed the fate of the two thieves. Two don’t mention the thieves at all, one says they were both damned and the fourth said one was saved (Beckett; 6-7). Estragon reflects “People are bloody ignorant apes.”, confirming he and Vladimir agree upon the troubling fact that everybody only believes on version, which is the only version taught (Beckett; 7). Skepticism increased due to the devastation of the war, leading to alternative philosophies not dependent on a deity’s existence, thus existentialism and absurdism emerged. Ashkan and Azadeh Shobeiri, authors of “Samuel Beckett’s Absurdism: Pessimism or Optimism?” assert many critics hold absurdist interpretations of this play because Vladimir and Estragon are relentlessly attempting to divulge meaning to their lives. Vladimir and Estragon are considered insane for Biblical doubt by Christian view. This initial incident is one of many, but it mirrors the societal break from a Christian world view held in much of Western Europe, and perhaps many other involved countries, during the world wars. Vladimir’s and Estragon’s distrust mirrors the attitudes of Beckett’s society.

            Is it more insane for Vladimir and Estragon to make life meaningful in a meaningless world or to live as though life is not meaningful? The meaning of their lives succumbs to the pressures of time, pleasure, and repentance. Following Lucky and Pozzo’s departure, Vladimir comments that the encounter passed the time and Estragon objects it would have passed regardless, which Vladimir responds “Yes, but not so rapidly.” (Beckett; 51). This line is representative of a fear of running out of time. His response makes meaning out of Estragon’s proposal, setting up polar ideologies that are problematic in determining a correct one. To Vladimir and Estragon, there is value in passing time as quickly as possible while they wait for Godot. Furthermore, the wait for Godot is peculiar in that Vladimir, Estragon, and the audience do not know what Godot’s arrival will do for the characters. This problem transposes to the cultural relevance of the play as the wait for a god to fix human war and oppression. Vladimir and Estragon also depict how such a wait affects the drive of pleasure and repentance.

            Vladimir and Estragon indulge in pleasure when possible. They want to hang themselves from the tree for an erection. Estragon becomes hungry, and exercises preference of carrots over turnips and radishes. He acquires Pozzo’s leftover chicken bones, sleeps in a ditch, and takes off his tight boots at his own choosing. Vladimir embraces Estragon’s company. They are only engrossed by their pleasures for a page or two at most, before asking what to do next. Temperance of pleasure therefore becomes a significant theme in Beckett’s play. The value of each character’s pleasures changes between philosophical and societal perspectives, therefore further complicating their sanity in relation to making life meaningful.

            Vladimir and Estragon concern repentance early in the play. Estragon asks if “our being born” is the sin that triggers Vladimir’s proposition (Beckett; 4). Beckett refers to original sin in a culturally obvious way. His characters ask themselves the same question millions of people have asked throughout Christian history. Would repentance make these characters sane? Vladimir laughs then suddenly stops, and Estragon responds, “dreadful privation” (Beckett; 4). Beckett leaves the subject of the dreadful privation ambiguous to the belief of original sin and/or if there is sanity for its repentance; and/or Vladimir and Estragon expect to be affected by this belief.

            There are several more moments in the play that illustrate the cultural effects of the world wars. For example, the symbolic nature of the other characters provides additional perspectives that parallel the widespread despair and confusion of global war atrocities. Vladimir and Estragon’s sanity could then be further explored by comparison.

Narration in Jazz

Toni Morrison’s Jazzutilizes a very unique narration style that significantly influences how the text is interpreted as well as the reader’s opinions of the characters. Throughout the first section of the novel it becomes apparent that the narration style is not constant. It seems to switch between third person omniscient and first person perspective that occasionally provides their personal input in a gossip-like manner. The anonymity and the objective manner of speaking the narrator employs, creates a sense of authority and trust with the audience. Therefore, impacting the reader’s opinions on events and characters within the text, causing them to take opinions as factual information.

            The text begins with the first person narrator establishing their credibility by stating that they know the main characters, Violet and Joe personally, “I know that woman...Know her husband, too…her name is Violet” (Morrison, 3). Although the narrator is not involved in the characters’ lives, they make it clear that they are interested in the lives of others and gather their information through observation, thus creating the idea that they are knowledgeable on the subject. The narrator proceeds to demonstrate their expertise on Violet and Joe’s lives by revealing personal details and feelings about the characters. For example, the narrator states, “He fell for…a girl…spooky loves that made him so sad and happy he shot her to keep the feeling going” (Morrison, 3).  By giving insight to Joe’s inner thoughts and feelings, the narrator is letting the audience know how well informed s/he is. This instant also begins to blur the line between the first person narrator and the third person omniscient narrator because the readers begin to take everything the narrator is stating as facts since they are giving details only a well-informed person would know. 

            Throughout most of the novel, the details and descriptions provided by the narrator are told from the perspective of a third person omniscient narrator. For example, in an instance in which Violet has a public argument when getting accused for kidnapping a baby, the narrator describes Violet’s thoughts on the event as “she thought of it…remembering the incident as an outrage to her character” (Morrison, 22). Due to the straightforward tone and credibility the narrator had established earlier in the novel, the readers take these thoughts as facts. However, the first person narrator interjects, providing biased commentary that is also taken as facts due to the subtle shift between narration styles. For example, after the public incident Violet caused, the first person narrator states, “Her private cracks…were known to him. I call them cracks because that's what they were” (Morrison, 22). Despite the fact this statement is clearly the narrator’s opinion, the audience is expected to believe their comment as fact, thus degrading Violet’s image to an unpredictable, mentally unstable woman in the eyes of the reader. 

This elusive transition between narration styles is once again witnessed when the narrator is retelling Dorcas’ life story. The third person omniscient narrator describes the situations Dorcas had to face under Alice’s care and stating, “by the time she was seventeen her whole life was unbearable” (Morrison, 63). This is stated in a matter-of-fact manner, which causes the audience to understand how unhappy Dorcas was while living by her aunt’s rules. However, the first person narrator provides additional—and more personal—commentary that produces sympathy for Dorcas among the readers. The first person narrator causes the audience to feel empathy for Dorcas by expressing their own empathy for her, “and when I think about it, I know just how she felt…it doesn’t matter because you are not doing the thing worth doing which is lying down…enclosed in arms, and supported by the core of the world” (Morrison, 63).  By depicting this generalizable situation and bringing up heavy emotions humans feel when being or wanting to be with another human, the narrator deepens the readers’ sympathies for Dorcas and her decision to engage in intimate relations with a married man. Although the narrator never outwardly excused Dorcas’ behavior, they did provide their opinion which instigated a deeper thought process for the audience that was more likely to guide readers toward sympathizing with Dorcas and perhaps go as far as justifying her bad decisions.

Overall, the narrator does not explicitly express a negative or positive attitude toward the story’s events. The third person omniscient point of view provides neutral details and descriptions regarding the characters and their thoughts. However, the first person point of view interjects in specific instances and provides opinionated commentary. Although the first person narration provides personal commentary, it does not openly state any biases toward any character. Instead, the commentary appears to be stated in a gossip-like manner, meaning it is said with a certain amount of judgment but it does not take any particular side. Due to this type of narration, the audience is prompted to go beyond simply understanding the novel’s events, and leads them to develop their own sympathies and biases rather than influencing them toward any specific idea.

The Narrator and Their Impact

            The first section of Toni Morrison’s novel, Jazz, leaves the reader curious as to who is narrating this story. The narrator does not disclose their name, gender, or age, but the reader is able to get a sense as to who this narrator is through the opinions, personal likes, and dislikes that they reveal about the City. In the first eight paragraphs of the novel, the narrator spends time telling the story of Violet, Violet’s husband named Joe, and the eighteen year old girl Joe becomes involved with. In this section, the reader gets a sense that this narrator may be close to Violet and Joe since s/he states “Sth, I know that woman” and “Know her husband too” (1). But once the reader reaches the ninth paragraph, the narrator begins to talk about him/herself, and gives the reader reasons to speculate that the narrator is actually a spirit that roams New York City and has merely taken interest in the lives of this couple. In this portion of the text, in which the narrator takes over, s/he states “I’m crazy about this City” and just like the city, s/he is strong and “alone, yes, but top notch and indestructible” which makes it seem as though the narrator is immortal (7). As the narrator begins to describe the dangers that the City may be bring, s/he shares that s/he “haven’t got any muscles” and that “no one knows all there is to know about [him/her]”, and creates an image of a bodiless or rather invisible speaker (8). The narrator also reveals that s/he “watch[es] everything and everyone and [tries] to figure out their plans, their reasonings, long before they do” and though “the City makes people think they can do what they want and get away with it” s/he sees them (8). Since the narrator is all seeing and knowing, the narrator seems to hold a superior and supernatural standing. Though one may argue that the narrator may in fact be a human being since s/he is told to “come out more”, the spirit may be reflecting the ideals of the city’s people since the City makes the narrator “dream tall and feel in on things” (7-9). 

            The opening sentence of the novel begins with the pronoun “I”, which makes the reader believe this story will solely be told using first person point of view. However, as the story progresses, the reader begins to notice that the narrator knows the thoughts and feelings of Violet and Joe, introducing a third person omniscient point of view. The narrator states that Joe’s relationship with the eighteen year old girl “made him so sad and happy”, indicating that s/he knows the feelings Joe had toward this person (1). When the narrator begins to talk about Violet and her attempt to punishing her husband by having a boyfriend, s/he states “She thought it would dry his tears up and giver her some satisfaction as well”, demonstrating that the narrator has access to Violet’s thoughts (4). Later on in this section, as mentioned previously, the narrator raves about the City for eight paragraphs in which she continuously uses first person point of view. S/he later returns to third person omniscient when s/he continues to tell Violet’s story and introduces other characters such as Armistice and goes into depth with Dorcas Manfred’s character for example. Since the narrator’s point of view interchanges throughout this portion of the novel, the reader gets more information as to who these characters are as individual’s, giving the reader the ability to make their own judgements about them. It also gives the text an intimate feel, as if the narrator was speaking directly to the reader about these events. It makes the narrator seem as a direct and trustworthy source since it seems as though s/he knows everything that happened, the characters’ thoughts, who was present at the time in which these events occurred, as well as the aftermath of it all. 

            For the majority of this section of the novel, the narrator remains neutral toward the story’s events. The most shocking event is revealed when the narrator states that Joe shot the eighteen year old “just to keep the feeling going”, though the reader might expect the narrator to say Joe was wrong for doing this, the narrator moves on to speak about Violet and what she did at the funeral without any commentary (1). However when s/he discusses the meeting of the Salem Women’s club, the reader hears the voice of the narrator when s/he includes in parentheses that Joe was “a more or less able husband (who needed to stop feeling sorry for himself)” (4). The narrator also comments on Violet’s actions at the funeral stating, “You’d think that being thrown out of church would be the end of it -the shame and all- but it wasn’t” (4). The narrator also speaks on Violet’s boyfriend and s/he knowing “that mess [that] didn’t last two weeks” (5). In all of these events, the narrator does not sympathize with Joe nor Violet. The narrator does not care for the feelings Joe is undergoing after having shot Dorcas and wants him to stop. The narrator also does not support Violet’s actions and finds her rather foolish. 

word count: 883