Maupassant “The Piece of String”

M sets up the parameters of the short story

O Henry, the American writer, adopts M’s structure

·       3^rd person narrator, limited omniscience

·       Exposition of the setting, characters and conflict

·       Minimal character development (few sharp details and dialogue used to imply character) (sometimes stereotypes: Hauchecorne—old, typical Norman, thrifty, resourceful, private, blouse, pride—actions tell us “country”—spits on ground, religious)

·       Mayor as typical small-town politician (acts superior to those around him, but kinda pathetic)

·       Theme moral underscored by strong ending

·       Truth perception of truth—where does truth lie?  Is there an objective truth? 

·       People will believe what they want to; injustice of small town folk, small-minded people; role of free will vs. fate (Norman craftiness comes back to haunt him); craftiness and pride are joined in picking up piece of string (trash)

·       Absurdity—should all this happen from a piece of string? 

·       Fate—H finds string, crier announces lost pocketbook, gendarme brings him to mayor to face M’s accusation, court finds him innocent—pocketbook mysteriously returned—H keeps telling the story and only compounds the problem—becomes laughingstock and dies obsessed with string (something insignificant and useless)

·       If you were H’s press agent—tell him to shut up

·       Character is destiny. Heraclitus

o   Fragment 121

o   Variant translations:
Character is fate.
Man's character is his fate.
A man's character is his fate.
A man's character is his guardian divinity.

Does this statement hold true for M. Hauchecorne in “The Piece of String”?

·       Causation—choices determine outcome—insignificant acts can have significant conclusions (butterfly effect—wings can start hurricane)

·       His act is picking up the piece of string, but his “fate” is determined by his character (proud, deceitful, “honest” but selfish, pettiness)

WHAT YOU LEAVE OUT IS AS IMPORTANT AS WHAT YOU LEAVE IN

·       The nature of the feud with M. Malandaine—did Hauchcorne get the better of M in the past?  Through trickery, hard bargainer—grudge results

·       Winning is not always winning—if you set up a future loss in the winning

·       Don’t sweat the small stuff

·       Is Hauchcorne is a tragic figure or merely pathetic?  Tragic figure has tragic flaw (hubris, pride)—Hauchcorne—his pride: to hide string, to want to make others believe him

·       Is he pathetic?  Existential victim of circumstances beyond his control?  (pocketbook stolen, lost, returned?  The nature of Malandaine’s hatred toward him?  His own simplicity?)

“The Diary of a Madman”

Diary titled “Why?”—inquisitive regarding the nature of evil; seeks almost scientific approach to discovering evil

Stories in which the reader is lead into the mind, psychological state of the murderer (the will to power, here)—why are we attracted to such stories (do we all have a little of the murderer in us?)---how do we know this “diary” is real?  It’s in a fictional story—but we suspend our disbelief to allow ourselves to contemplate the possibilities

In many pop culture manifestations, the good guy is simply there for the audience to explore the villain’s nature (and empathetically engage in or “act out” “evil” not otherwise permissible by society)

How much is your ordinary Joe like the madman?  Human are by nature aggressive and war-like—sports are simply a safe version of war

Does the madman’s elevation by society corrupt him?  Is there an narrative arc to his character development?  Does he become “more evil” in the course of the diary?    Killing a bird—then an innocent boy—then kills random fisherman—then kills (judicially) the killer of the fisherman?  He’s corrupting himself at the beginning, but he eventually corrupts the entire judicial system

Why are we attracted to violence in art?  Adrenaline rush?  Allows primeval instincts to arise? 

Sublimate or desensitize—do violent games or art allow us to “work out” aggressions in acceptable way or simply make us “dead to the world” zombie-killers

Diary format allows M to move quickly from one incident to next—and gain the inmost insight into the murderer’s mind

“Then a whole nation slaughters another nation. It is a feast of blood, a feast that maddens armies and intoxicates the civilians, women and children, who read, by lamplight at night, the feverish story of  massacre.”

Is this all a justification or rationalization?  Even the innocent are bloodthirsty savages?  Reading/imagination as violent

“To kill is the law, because Nature loves eternal youth. She seems to cry in all her unconscious acts: "Quick! quick! quick!" The more she destroys, the more she renews herself.”

Literary naturalism—the notion that nature is a neutral force—above human notions of good and evil—Nature is indifferent to human suffering  (Crane, Bierce, De Maupassant, Zola, London)—turn away from the Romantic conception of Nature as all-encompassing universal spirit that is healing to a blind-nature without spirit (materialistic)

Killing—dehumanizes victims (threw “the body”—dissociates this from real living person; “It is done”;  “little thing”)

The narrator is just an extreme version of a cruel and blind Judicial system that murders

Are we like this murderer or not—does reading equal participation in the crime?  Is there a morale to this story?  Does shed light on the primitive nature of our civilization,

The murderer murders himself—kills his own spirit   needs the diary to relive the crimes—worried about getting caught, more obsessive activity than scientific method for greater understanding of human nature