Should you ever set foot in my class, you will undoubtedly hear of Mrs. Perry, my former high school English teacher. She often recited the following belief, "99.9% of all literature stems from two sources: William Shakespeare and The Bible." One example Mrs. Perry frequently cited was the use of rain, suggesting change not only in the Old Testament with Noah and the Ark but also in the New Testament with John the Baptist. Two instances in Stranger remind me of this theory. In Chapter Six, Mosher writes, ". . . it started to rain" (p. 141). The description appears innocent enough as James now needs to hurry home after Production Night at the Monitor. Initially because of the weather, Sheriff White offers "Jimbo" a ride home. Only after young Kinneson declines do we sense a change in tone. "You really ought to be a little choosier about the company you keep, now that you're getting older" (p. 142). Mason White underscores the racism within the village and highlights the changes James must face in this coming-of-age novel.
The second moment comes in Chapter Seven when Claire LaRiviere makes a more appropriate second appearance in the book as a drenched Canadian waif at the Kinneson doorstep. The day's rain cleanses the disturbing images left behind by Mr. One-eye Billy Carbonneau and the Paris Review. It also presents the orphaned daughter of famed French Canadian fiddler, Etienne LaRiviere, in such a unique and innocent light. "She had long hair, too wet to tell what color. Her rain-colored eyes had huge craters beneath them" (p. 161). Claire is much more alluring to James after she and her clothes have a soak in the quarry later in the chapter. "Nathan Andrews had teased me that I wouldn't know what to do with a naked girl if I found one. To my chagrin, he had been absolutely right" (p. 167). While this novel is certainly about Reverend Andrews' arrival to Kingdom County, Claire LaRiviere is the plot's "change agent", and water helps the reader navigate the subtleties - thanks to Mrs. Perry.
Mr. R.
Welcome
This is an opportunity for the greater New Hampton School community to take part in a discussion of Howard Frank Mosher's A Stranger in the Kingdom. Questions & comments are encouraged!
A Stranger in the Kingdom
Background Information
Mosher in the Fall
Title picture "Fall Graveyard" by Michael S. Yamashita.
7 comments:
It's true that Shakespeare and the Bible represent the ur-stories from our point of view.
On the other hand China invented the paper that the bard would write on more than 1000 years earlier. That's a much older written tradition from which have sprung many many interesting stories.
Stranger takes place in a setting that could be New Hampton - it's so familiar and I wonder how it is being read by students outside that perspective?
After reading Mr. Redman's comment about the significance of rain as a symbol, I have decided that it means more than a change in tone. In all of the scenes that have begin with rain, Mosher has spoken of guilt and redemption.
One page 141, it begins to rain. After the sheriff pulls up, Jim thinks, "Instantly my heart began to beat faster...I was desperate to think up some excuse to not get into that frightful vehicle...Scared nearly out of my wits, I got into the front seat of the hearse..." Clearly, he is quite scared in this situation. On page 142, Sheriff White says that Nat cheated when he hit Frenchy, to which Jim defends his friend and says, "'That's not true!' I shouted. Now that my dander was up, I didn't care who or what Mason White has in the back of that hearse" (142). Initially, Jim felt afraid of the shariff and guilty for disobeying his parents, but then he defended his friend, and in gaining this honor, he lost his fear.
On page 158, Mosher writes, "It rained hard all the rest of that day." Jim thinks, "...I had always been quicker to confide certain thornier kinds of problems to Mom than to Dad, yet I could hardly confess that I'd actually been inside the girlie tent when it was raided" (158). Jim feels so guilty about seeing the young girl, Claire, half-naked, that he can't even tell his mom, the person he loves to go to the woods with and spend his weekend at a fair with (Mosher has proven his trust with her). With this guilt established, Jim can't get the scared girl off of his mind. But he thinks, "I hope she was all right and safely away from One-eye abd his rough bunch, but other thoughts kept crowding into my mind, too, fantasies of rescuing her from her plight myself..." (159). Jim doesn't have lust for the girl, but rather to help her. Again, after the rainfall comes guilt and hope at redemption.
To cap it off, Mosher writes, "I could barely remember the Dog Cart Man...but voicing concern for his well-being had become a family ritual on stormy nights" (159). The family prays for this man, who symbolizes warmth, creativity, yet fragility. Perhaps they feel guilty that such a great being should be subject to pain and hunger. They seek warmth by hoping that he is all right.
Yes, in all the scenes with rain, some change is occuring, but more significant, I think, is the idea that someone is being tested. In a rainstorm, we have the choice of seeking cover, hiding, or to keep on walking. So far only James has been faced with this choice, but he has chosen to keep on walking, to defend his friend, and to defend the girl (he offers to help her go west). Will all of the characters chose honor, to keep on walking in the rain, when they are tested?
*I'm not sure how to make a new post, so I will just add to this comment.
So far, I have read the first seven chapters of A Stranger in the Kingdom (Stranger). While there have been no major conflicts, a few major themes have begin to emerge. Obviously, racism, friendship, and expectations/duty are key players in this novel. However,Mosher has asked the reader to discover what the definition of honor and personal strenth is by reading his book.
In fact, the book is more of an allegory than a novel. Mosher appears to assign a moral definition to every character, place, and object. For example, Montreal represents danger and daring and Mr. Kinneson symbolizes a moral standard. While this "allegory" is in a made-up place with fictional characters, the events could of happened had the town and characters existed. Mosher presents the interaction between these characters to show a battle between different types of integrity and honor. The result of these interactions may offer readers a lesson regarding trust, honor, friendship, and purpose.
By employing excellent rhetorical devices, Mosher presents an allegory to measure the true meaning of honor and self-strenth.
After reading 170 pages (CH 7), I asked myself what honor is and hwat causes people to be bound by honor? Why causes someone to trust another person and what do they gain by "doing the right thing?"
So far, Mosher ha presented several characters, each with a different definition of honor.
Charles (Jr)- At the fair, Charlie decided to protect Mr. Andrews by guiding him away from Mr. White and Mr. Stevens, even saying, "'Let's cleat the hell out of here...Not all the freaks sem to be in the freak show'" (148). He prefers his elders (including the sheriff) disliking him and defending the minister. In fact, after Jim gets in a fight with Frenchy, he says to the onlookers, "'If i ever hear of any of you bothering my brother or any of his friends, including the Andrews... you won't travel so far that I won't find you'" (122). Additionally, he defends Claire at the fair even when threatened with a cattle proud. He believes in equallity for african americans, women, and children, yet he defends every criminal in court even if they have done evil. Perhaps this is the reason he won't become prosecutor- he believes honor is defending everyone regardless of there moral beliefs.
Rev. Andrews- He believes Nat should figt Frenchy to defend the family name and show the black man is strong. Additionally, he wants to help a town which is hostile to himself. He believes that honor may be a measure of force and power.
Mr. Kinneson- While he is against racism and may become good friends with Rev. Andrews, he won't engage in any fighting himself (claiming he would if he was 10 years younger). Puzzlingly, Jim believes that his father would rather he had fought Frenchy to defend Nat. Mosher writes, "My father, I think, was secretly proud of my loyalty to Mat, misguided though it was. But all he said was that I ought to use a hay hook on Frenchy next time..." (127). Clearly, Charles Senior isn't the Atticus we first thought he was.
Nat- Nat has a more peaceful approach to defining honor. He won't fight when he is called a Niggerpaw by Frenchy, instead turning and walking of the field. He says, "'Justin and most of the guys know I'm not afriad of Frenchy. But wven if they didn't, I would fight him" (117). He isn't subject to pressure by his peers, but alrady knows what is right and wrong by his own choosing. In fact, he upholds his vow to his grandma that he won't get into any more fights. However, his first fight was very significant. He said of the fight, "' I was more scared of being thought a coward, or thinking myself one'" (119). His original defnition of honor was to fight, but he has already learned, by age 15 or 16, that to not fight may hold more integrity. He proves his honor when he won't enter the show without Jimmy (152) and again when he forces Bumpter to let go of Jimmy (155). He even thinks the Paris show is disguisting, probably because it violates his standard of treatment of women. Most amazing, Nat saves Frenchy's life even though Frenchy was so horrible to him.
Jimmy- Jim defends Nat from Frenchy by fighting him, showing his courage to enter a fight he knew he would lose to defend Nat's honor. Additionally, he keeps his word to Nat by not telling anyone why Nat won't fight even though he really wanted to. However, Jim wants to gain respect from Nat by leading him to the cockfight and the peep show, two acts which betrayed his father yet showed that he was willing to take risk, that he was "couragous".
Claire- She is willing to work for the dreadful Kinessons and repay her bus ticket even if it will bring harm to her.
To me, honor is the strongest theme presented in the book, and MOsher asks more questions about its quality than of any other topic. In the introduction, he spoke of Charles fighting his father constantly but of how each fight had no meaning. Why is this mentioned? Perhaps Mosher is suggesting that good people can be similar (they are both named Charles), but can have quite different definitions of values at the same time. Another foil is Jim and Nat, two boys of similar age, yet from opposite settings (city v rural). Can two good kids from far different lifestyles have the same values?
As I mentioned previously, Mosher uses excellent rhetorical devices to make a fictional story sound so plausible. The reader feels so much a part of every scence that they don't doubt any of it- one believes that Mosher is in fact Jim, and has lived through all of these events. Through such tools as forshadowing, transitionas + recaps, incorporating information by showing, not telling, and using vivid language, Mosher has brought his made-up story to life, a necessary effect to convince the reader of the truth behind any lessons the book may offer.
Mosher first forshadows the arrival of the minister (the first change in The Kingdom) when Jim reads the news to his dad (which incidentally lets us know the dad values education by showing not telling). The news exclaims that a new minister is moving in after a two year gap. This allows the arrival of the black minister to feel more realistic, not made-up, since his arrival was announced (later elaborated by the recount of the phone interview). Mosher also forshadows about the wold girls when he says, "...town boys sometimes took "wild" girls; where (I would learn later) certain poor women outcasts had actually been auctioned off for the night..." (120). This parenthetical comment reminds us the story is being told from the future (making it more realistic) and it reminds us to pay careful attention to when we meet the wild girls, since they are clearly embedded in Jim's memory. Forshadowing is not uses without purpose in this allegory.
Mosher has created a style of writing where he beings a new scene with action, and then reminds the audience what is going on with a short recap following. This form reminds me of an essay, where one should stary with a grabber, and then mention the the facts and a thesis. For example, Mosher writes, "'All right, gents, here we go. The cow in first place has a tad more overall dairyness than the others'" (144). We have drifted from a dark rainy night to a bright country fair with the flip of a page. To make up for this swiftness, Mosher recaps the transition when he writes, "It was judging day- Saturday..." (145).
Later, Mosher writes, "'Hey, hey, hey, Paris comes to New Hampshire," yelled a barker' (151). We now moved from the lively fair to the even livlier entrance to the girl-show. He again recaps with, "This is what Nat and I had been waiting for. This was the show we inteded to see. But how?" (152). Or again on 156 with the sudden transfer to the court (156) and then the facts ("it was two-thirty in the morning" (156).). Mosher uses this style to intigue the audience with an exciting new scene, which builds up questions in the readers mind; he then answers these questions with some background information with gives the reader for a longing of more action. I think this style cleverly allows Mosher to incorporate a lot of details and facts which may be boring to read, but add to the understanding of the story and imagry, witout slowing down the book much.
Mosher is also an expert at offering new information in quite details, allowing him to present facts using actions, so he doesn't have to bore the reader with cold statute facts. In demonstration, Mosher has Mr. Kinesson tell Claire that her picture is not Resolved when he says, "' Deffinently not... thought they hav a lot in common'" (165)He expresses that Charles is much like Resolved, who he disporves of, without saying it directly. Through simple inference, the reader is reminded of the conflict between Charles and his father. Or on page 162, Kosher describes the contets of Claire's bag. The candy wrappers, worn comb, and train tickets suggest that she has recently traveled- these few details along with the description of her dirty shoes and worn clothes show her character and the long journey she jsut traveled without stating it directly. These little actions and details, among thousands of others, offer us information about The Kingdom and its people without being slowed down by long monologues. More significant, we learn information that Jim could have learned, keeping the book an allegory. While most fiction is told from the god-like-all-knowing first person, this perspective seems to have many limitations to keep the story sounding plausible.
While Mosher shows and doesn't tell expertly, his use of vivid language sets this book apart from others. While he uses words most people wouldn't know, he tends to make sure the contect around the word denotes their meanings. Vivid language follows:
"cacophorous fowl shed" (145)
early dusk was the best time to walk along the midway. the strings of colored lights glowed softly and invitingly...fried foods smells clung agreeably to the cooling air...'step right up' they chanted over the blaring midway music... (147)- in one paragraph, mosher uses all five senses to set the scene
"glorious menagerie" (147)
"I retreated in ignominy" (149)
"blaring burlesque music"(alliteration) (152)
"denimed legs" (154)
"bovine"..."hogpen"..- show men as animals at the girl-show (154)
"supine barker" (156)
"antics alledged"- (alliteration) (157)
"the burn was high, to, and as roily as Huck Finn's Mississippi"- he defines roily with an allusion and specific imagery (166)
Mosher is a master writer. Is he good enough to make a 400 page story an allegory?
Quotes open to comments and thoughts:
-p120: Kinneson believes- "'... I had been to quick... to assume that because I would react a certain way in a creat situation, he should react the same way.'"
(He thought that because he would fight Frenchy Nat should have but not reconsiders)
-Why do people from different places act differently?
-Can a person tell another person the right way to act?
-p122: Charlie says sarcastially to the onlookers of his brother's fight, "' No...let's get along with out own foods friends and gentle neighbors and just persecute strangers, especially if they aren't the same color we are, right, Bumper?'"
-Why are the village people so against change? (they don't even want to end the old church fundraiser)
-What is the difference between a neighbor and a stranger?
-How does a stranger become a neighbor?
Post a Comment