""
is a short story with a twist ending by , in which a boy named Laurie creates an alter-ego named
Charles to blame for his own bad behavior in kindergarten.
Wordplay,
encompassing anything from puns to subtlein grammar and context, is here shown largely as
contextual clues to Laurie's rebellion against authority. At home,
where he is shown safely telling stories about a terrible boy,
Laurie pushes against his parents with small verbal jibes. He calls his father "dumb"
and an "old dust-mop," all innocuous enough and ignored in the face of
the more interesting Charles. At school, where he is not so terrified of parental
judgement, his actions are larger: using the playground toy "see-saw" to hit a girl,
he is made to stay inside during recess; throwing chalk "deprive[s him] of black-board
privileges. Each action relates directly to its
consequence.
A good example of this contextual wordplay
appears early in the story.
"The teacher spanked a
boy, though," Laurie said, addressing his bread and butter. "For being
fresh," he added, with his mouth full.
"What did he do?"
I asked. "Who was it?"
Laurie thought. "It was Charles," he
said.
(Jackson, "Charles," Google Docs)
This is both aand a clue as to the ending, as well as being the creation-moment of
Charles himself. Laurie, trying to find a way to explain that he was "fresh" in class
and was punished, attempts to simply slide it by his parents. His "addressing his bread and
butter" is an attempt to minimalize the story by not engaging his parents
directly. When Laurie speaks directly to his father, his tone is
"cold," but the lie is built
on the theme of "bread and butter," mentally associating with
warmth. It is also a pun, as Laurie's "freshness" can be felt in the
food itself; fresh food, fresh behavior. However, Laurie finds
himself forced to further explain the lie, and Charles is born.
No comments:
Post a Comment