The Triumvirate welcomes you!
"The term triumvirate (from Latin, "of three men") is commonly used to describe a political regime dominated by three powerful individuals" (Wiki).
Read, then re-read, "Mr. Green" by Robert Olen Butler. Discuss the thematic implications of the two repeated phrases "not possible" and "what then". The story can be found online at http://www.deanza.edu/faculty/swensson/green.html
wow, this is the third time i'm posting this because of so many grammatical errors i made. :( oh well.
So, I think the phrase "not possible" has to do with the story's theme of men and womens' roles in society and gender identity. The girl's grandfather always tells her that something is "not possible" because she "[is] a girl" (19). The parrot is angry when she tells him "not possible" because she doesn't have the right to do that; it's not her role (27). The parrot is "pleased...to defy [her] (21) even at the cost of his well-being because as a man, he has power. The parrot, perhaps, symbolizes the man who "raised him" and epitomizes his sexist views on the role of women in society.
I think the "what then" has to do with the theme of dealing with circumstances that you can't change. For example, the grandfather tells the girl "what then" when she becomes a woman - which is inevitable. He also says it when they think of moving to South vietnam, and later the U.S. He's afraid the ancestors won't make the trip and people may hate them -- things they can have no control over either. You can't really do much about peoples' opinions of you especially if they're already prejudiced, as people in north and south Vietnam were at the time.
Also, I thought that the story's end "There were women...run away" seems to connect the two themes. Although nobody could do anything about crucifying Christ(inevitable circumstance), the women still stood by him in support, whereas the men didn't much care and "ran away" (28) (gender role). Sadly, I know next to nothing about Christ's crucifixion, so this was probably an exaggeration in the story...? If there's any truth in the statement though, then maybe it has a bigger "thematic" meaning.
This is totally unrelated, and mostly me ranting, so I'm sorry. I just feel compelled: I don't understand why the "good literature" we always read in lit classes have to be so melancholy and depressing! I understand that we can learn a lot from them and the style of writing, but can't we learn just as much from more hopeful and inspirational works? Once in a while is fine, but they're usually the only ones we read, and I hate that. I think you can learn just as much about human nature when you see how somebody's courage, loyalty, or compassion leads them through life's difficulties, as you can when you see how somebody's affected by power, fear, or helplessness. The "Gift of the Magi" by O'Henry is a short story too, but much more uplifting. Yet it still has important literary elements like irony, suspense, and thematic meaning. Maybe it's just me that finds this story rather sad and depressing. Then again, I only read this once, and skimmed it a second time.
The death of Mr. Green symbolizes a death of gender discriminate ancestry. By wringing the birds neck the girl has a confirmation, if you will, and puts the Confucian values of her grandfather to death.
It was "not possible" for her to become heiress to the care-taking of her family's ancestry simply because she was a girl. Her grandfather and the parrot repeatedly question "what then" was to be done with the Confucian tradition.
"What then" when a daughter forgets to honor the sacrifice of her ancestors? I sense a tone of resentment in Mr. Butler concerning the infectious Materialism borne from western civilization's attempts at Christianizing foreigners who have not evolved alongside the values of Christianity.
On the other hand, "what then" when a little girl wishes to honor her ancestors but receives "not possible" as the only response? Confucianism's discriminating of women is revealed as a barrier which causes a "recoil" in all Vietnamese women who do seek to honor their ancestry. In this regard Catholicism and the "sacrament" are an outlet for Vietnamese women who are cut off from the most spiritual of Confucian beliefs, but come at a spiritual price. The girl's mother "yanked [her] away" from the beads of her Grandfather's shrine to ancestry. Her Catholic mother does not want her daughter to experience a world she cannot be strong in. And that is, to some degree, noble.
As they move from North to South Vietnam her Grandfather worries about putting the accomplishments of the ancestors to death. "Grandfather did not have the concerns of the Catholics. He was concerned about the spirits of his ancestors."
Here we are presented with the concept of leaving one's ancestors and the sacrifices those ancestors gave in order to give the gift of a better life to the girl's Grandfather as well as the girl. If every human in the world left their homeland, and the house that was built by the work and toil of their ancestor's purpose, what would our modern world be? Modern humanity has been founded by family, and honor to the ancestry of that family. An honor that means you continue the work of your ancestors and attempt to progress that work as far as humanly possible.
Catholicism to some degree stagnated the 'human endeavor' when they were in complete control of European civilization in the Dark Ages. Only when a challenge arose to the universal church did a rebirth or renaissance of the human endeavor arise.
Diya, yes, the end has a very significant purpose. I'm not exactly sure what it is, but I think it shows the authors frustration with a Vietnamese and universal sexism alongside an American(Western) materialism which is not as concerned with the human(ancestral) endeavor as it has to be in order for human culture to evolve past sexism.
Diya- I like your analysis and I think the reason that we always read somber stories is because it makes us feel. I've seen in a lot of authors' work how their writing is cathartic, releasing pain from an experience or trying to heal themselves. Out of great pain comes great work (Edgar Allen Poe, anyone?) There are some great stories about hopeful and inspirational experiences, but a lot of sad stories have hopeful endings, too.
Now for the story. I liked this story so much because of the ending. Wringing an animals neck is hard. It takes a lot of strength and courage to do that (something we usually see in males) and a woman did it. After being verbally abused by a bird for years, she was able to end both their pain by an action that seems horrific at first glance. But the bird was old, and she seemed hurt when the parrot stopped responding to her. It's a win-win!
"Not possible" is something women hear a lot, and I'm sure it's heard a lot more in traditional Asian cultures. I found it interesting that the words weren't 'impossible'. I'm not sure if there's any significance to it, but 'not possible' sounds much more intense than impossible. Impossible is often an exaggeration, but Not Possible is definite. It's not an exaggeration, it is a factual truth. The repetition of such an absolute term shows opression that women face, and the difficulty of blending a modern and ancient culture. It's not possible to protect and care for ancestors when you're a catholic woman.
'What then' is possibly one of the saddest statements I've heard; it leaves no hope. Many times it is used without a question mark...it's just a phrase of uncertainty and despair. In the story I thought that it meant that once a person leaves their cultural beliefs/ties, what then? What happens to a society when all the children are modernized. It reminded me of American Indians; they lost their culture when Americans forced them to 'whiten up', so to speak.
Did anyone else think that wringing Mr. Green's neck was symbolic of leaving her old culture behind? It wasn't as if she was trying to lose her heritage, but the pain that she felt from being considered inferior died along with the bird. Ooh man I liked this story, haha.
I thought that one of the most depressing parts of this story was the fact that the parrot, which stayed with her and constantly reminded her of her grandfather, was also the one thing bringing her down for 40 years.
I agree with Natalie that "The repetition of such an absolute term ("Not Possible") shows oppression that women face, and the difficulty of blending a modern and ancient culture." Yep. I think we still feel this way, sometimes. I don't think that the ending was really a symbol of her leaving her culture, but the expectations that she could not and did not have the desire to live up to. She grew up, torn between the conflicting beliefs of her mother and grandfather. Clearly, it drove her crazy. She even had an annoying parrot to remind her every day, even after her grandfather's death.
The bird seems like a second conscience. Whenever she makes a decision that she knows would not please her mother or grandfather, she is aware of it. Regardless, she tries to get away from that thought lingering in the back of her mind and just make her own decisions. However, that bird never failed to discourage her as long as she kept it around. The constant reminder that doing what she pleased was “no possible” kept her from finding what it was that she believed and living to fulfill her own dreams. I was surprised that the bird wasn’t of much help to her. I thought that all the emphasis on the fact that her grandfather was in love with it in the beginning would mean that it would end up helping her out when he was gone. Maybe it did in the end..?
I noticed that because she always feels as if her own desires are not good enough, she works to please everyone else and even learns to justify her change of mind. When she is looking at birds with her grandfather, she notices the sparrows and decides that they are her favorite. She can even relate to them and looks forward to keeping them as pets. But when she learns that they are just food, she says that she “must have decided that it was all part of growing up, of becoming a woman like [her] mother.” She “wanted to be just like her and [she] twisted the necks of the sparrows and plucked their feathers and roasted them and ate them and [her] grandfather would take a deep breath after the meal and his eyes would close in pleasure.” She thinks she is doing the right thing as long as she they seem pleased. That is her listening to the “What then.” I don’t like that.
Mr. Green brings with it some interesting intellectual challenges, as well as highlighting some sharp cultural contrasts. Erik's point about Western/ Eastern (Confucian) was something that I noticed as well. I think that everybody got hurt in the transitioning of cultures here, yes the parrot does berate her sometimes and it was hurtful to her but I have to strongly disagree with Natalie that killing it showed any sort of bravery at all. Merely killing something is the easiest and least effective way out of any problem, which is perhaps why I sensed no resolution from the woman in this story. I don't think she felt any better after killing the parrot, just a little more powerful.
The contrast between western and eastern cultures is also shown when she kills the parrot. It is a very materialistic and very western concept to just get rid of something when you don't like it anymore rather than to mend it and use it again. She was unable to console the parrot so she gave up. After all in all eastern cultures women are greatly respected, it kind of reminds me of the quote from my big fat Greek Wedding when the mom says that the man is the head of the house but that the woman is the neck that turns the head. The woman is expected to be the smart one that is wise and steers the body in the right direction. However this girl had this conflict that her Western parents did not want her to experience fully her Vietnamese culture, and in doing so her grandfather comes off poorly because she only sees a part where men are expected to do something. She was not being oppressed by anyone other than herself the whole time. Yes this demonstrates something about the supposed roles of a man and a woman, but I get the feeling that the narrator doesn't resolve that issue by killing the parrot.
"Not possible" is pretty harsh but people seem to forget that the grandfather immediately felt bad for saying that, it was just tradition. He loved his granddaughter and although it has an ironic twist he made sure that his most prized possession went to her. I don't think the old man was sexist, perhaps just too rigid in following his traditions as evidenced in this quote from Erik:
I sense a tone of resentment in Mr. Butler concerning the infectious Materialism borne from western civilization's attempts at Christianizing foreigners who have not evolved alongside the values of Christianity.
Clearly people are seeing the intrusive nature of Christianity upon reading this. One point that I find very ironic is that she doesn't believe in worshiping her ancestors. I am no expert in Christianity so please correct me but I believe that Christ was a human and that in Christian literature we all descended from the same people if you go far enough back. Though it may not be exactly like this, isn't worshiping Christ, another human, the same as worshiping your ancestors. She is clearly enthralled by the idea of Catholicism, but doesn't actually realize what it is as it isn't part of her culture. Almost all cultures worship the greatest of their ancestors, Confucius was a great man just as Christ was, but when she switches to Christianity she is confused and no longer knows her role or who she is because it is not part of her culture.
If she were truly the brave and courageous soul that some people seem to think she is she would change that parrots words rather than kill it. There are plenty of instances of women in history really being revolutionary, changing the system rather than trying to just kill a small part of it, think Joan of Arc. Actually I'm pretty sure that this is complete coincidence but I find it funny that Joan was known as "the maid of Orleans" and that this woman moved to New Orleans. Perhaps the author thought he was showing a modern Joan of Arc but I feel compelled to disagree. There are great stories of women showing courage everyday, this just isn't one of them. For me those stories have an answer to "what then?" This one doesn't.
I don't see the issue so much as one of courage, but one of strength and follow-through. She loved Mr. Green, as she loved her grandfather. Her grandfather suffered horribly and she could do nothing for him. Now, Mr. Green is dying and is suffering, but there IS something she can do for him -- kill him and release him from pain. Thoughts?
I agree with Natalie about the phrase "not possible." I think it does make a big difference between impossible and not possible.
Throughout the entire story, whenever a male, either the parrot or the grandfather said "not possible," it struck a chord in the daughter. She was either hurt or frustrated. But when she said the words "not possible," the parrot just ignores her because it's not as effective when she says it. She tried to make the parrot feel condescending but he has the ability to ignore it (then again, he is a bird.)
And I think the phrase "not possible" is much more definite because it is a story about an Asian family and its culture. In my opinion, I think I hear that phrase all the time; in my house, at church, anywhere else where I'm surrounded by other Asians, and especially because I'm a girl. In the Asian culture, it's just not possible for girls to do some things. (Or it just might be my parents, but regardless).
I thought it was interesting though that the females were the ones that wrung the neck of the birds. I mean I understand because it was a part of the process, but it seems like such a horrifying action.
And I think the phrase "what then" has to do with the future. On page 26, the 3rd paragraph, the grandfather says "You will grow up to be a woman -- what then?" What are you supposed to do after? What is your desire and goal?
I think because there IS something she can do for Mr. Green, it wasn't hard for her to make a decision. It was quick; she knew what she was doing. But even though she killed Mr. Green and freed him of his pain, what then? What about her? What then?
Ms. Minor, I agree, but reluctantly. The killing of Mr. Green really does release the spirits from suffering, but I think the longer one suffers the more meaningful the experience.
The plucking of the feathers must represent the loss of each honor once given to the girl's ancestry. Brought to a completely foreign world defined by Christianity, the values of the girl's Confucian grandfather had to be sacrificed and plucked off painfully one by one. By putting those values finally out of misery with one swift twist of the neck the girl comes of age with the same realization as her mother and the old Vietnamese women: their traditional values cannot survive in the uncalled for, yet inevitable reaction of the swallowing up of Eastern spirituality by the Western materiality.
In this regard the women of the story are the more in tune with reality. They can see the inevitable struggles which are approaching and as a result advance faster to end them by action, compared to the Grandfather. Their relative ease when putting the traditional values of Vietnam to death, however has a dark side. It makes the efforts and sacrifices of the ancestors, in my opinion, the more futile than if suffered well.
But then again, if the death of tradition is truly inevitable, the girl and her mother are doing it a merciful favor.
Mr. Butler's story is a testament to the sad, sad truth that Vietnamese tradition is being left for dead, or being broken at the neck for quietus.
The phrase "what then" is the grandpas disapproval of change in general. The first time it is said is when the grandfather is taking issue about them leaving town because that was the place where all of their history lies. To me those two words mean: if you change this, what will you change next. These two words seem to have the snowball effect in that they build off of something small and can make accusations of what is to come.
I was trying to look into the relations between the people and the birds and I think the types of birds could represent three different types of people. The canaries are the youth that will absorb whatever their elders tell them, the blackbirds are people that adapt and grow with their surroundings, and the parrots are people that cling to heritage and believe in something just because they've grown up basked in it.
While the grandfather sang to the canaries, he charmed them but "he didn't really mean the sounds he made." I see it as the grandfather charming his granddaughter in ways that differ from his beliefs. The first time she is really exposed to these beliefs is when she is told to keep his secret.
Mr. Green is much like the grandfather because of how he treats the girls children and "old women." They both share a tenderness towards children that they don't share with older women. This contrast is expressed by how Mr. Green would "hold [her] ear with the greatest gentleness" while she was still young, but after she begins to age into an older woman, we saw that Mr. Green bit her and "looked at [her] sharply as [she] spoke ... chattering away like a blackbird."
The blackbirds are the old women in this case. They represent the mother and the grandmother by how they don't need to include themselves with the grandfathers ideals. The blackbirds "[are] just a bunch of old women" that don't need to be apart of the grandfathers religion or his heritage.
The girl chose to be like her mother and grandmother by choosing for herself what religion to be apart of.
Natalie, thanks for humoring my rant. It's interesting that pain makes us feel/connect more than pleasure...
Erik, Yeah, I thought the end was significant too. Your analysis of it being a bridge between Eastern traditions and Western materialism is interesting. Actually, I think it points out similarities between the two cultures - maybe suggesting that things aren't that different after all.
I think killing the bird was indeed an act of strength and courage. It's interesting that the women are assigned to kill the birds. I think this actually symbolizes the cultural, and possibly Confucian, idea that women must ultimately be the strong. Men don't kill, not because it's too "easy", but because they can be held blameless whereas the women almost transfer their oppression to the birds. It breeds anger and resentment. The fact that the girl related so closely to the sparrows, the birds she later kills, seems to support this idea.
Natalie, I agree with your second analysis of what killing the bird meant. It's a way to ease the bird's pain, but also part of tradition. Usually, the women in Asian cultures are supposed to be strong and keep the family together, and there're many instances in the story where the women must be strong. I think killing the bird is an unavoidable event that the women accept simply. For the girl in the story, though, it was a way for her to end that troubling aspect of her culture, while not abandoning her culture altogether. She says earlier "my family likes the things I bring to the table," but she still "prays for the soul of her grandfather."
As Erik mentioned, it's important to evolve alongside the values you adopt. I think it becomes confusing and tough for people when they adopt new religions without understanding its teachings or the teachings of their own religion. However, I think leaving behind one's ancestry in a time of turmoil and in search of a better life, as the Vietnamese were doing during the War, is acceptable. I wonder whether the grandfather would've minded as much if they had tried to balance both cultures/ religions, instead of just adopting Catholicism.
Wow, I'm sorry for making another long blog post! I hope we haven't been too greedy and snatched away topics of conversation. :)
I have to agree with Diya that it was courageous and brave for her to kill the bird. I don’t think she was running away from her problems by killing it. I agree with Harish that changing things would seem more like the brave thing to do and it is. But I see her character more in a battle against her culture and what’s she’s been raised up to think, because I think she was dealing with affliction because of what was told to her by her grandfather. And again, I also don’t think the grandpa was a bad guy, because he did love her very much and felt guilty at times when he seemed to hurt her feelings. If I was a this girl, and I loved my mother and I wanted to be just like her, and then someone, “How foolish they sound…You don’t want to grow up sounding like all these foolish women, do you?” I would be pretty hurt, especially if it’s coming from another important person in my life who I also looked up to.
In addition, like what Ms. Minor said, she couldn’t do anything to help ease the pain of her grandfather’s suffering. And as many of you guys have said, Mr. Green is like the grandfather in many ways. When the bird was in pain and was basically trying to kill itself, she did what she had to do. While when her grandfather was dying she couldn’t really do anything to help him. Many can argue that it’s weak and that there was nothing about that action that was courageous at all whatsoever. She killed something that was very close to her and something that also reminded of her grandfather, but she did it anyway to help it escape from the pain which was, in my perception, a brave thing to do.
I also loved this short story. It was sad but I liked it a lot!
Wow. This is such an intense and moving story. I loved it to the last word, but it was very sad. Nevertheless, it had some excellent writing.
The phrase "not possible" has a very significant meaning. It seems to embody the culture that the narrator comes from, one that has distinct gender divisions. The grandfather seems very traditional in saying that the narrator could not be catholic and pray for him at the same time, mainly because she was female. I found this a little odd. What does gender have to do with praying and religious things?
Diya, I like your analysis of when the narrator says "not possible" to Mr. Green. The author seems to convey the idea that the girl's role is not to say those words, and Mr. Green believes the same thing.
The phrase "what then" also was repeated many times. This phrase came across to me as one that is representative of things the way the are. Some things cannot be changed, and Mr. Green says "what then" to convey this. Almost every time, the phrase ends with a question mark. I feel that this is sort of like an accusatory tone, as it seems to showcase great doubt.
I found it interesting how the word "recoil" also happened to come up many times. Each time it was used, it was in a situation in which the girl needed to put up her guard to the comments of her grandfather and of Mr. Green. The connection between the word "recoil" and the thoughts of the narrator is very strong. She always seems to reflect deeply after the word is used.
Mrs. Minor, I agree that the story is one of strength and follow through. The girl can do nothing to save her grandfather, but she applies what she learns from this experience to help her deal with the sickness of Mr. Green many years later.
On a side note, Mr. Green's character to me seemed like the spirit of the girl's late grandfather. Everything that Mr. Green does parallels the ideas of the girl's grandfather, right down to his eventual death. The story is kind of scary in that sense.
I agree Niloy, the story is very intense and moving. Everyone has posted such great analyses! I feel like mine is going to be lame in comparison, but nonetheless, here it is.
When I saw the phrase "not possible", I didn't really think about the limitations of women in the Vietnamese society, but I saw the limitations individuals put on each other in general. I agree with Diya; people sometimes feel like it’s not their place or role to stand up in hard situation or to do something about a difficult circumstance, and feel like they will be looked down upon. While reading the story, I got a sense that the girl feels looked down upon and inadequate. When she finally realizes that she can do something by ending the bird’s misery, the haunting words "not possible" begin to crumble away and fade. Also, the phrase seems like a challenge to the girl and I think through her lifetime, she struggles with those words and wants to find a way to defeat them. But I'm probably way off in my analysis.
The phrase "what then" leaves one with hopelessness, like Natalie mentions. It also reminds me of several movies/ TV shows I've seen ( I don’t remember the names) because many times when a character is stuck or their plan ends up in a disaster, they say "what now" or "what then", but this is really random. Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that this phrase seems to ask "What are we going to do from here?" or "What's next?" I think this phrase it tied in with your plans in life and what you will do in a difficult circumstance. “What then” are words that poses a challenge.
I've realized that I've used the word "challenge" several times in my analysis, so maybe this is a theme in the short story.
Diya: Dude, your analysis is so in depth! Yeah, I also thought there was a thematic meaning in the last paragraph of the story. When we can't do something about a situation, instead of running away, we have to face the problem and find solutions. If we can’t, we can still support one another, and realize that we always won't have the answer. Maybe that’s the meaning of the last paragraph. Am I making any sense?
Mrs.Minor: Yeah, I think the fact that she could finally do something began releasing the pain she had. It seems like she finally triumphs over the words “not possible” and releases the spirit of her grandfather through the parrot, defying the cultural bounds that women cannot protect the spirit of their ancestors. Being able to do something made her feel adequate and strong.
Natalie: You always have such great analyses! Yeah, I see what you mean. I think she is releasing and protecting her grandfather’s spirit, no matter what her culture said. She is breaking away the cultural bounds and in a sense, leaving her culture behind. But mainly, wringing the bird's neck served to release both her and the bird's pain. She is letting the pain of those words crumple away.
Tabron: Great analysis! I like your explanation of “what then”, it makes sense. You saw it through the grandfather’s eyes, which is cool because no one else saw it that way. Awesome!
Erik: I like your analysis on the recoiling of the Vietnamese women. I don’t really know anything about that religion, so it’s cool that you brought up the history and background. It helps in understanding the story better.
When she wrung the neck of the parrot it was to end its pain, but also her own. Her grandfather had influenced the parrot so much that it was as though the parrot had become a part of him. Even though she loved her grandfather, perhaps she resented his oppressed views of women and religion. I think it symbolizes how she wants to break free of the past and continue her future where everything is “possible.”
I also found it haunting how when Mr. Green became sick he acted depressed. He plucked his feathers and wanted to be in solitude. It was as if he was stripping himself of his identity and vibrancy.
Women roles have always infuriated me. As I read the story, I felt heart-broken for her when she was repeatedly told that it was not possible. Going to United States helped make her dreams more possible, but I think she still loved her culture, despite its flaws. She looked up to her mother and the beliefs that they have adapted, but continued to struggle with her grandfather’s pressure of his old beliefs and her parents more modern ideas.
The theme of "not possible" is that of the boundaries between men and woman according to her grandfather. Even past the grandfather's death, that bird keeps reminding her of these boundaries and limitations. What she can and cannot do now that her grandfather is dead. What her role is as a woman. The 'punishment' of being a woman; not being able to protect his soul in the after life. It reflects the old values of shame of being female, and how that bird and her grandfather held it against her.
The phrase "what then" makes me thinks back to my Claudius soliloquy. (Which I have to give, I know) In the soliloquy, Claudius talks about repentant and not being able to be forgiven: “What then? What rests? Try what repentance can. What can it not? Yet what can it, when one cannot repent?" It's basically the same case here, where she cannot change the fact that she is a woman no more than Claudius can be forgiven for killing his brother. It think the phrase is there to remind her that she isn't forgiven, and to question what she does knowing that. Kind of taunting her, questioning where she stands about this, and to keep her in the dark confustion that Claudius was in when he made his soliloquy.
What a chilling little story... I think Mr. Green's constant repetition of "not possible" reinforces the grandfather's view against women. He feels that they are not capable of carrying out certain tasks like, for example, consoling a deceased person's spirit in the after life--what he believes to be a man's work. It's very obvious that the woman loved her grandfather very much, and in turn Mr. Green, who was a parrot, but also a piece of her grandfather. The grandfather taught Mr. Green everything he knew, and the phrases he was taught by the girl's grandfather followed and haunted her throughout her life. Natalie, I do think the "wringing" of Mr. Green's neck is symbolic of leaving behind an old way of life, but I also think it could be her final ascent into womanhood. Just as her mother taught her to snap the sparrow's neck when she was younger, she ended the torture brought on by the parrot, a constant reminder of her sexist grandfather.
I think the girl realized that Mr. Green was completely stressed and in utter despair and finally helped him "cross-over" to be with his true owner, the one who taught him everything.
I really like the last line of this story. It sucks you into the the story even more, then lets you go... leaving you to ponder the woman's eerie story and exactly what it meant--for her, and all women, regardless of what culture.
(sorry for the poor analysis, my brain is all frozen over and slow, too many snow days!!)
"I think the girl realized that Mr. Green was completely stressed and in utter despair and finally helped him "cross-over" to be with his true owner, the one who taught him everything." -Nick I couldn't tell if the bird was plucking its feathers out and driving the girl crazy because it was sad that the owner died or if it was something else? I assumed that it was just depressed at first, but then it sounded like it wasn't really the main reason why the bird started to act differently..
Sharon - I think the feathers represent the loss of the girls's ancestor's values one by one as she goes from Vietnamese to American. Mr. Green (her ancestors) are becoming less and less vibrant, I guess, as the girl is consumed by Western culture. The ancestors are suicidal in a sense too; they really just want to be at peace rather than watch their once beautiful way of life become somewhat of a bald spotted parrot.
When i read this story it reminded me of a feminist Spanish poem I had read by Alfonsina Storni called Peso Ancestral. Translated, that means Ancestral Burden. The poem is magnificent in relation to this story. So i found a link for you guys with the side by side translation. It's very short. I highly recommend it.
The reason i brought up this poem though is that i think the central theme of this poem is societal expectations of women and the influence of the past and social environment on people.
"I was a quiet little girl, but I, too, would sometimes look at myself in a mirror and primp and puff myself up, even as in public I tried to hold myself apart a little bit from the other girls." - I think this quote shows a brief shadow of resistance to gender roles and is the only time i felt in the entire story were the tone not submissive. As most of you mentioned, the rest of the story points to a great deal of gender conformity and role suppression.
I think "not possible" refers to the strict division of roles between women and men in this society. I thought it was interesting that some of you thought that "What then" puts into question the part of one's destiny that can be controlled.
Diya- i think that "sad and depressing stories" like this one are the best kind of literature. I personally hate literature that is patently uplifting.
If you read this story carefully you will also notice that it is in fact very uplifting but it's subtle. The fact that she kills this parrot shows courage, resistance, and highlights the strength of women in controlling their own destiny despite pressures from their environment. I find that to be a very happy ending so i guess it depends on the reader.
Remember, happiness is defined relative to sadness. It's through this kind of literature that we can identify what it means to be happy.
Whenever Mr. Green would speak 'what then?' this question seems to be in expectation for what the person asked is planning to do because of the unexpected occurance that has happened. It's like he knows something could be wrong, like the family coming from the south or when he is unfamiliar with what was happening-like when he had to move to America. He seems to be very perceptive to moods or events that are out of the ordinary or perplexing to him as well as the humans.
Not possible is said whenever Mr. Green or even the girl is resisting something/someone, or does not agree with what is happening. It's kind of used as an aggressive stop, like the person using this phrase wants or needs to be in control.
The grandfather is a victim of a lifetime of Confucian conditioning, not a bad person, and does not posses the strength to shed this upbringing before his death, although he realizes that it is wrong. His attempt to free himself of his past can be seen in his affection for the girl. We can see that he loves the girl when he “realizes that he’d spoken harshly… and smiled a little smile” (19), or in the fact that he “made sure that Mr. Green came to [her]” (20).
I believe that the phrase “not possible” refers not to that which is unfeasible, but to that which the grandfather cannot bear. He is afraid of change in the sense that change means out with him and his old ways. He is afraid of being forgotten. Why else would have he taught the girl, for who it is “not possible”, the practice of ancestor worship?
“What then?” is a phrase commonly spoken when one thinks that someone is doing something absurd without properly assessing the potential consequences. I think that the grandfather employs this phrase in desperate attempt to protect himself from this inevitable change.
The fact that Mr. Green mimics the grandfather suggests that people who believe in Confucianism have just adopted the ideas of others without pondering what they really mean. This is also hinted at in the context of the grandfather and Mr. Green both being portrayed as good souls. The parrot who would “take the top of my ear in his beak, a beak that could crush the hardest shell, and hold it with the greatest gentleness” is not a bad parrot, just a misguided and ignorant parrot.
I agree with Sharon that it is disturbing that the girl decides that the killing of the birds which she loves is just “all part of growing up” (23) settling for what she feels is wrong by twisting their necks. I don’t like that either.
As for the ending, I think that the wringing of Mr. Green’s neck symbolizes eliminating the last trace of her grandfather’s misogyny. She defies her grandfather by praying for him, realizing that although it is what he forbade her from doing, it is what is best for him. This is the necessary change that her deceased grandfather did not have the strength to face in his life, and that the girl did not realize as a child.
Mr. Green is meant to represent ancestors. Specifically abandonement by their sons resulting in a rather unfortunate post-life experience. The phrases repeated frequently by Mr. Green are a way of allowing these ancestors' voices to be heard. When I read it, I thought "not possible" was referring to a daughter's inability to save her ancestors, or for them to be happy without the love and loyalty of their sons. The phrase as it's repeated is a haunting thing to the girl. To me, "what then" is similiar. It's saying, if you don't take care of me, or, if you don't remember me, what then? While the first is more of a cold and harsh statement, the second seems to be a plea, a prayer that you will think of the consequences of your actions before you commit them. Finally, I thought the story was very, very sad. And it seemed that the woman was never good enough for her ancestors, and finally she couldn't take it. So she killed him. I didn't like it.
The phrase "what then," like Natalie said, is one of the most somber sayings. It represents helplessness and carelessness for what happens next. In the story, I think it represents what someone cannot change, like Diya said, and the fact that in this story there are many things that the girl, the grandfather, and the parrot would like to change, but cannot. For the father, it is letting of his ancestors and worrying that they will not make the trip along with the family. If they don't make it, "what then."
"Not possible" stems from the sexism that was present in the Vietnamese culture, seen through her grandfather. However, I also see "not possible" as an unwillingness to accept something. The girl and the parrot say it to one another when they disagree with actions or orders they are receiving from the order. The girl says "not possible" when Mr. Green is ruining her garden. Mr. Green says "not possible" when she wishes to comfort the bird in his seemingly harsh suffering.
Mrs. Minor, I agree that it is follow-through more than courage. Mr. Green represented her grandfather, someone who she was incredibly close to. As he died, he suffered, and as he lied there in pain and anguish, everyone around him suffered as well. Her killing Mr. Green released him from his pain and at the same time released her from her bondage to her culture. My guess is that she would never kill another bird in her life, because it would only bring back pain and memories of sexism and how it was the woman's job to kill the bird. Like Elizabeth said, things went from "not possible" to "possible."
When someone close to you dies, the emotional pain enormous. It's something that's impossible to understand until you've experienced it. I believe there is yet another meaning to be gleaned from the idea of "not possible". Once her grandfather dies, she turns to her Mr. Green for consolation. Mr. Green tells her that it is "not possible" to gain closure over her grandfather through a relationship with a parrot.
When she finally decides to kill Mr. Green, it is not just a "follow through" for her. People gain closure over death in different ways, like scattering the deceased's ashes or burying them. By killing Mr. Green, she is able to accept her grandfather's death and begin moving on.
I also think killing Mr. Green is an act of forgiveness. Prior to killing, she resents her grandfather greatly for his sexist ideals. Killing the bird is only perpetuating the sexist ideals of her grandfather. But really she is telling her grandfather that she understands why he said what he said, and that she no longer resents him.
I also think that the grandfather represents the old-fashioned asian way of thinking, that woman are of lesser beings than men. The first time the grandfather says, "Not possible" is when he tells girl that it's not possible to look over her grandfather herself. His tone shows that he thought it was an obvious fact that woman aren't as capable as men, and gets angry at the girl because he assumes for a second that shes being ignorant, but later explains his reasoning. I think that in earlier times, woman grew up knowing that they were "lesser" than men, but thats not how the girl grew up, seeing that she was greatly affected by being called incapable just for being a girl.
I guess maybe also the phrase "not possible" symbolizes how men want to keep their dignity. They don't want to receive help from woman, or think that women can do better than men. When the Mr. Green rejects the medicinal drops, his "eyes showed how pleased he was to defy me", representing the pride of men.
The "what then" phrase I think represents the many older people who resent change and think that its a bad thing. Sort of like saying that it's no use doing this or that. I'm not sure.
I think the grandfather was not imposing sexism on the girl. He was challenging her to break through the barriers she would face. When he said "not possible," I think he was asking her to make it happen.
This theme came back at the grandfather's deathbed. As he called her to his bed side, he asked her to observe the chatting women, noting that that's all they did. They perpetuated the sexism by being inactive. He asked her to think, to grow into someone who would act, and change. "You don't want to grow up sounding like all these foolish women, do you?"
Mr. Green, as noted by the legends, carries on the ideals of the grandfather. As she is leaving her grandfather's bedside he says: "What then?," saying she will grow up, and then what?
Finally, I think her last act of putting Mr. Green to rest completed her grandfathers wishes. She acted. She did something for Mr. Green. I'm not versed with the bible, but as the author concluded, at Jesus's death, nobody did anything for him, not the women, nor the men.
I really enjoyed this story and found it to be surprisingly touching.
I think that the "not possible" has to do with how women were always told that they weren't allowed to do something JUST because they were female. I know there are still some things like that today, especially in asian countries. I know that my parents wanted boys more than girls. I guess this is just because they want someone to carry on the family name?
However, it seems that in today's world, women are treated fairly for the most part. Well, in Portland anyway. Being told that something you want to do is "not possible" must be something hard to swollow. When she breaks Mr. Green's neck, to me it felt like she was breaking though all the old ideas of her grandfather kind of like it was a barrier. She mentioned that it seemed like her grandfather was in the bird, so I think that works...
As for the "What then" saying could either be a good or bad thing. I dont know, but to me it seemed like it was ok, What are you going to do next? My parents always told me to keep busy and never have a moment go to waste, so I see this as a kind of reminder of the same thing, so ok what is there that I can do next.
Also, I think that she finally decided to kill Mr. Green maybe to let him be with her grandfather? in a weird way set him free to go back to his owner...
I found the story very enjoyable. It gave me insight into a culture I hadn't much exposure too, and had alot of surprises. The beginning scene, where the grandfather leads her to his secret room, I had expected to be a touching seen where he told her to look after him after he died. Instead, he tells her that this is "not possible" will never rest because she is a girl. These words echo after the grandfather dies, in Mr.Green. I don't think that the parrot actually meant anything by the words he said, but was really just repeating words his owner had said for so many years. Sometimes he seems to communicate something deep, but I think it is just the girl seeking to find a piece of her grandfather in the bird. After a while, she felt like there really was a part of her grandfather's soul in the bird, and thus enabled her to find closure when she ended its suffering, which she had been unable to do for her grandfather.
I agree with Sean about the phrase "not possible." Her grandfather is afraid of being forgotten. I think it is very interesting that he teaches her about ancestry even though it is "not possible" for her to worship. I don't think the parrot was making her feel down, although it was reminding her of her grandfather. And I don't think it was courage that brought her to kill the parrot, it was more a will. Like something she felt she had to do and was satisfied with doing it because she was relieving the pain from Mr. Green.
"What then" was interesting to me. I agree with Diya that it is related to change of sorts in this story. It is almost like Mr. Green and her grandfather are one, when the parrot finishes his sentence.
I rescind my former statement and have learned the girl was the one who had to "suffer, suffer into truth". The ancestors were suffering, but the girl was suffering the weight of the ancestors and her own guilt having to snap many of their roots pulling them out of Vietnam. It was in no way easy for her to end the existence of her parrot, but it was the only way forward and into life's truth. The memory is just as real if not more so.
36 comments:
wow, this is the third time i'm posting this because of so many grammatical errors i made. :( oh well.
So, I think the phrase "not possible" has to do with the story's theme of men and womens' roles in society and gender identity. The girl's grandfather always tells her that something is "not possible" because she "[is] a girl" (19). The parrot is angry when she tells him "not possible" because she doesn't have the right to do that; it's not her role (27). The parrot is "pleased...to defy [her] (21) even at the cost of his well-being because as a man, he has power. The parrot, perhaps, symbolizes the man who "raised him" and epitomizes his sexist views on the role of women in society.
I think the "what then" has to do with the theme of dealing with circumstances that you can't change. For example, the grandfather tells the girl "what then" when she becomes a woman - which is inevitable. He also says it when they think of moving to South vietnam, and later the U.S. He's afraid the ancestors won't make the trip and people may hate them -- things they can have no control over either. You can't really do much about peoples' opinions of you especially if they're already prejudiced, as people in north and south Vietnam were at the time.
Also, I thought that the story's end "There were women...run away" seems to connect the two themes. Although nobody could do anything about crucifying Christ(inevitable circumstance), the women still stood by him in support, whereas the men didn't much care and "ran away" (28) (gender role). Sadly, I know next to nothing about Christ's crucifixion, so this was probably an exaggeration in the story...? If there's any truth in the statement though, then maybe it has a bigger "thematic" meaning.
This is totally unrelated, and mostly me ranting, so I'm sorry. I just feel compelled: I don't understand why the "good literature" we always read in lit classes have to be so melancholy and depressing! I understand that we can learn a lot from them and the style of writing, but can't we learn just as much from more hopeful and inspirational works? Once in a while is fine, but they're usually the only ones we read, and I hate that. I think you can learn just as much about human nature when you see how somebody's courage, loyalty, or compassion leads them through life's difficulties, as you can when you see how somebody's affected by power, fear, or helplessness. The "Gift of the Magi" by O'Henry is a short story too, but much more uplifting. Yet it still has important literary elements like irony, suspense, and thematic meaning. Maybe it's just me that finds this story rather sad and depressing. Then again, I only read this once, and skimmed it a second time.
The death of Mr. Green symbolizes a death of gender discriminate ancestry. By wringing the birds neck the girl has a confirmation, if you will, and puts the Confucian values of her grandfather to death.
It was "not possible" for her to become heiress to the care-taking of her family's ancestry simply because she was a girl. Her grandfather and the parrot repeatedly question "what then" was to be done with the Confucian tradition.
"What then" when a daughter forgets to honor the sacrifice of her ancestors? I sense a tone of resentment in Mr. Butler concerning the infectious Materialism borne from western civilization's attempts at Christianizing foreigners who have not evolved alongside the values of Christianity.
On the other hand, "what then" when a little girl wishes to honor her ancestors but receives "not possible" as the only response? Confucianism's discriminating of women is revealed as a barrier which causes a "recoil" in all Vietnamese women who do seek to honor their ancestry. In this regard Catholicism and the "sacrament" are an outlet for Vietnamese women who are cut off from the most spiritual of Confucian beliefs, but come at a spiritual price. The girl's mother "yanked [her] away" from the beads of her Grandfather's shrine to ancestry. Her Catholic mother does not want her daughter to experience a world she cannot be strong in. And that is, to some degree, noble.
As they move from North to South Vietnam her Grandfather worries about putting the accomplishments of the ancestors to death.
"Grandfather did not have the concerns of the Catholics. He was concerned about the spirits of his ancestors."
Here we are presented with the concept of leaving one's ancestors and the sacrifices those ancestors gave in order to give the gift of a better life to the girl's Grandfather as well as the girl. If every human in the world left their homeland, and the house that was built by the work and toil of their ancestor's purpose, what would our modern world be? Modern humanity has been founded by family, and honor to the ancestry of that family. An honor that means you continue the work of your ancestors and attempt to progress that work as far as humanly possible.
Catholicism to some degree stagnated the 'human endeavor' when they were in complete control of European civilization in the Dark Ages. Only when a challenge arose to the universal church did a rebirth or renaissance of the human endeavor arise.
Diya, yes, the end has a very significant purpose. I'm not exactly sure what it is, but I think it shows the authors frustration with a Vietnamese and universal sexism alongside an American(Western) materialism which is not as concerned with the human(ancestral) endeavor as it has to be in order for human culture to evolve past sexism.
Diya- I like your analysis and I think the reason that we always read somber stories is because it makes us feel. I've seen in a lot of authors' work how their writing is cathartic, releasing pain from an experience or trying to heal themselves. Out of great pain comes great work (Edgar Allen Poe, anyone?)
There are some great stories about hopeful and inspirational experiences, but a lot of sad stories have hopeful endings, too.
Now for the story. I liked this story so much because of the ending. Wringing an animals neck is hard. It takes a lot of strength and courage to do that (something we usually see in males) and a woman did it. After being verbally abused by a bird for years, she was able to end both their pain by an action that seems horrific at first glance. But the bird was old, and she seemed hurt when the parrot stopped responding to her. It's a win-win!
"Not possible" is something women hear a lot, and I'm sure it's heard a lot more in traditional Asian cultures. I found it interesting that the words weren't 'impossible'. I'm not sure if there's any significance to it, but 'not possible' sounds much more intense than impossible. Impossible is often an exaggeration, but Not Possible is definite. It's not an exaggeration, it is a factual truth. The repetition of such an absolute term shows opression that women face, and the difficulty of blending a modern and ancient culture. It's not possible to protect and care for ancestors when you're a catholic woman.
'What then' is possibly one of the saddest statements I've heard; it leaves no hope. Many times it is used without a question mark...it's just a phrase of uncertainty and despair. In the story I thought that it meant that once a person leaves their cultural beliefs/ties, what then? What happens to a society when all the children are modernized. It reminded me of American Indians; they lost their culture when Americans forced them to 'whiten up', so to speak.
Did anyone else think that wringing Mr. Green's neck was symbolic of leaving her old culture behind? It wasn't as if she was trying to lose her heritage, but the pain that she felt from being considered inferior died along with the bird.
Ooh man I liked this story, haha.
I thought that one of the most depressing parts of this story was the fact that the parrot, which stayed with her and constantly reminded her of her grandfather, was also the one thing bringing her down for 40 years.
I agree with Natalie that "The repetition of such an absolute term ("Not Possible") shows oppression that women face, and the difficulty of blending a modern and ancient culture." Yep. I think we still feel this way, sometimes. I don't think that the ending was really a symbol of her leaving her culture, but the expectations that she could not and did not have the desire to live up to. She grew up, torn between the conflicting beliefs of her mother and grandfather. Clearly, it drove her crazy. She even had an annoying parrot to remind her every day, even after her grandfather's death.
The bird seems like a second conscience. Whenever she makes a decision that she knows would not please her mother or grandfather, she is aware of it. Regardless, she tries to get away from that thought lingering in the back of her mind and just make her own decisions. However, that bird never failed to discourage her as long as she kept it around. The constant reminder that doing what she pleased was “no possible” kept her from finding what it was that she believed and living to fulfill her own dreams. I was surprised that the bird wasn’t of much help to her. I thought that all the emphasis on the fact that her grandfather was in love with it in the beginning would mean that it would end up helping her out when he was gone. Maybe it did in the end..?
I noticed that because she always feels as if her own desires are not good enough, she works to please everyone else and even learns to justify her change of mind. When she is looking at birds with her grandfather, she notices the sparrows and decides that they are her favorite. She can even relate to them and looks forward to keeping them as pets. But when she learns that they are just food, she says that she “must have decided that it was all part of growing up, of becoming a woman like [her] mother.” She “wanted to be just like her and [she] twisted the necks of the sparrows and plucked their feathers and roasted them and ate them and [her] grandfather would take a deep breath after the meal and his eyes would close in pleasure.” She thinks she is doing the right thing as long as she they seem pleased. That is her listening to the “What then.” I don’t like that.
Mr. Green brings with it some interesting intellectual challenges, as well as highlighting some sharp cultural contrasts. Erik's point about Western/ Eastern (Confucian) was something that I noticed as well. I think that everybody got hurt in the transitioning of cultures here, yes the parrot does berate her sometimes and it was hurtful to her but I have to strongly disagree with Natalie that killing it showed any sort of bravery at all. Merely killing something is the easiest and least effective way out of any problem, which is perhaps why I sensed no resolution from the woman in this story. I don't think she felt any better after killing the parrot, just a little more powerful.
The contrast between western and eastern cultures is also shown when she kills the parrot. It is a very materialistic and very western concept to just get rid of something when you don't like it anymore rather than to mend it and use it again. She was unable to console the parrot so she gave up. After all in all eastern cultures women are greatly respected, it kind of reminds me of the quote from my big fat Greek Wedding when the mom says that the man is the head of the house but that the woman is the neck that turns the head. The woman is expected to be the smart one that is wise and steers the body in the right direction. However this girl had this conflict that her Western parents did not want her to experience fully her Vietnamese culture, and in doing so her grandfather comes off poorly because she only sees a part where men are expected to do something. She was not being oppressed by anyone other than herself the whole time. Yes this demonstrates something about the supposed roles of a man and a woman, but I get the feeling that the narrator doesn't resolve that issue by killing the parrot.
"Not possible" is pretty harsh but people seem to forget that the grandfather immediately felt bad for saying that, it was just tradition. He loved his granddaughter and although it has an ironic twist he made sure that his most prized possession went to her. I don't think the old man was sexist, perhaps just too rigid in following his traditions as evidenced in this quote from Erik:
I sense a tone of resentment in Mr. Butler concerning the infectious Materialism borne from western civilization's attempts at Christianizing foreigners who have not evolved alongside the values of Christianity.
Clearly people are seeing the intrusive nature of Christianity upon reading this. One point that I find very ironic is that she doesn't believe in worshiping her ancestors. I am no expert in Christianity so please correct me but I believe that Christ was a human and that in Christian literature we all descended from the same people if you go far enough back. Though it may not be exactly like this, isn't worshiping Christ, another human, the same as worshiping your ancestors. She is clearly enthralled by the idea of Catholicism, but doesn't actually realize what it is as it isn't part of her culture. Almost all cultures worship the greatest of their ancestors, Confucius was a great man just as Christ was, but when she switches to Christianity she is confused and no longer knows her role or who she is because it is not part of her culture.
If she were truly the brave and courageous soul that some people seem to think she is she would change that parrots words rather than kill it. There are plenty of instances of women in history really being revolutionary, changing the system rather than trying to just kill a small part of it, think Joan of Arc. Actually I'm pretty sure that this is complete coincidence but I find it funny that Joan was known as "the maid of Orleans" and that this woman moved to New Orleans. Perhaps the author thought he was showing a modern Joan of Arc but I feel compelled to disagree. There are great stories of women showing courage everyday, this just isn't one of them. For me those stories have an answer to "what then?" This one doesn't.
SNOW DAY!!!!! :D
I don't see the issue so much as one of courage, but one of strength and follow-through. She loved Mr. Green, as she loved her grandfather. Her grandfather suffered horribly and she could do nothing for him. Now, Mr. Green is dying and is suffering, but there IS something she can do for him -- kill him and release him from pain. Thoughts?
I love this story -- haunting.
I agree with Natalie about the phrase "not possible." I think it does make a big difference between impossible and not possible.
Throughout the entire story, whenever a male, either the parrot or the grandfather said "not possible," it struck a chord in the daughter. She was either hurt or frustrated. But when she said the words "not possible," the parrot just ignores her because it's not as effective when she says it. She tried to make the parrot feel condescending but he has the ability to ignore it (then again, he is a bird.)
And I think the phrase "not possible" is much more definite because it is a story about an Asian family and its culture. In my opinion, I think I hear that phrase all the time; in my house, at church, anywhere else where I'm surrounded by other Asians, and especially because I'm a girl. In the Asian culture, it's just not possible for girls to do some things. (Or it just might be my parents, but regardless).
I thought it was interesting though that the females were the ones that wrung the neck of the birds. I mean I understand because it was a part of the process, but it seems like such a horrifying action.
And I think the phrase "what then" has to do with the future. On page 26, the 3rd paragraph, the grandfather says "You will grow up to be a woman -- what then?" What are you supposed to do after? What is your desire and goal?
I think because there IS something she can do for Mr. Green, it wasn't hard for her to make a decision. It was quick; she knew what she was doing. But even though she killed Mr. Green and freed him of his pain, what then? What about her? What then?
Ms. Minor, I agree, but reluctantly. The killing of Mr. Green really does release the spirits from suffering, but I think the longer one suffers the more meaningful the experience.
The plucking of the feathers must represent the loss of each honor once given to the girl's ancestry. Brought to a completely foreign world defined by Christianity, the values of the girl's Confucian grandfather had to be sacrificed and plucked off painfully one by one. By putting those values finally out of misery with one swift twist of the neck the girl comes of age with the same realization as her mother and the old Vietnamese women: their traditional values cannot survive in the uncalled for, yet inevitable reaction of the swallowing up of Eastern spirituality by the Western materiality.
In this regard the women of the story are the more in tune with reality. They can see the inevitable struggles which are approaching and as a result advance faster to end them by action, compared to the Grandfather. Their relative ease when putting the traditional values of Vietnam to death, however has a dark side. It makes the efforts and sacrifices of the ancestors, in my opinion, the more futile than if suffered well.
But then again, if the death of tradition is truly inevitable, the girl and her mother are doing it a merciful favor.
Mr. Butler's story is a testament to the sad, sad truth that Vietnamese tradition is being left for dead, or being broken at the neck for quietus.
The phrase "what then" is the grandpas disapproval of change in general. The first time it is said is when the grandfather is taking issue about them leaving town because that was the place where all of their history lies. To me those two words mean: if you change this, what will you change next. These two words seem to have the snowball effect in that they build off of something small and can make accusations of what is to come.
I was trying to look into the relations between the people and the birds and I think the types of birds could represent three different types of people. The canaries are the youth that will absorb whatever their elders tell them, the blackbirds are people that adapt and grow with their surroundings, and the parrots are people that cling to heritage and believe in something just because they've grown up basked in it.
While the grandfather sang to the canaries, he charmed them but "he didn't really mean the sounds he made." I see it as the grandfather charming his granddaughter in ways that differ from his beliefs. The first time she is really exposed to these beliefs is when she is told to keep his secret.
Mr. Green is much like the grandfather because of how he treats the girls children and "old women." They both share a tenderness towards children that they don't share with older women. This contrast is expressed by how Mr. Green would "hold [her] ear with the greatest gentleness" while she was still young, but after she begins to age into an older woman, we saw that Mr. Green bit her and "looked at [her] sharply as [she] spoke ... chattering away like a blackbird."
The blackbirds are the old women in this case. They represent the mother and the grandmother by how they don't need to include themselves with the grandfathers ideals. The blackbirds "[are] just a bunch of old women" that don't need to be apart of the grandfathers religion or his heritage.
The girl chose to be like her mother and grandmother by choosing for herself what religion to be apart of.
Natalie, thanks for humoring my rant. It's interesting that pain makes us feel/connect more than pleasure...
Erik, Yeah, I thought the end was significant too. Your analysis of it being a bridge between Eastern traditions and Western materialism is interesting. Actually, I think it points out similarities between the two cultures - maybe suggesting that things aren't that different after all.
I think killing the bird was indeed an act of strength and courage. It's interesting that the women are assigned to kill the birds. I think this actually symbolizes the cultural, and possibly Confucian, idea that women must ultimately be the strong. Men don't kill, not because it's too "easy", but because they can be held blameless whereas the women almost transfer their oppression to the birds. It breeds anger and resentment. The fact that the girl related so closely to the sparrows, the birds she later kills, seems to support this idea.
Natalie, I agree with your second analysis of what killing the bird meant. It's a way to ease the bird's pain, but also part of tradition. Usually, the women in Asian cultures are supposed to be strong and keep the family together, and there're many instances in the story where the women must be strong. I think killing the bird is an unavoidable event that the women accept simply. For the girl in the story, though, it was a way for her to end that troubling aspect of her culture, while not abandoning her culture altogether. She says earlier "my family likes the things I bring to the table," but she still "prays for the soul of her grandfather."
As Erik mentioned, it's important to evolve alongside the values you adopt. I think it becomes confusing and tough for people when they adopt new religions without understanding its teachings or the teachings of their own religion. However, I think leaving behind one's ancestry in a time of turmoil and in search of a better life, as the Vietnamese were doing during the War, is acceptable. I wonder whether the grandfather would've minded as much if they had tried to balance both cultures/ religions, instead of just adopting Catholicism.
Wow, I'm sorry for making another long blog post! I hope we haven't been too greedy and snatched away topics of conversation. :)
Just wanted to say that Tabron, wow, that was a great analysis! I'd never have thought of it like that.
I have to agree with Diya that it was courageous and brave for her to kill the bird. I don’t think she was running away from her problems by killing it. I agree with Harish that changing things would seem more like the brave thing to do and it is. But I see her character more in a battle against her culture and what’s she’s been raised up to think, because I think she was dealing with affliction because of what was told to her by her grandfather. And again, I also don’t think the grandpa was a bad guy, because he did love her very much and felt guilty at times when he seemed to hurt her feelings. If I was a this girl, and I loved my mother and I wanted to be just like her, and then someone, “How foolish they sound…You don’t want to grow up sounding like all these foolish women, do you?” I would be pretty hurt, especially if it’s coming from another important person in my life who I also looked up to.
In addition, like what Ms. Minor said, she couldn’t do anything to help ease the pain of her grandfather’s suffering. And as many of you guys have said, Mr. Green is like the grandfather in many ways. When the bird was in pain and was basically trying to kill itself, she did what she had to do. While when her grandfather was dying she couldn’t really do anything to help him. Many can argue that it’s weak and that there was nothing about that action that was courageous at all whatsoever. She killed something that was very close to her and something that also reminded of her grandfather, but she did it anyway to help it escape from the pain which was, in my perception, a brave thing to do.
I also loved this short story. It was sad but I liked it a lot!
Wow. This is such an intense and moving story. I loved it to the last word, but it was very sad. Nevertheless, it had some excellent writing.
The phrase "not possible" has a very significant meaning. It seems to embody the culture that the narrator comes from, one that has distinct gender divisions. The grandfather seems very traditional in saying that the narrator could not be catholic and pray for him at the same time, mainly because she was female. I found this a little odd. What does gender have to do with praying and religious things?
Diya, I like your analysis of when the narrator says "not possible" to Mr. Green. The author seems to convey the idea that the girl's role is not to say those words, and Mr. Green believes the same thing.
The phrase "what then" also was repeated many times. This phrase came across to me as one that is representative of things the way the are. Some things cannot be changed, and Mr. Green says "what then" to convey this. Almost every time, the phrase ends with a question mark. I feel that this is sort of like an accusatory tone, as it seems to showcase great doubt.
I found it interesting how the word "recoil" also happened to come up many times. Each time it was used, it was in a situation in which the girl needed to put up her guard to the comments of her grandfather and of Mr. Green. The connection between the word "recoil" and the thoughts of the narrator is very strong. She always seems to reflect deeply after the word is used.
Mrs. Minor, I agree that the story is one of strength and follow through. The girl can do nothing to save her grandfather, but she applies what she learns from this experience to help her deal with the sickness of Mr. Green many years later.
On a side note, Mr. Green's character to me seemed like the spirit of the girl's late grandfather. Everything that Mr. Green does parallels the ideas of the girl's grandfather, right down to his eventual death. The story is kind of scary in that sense.
I agree Niloy, the story is very intense and moving. Everyone has posted such great analyses! I feel like mine is going to be lame in comparison, but nonetheless, here it is.
When I saw the phrase "not possible", I didn't really think about the limitations of women in the Vietnamese society, but I saw the limitations individuals put on each other in general. I agree with Diya; people sometimes feel like it’s not their place or role to stand up in hard situation or to do something about a difficult circumstance, and feel like they will be looked down upon. While reading the story, I got a sense that the girl feels looked down upon and inadequate. When she finally realizes that she can do something by ending the bird’s misery, the haunting words "not possible" begin to crumble away and fade. Also, the phrase seems like a challenge to the girl and I think through her lifetime, she struggles with those words and wants to find a way to defeat them. But I'm probably way off in my analysis.
The phrase "what then" leaves one with hopelessness, like Natalie mentions. It also reminds me of several movies/ TV shows I've seen ( I don’t remember the names) because many times when a character is stuck or their plan ends up in a disaster, they say "what now" or "what then", but this is really random. Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that this phrase seems to ask "What are we going to do from here?" or "What's next?" I think this phrase it tied in with your plans in life and what you will do in a difficult circumstance. “What then” are words that poses a challenge.
I've realized that I've used the word "challenge" several times in my analysis, so maybe this is a theme in the short story.
Diya: Dude, your analysis is so in depth! Yeah, I also thought there was a thematic meaning in the last paragraph of the story. When we can't do something about a situation, instead of running away, we have to face the problem and find solutions. If we can’t, we can still support one another, and realize that we always won't have the answer. Maybe that’s the meaning of the last paragraph. Am I making any sense?
Mrs.Minor: Yeah, I think the fact that she could finally do something began releasing the pain she had. It seems like she finally triumphs over the words “not possible” and releases the spirit of her grandfather through the parrot, defying the cultural bounds that women cannot protect the spirit of their ancestors. Being able to do something made her feel adequate and strong.
Natalie: You always have such great analyses! Yeah, I see what you mean. I think she is releasing and protecting her grandfather’s spirit, no matter what her culture said. She is breaking away the cultural bounds and in a sense, leaving her culture behind. But mainly, wringing the bird's neck served to release both her and the bird's pain. She is letting the pain of those words crumple away.
Tabron: Great analysis! I like your explanation of “what then”, it makes sense. You saw it through the grandfather’s eyes, which is cool because no one else saw it that way. Awesome!
Erik: I like your analysis on the recoiling of the Vietnamese women. I don’t really know anything about that religion, so it’s cool that you brought up the history and background. It helps in understanding the story better.
When she wrung the neck of the parrot it was to end its pain, but also her own. Her grandfather had influenced the parrot so much that it was as though the parrot had become a part of him. Even though she loved her grandfather, perhaps she resented his oppressed views of women and religion. I think it symbolizes how she wants to break free of the past and continue her future where everything is “possible.”
I also found it haunting how when Mr. Green became sick he acted depressed. He plucked his feathers and wanted to be in solitude. It was as if he was stripping himself of his identity and vibrancy.
Women roles have always infuriated me. As I read the story, I felt heart-broken for her when she was repeatedly told that it was not possible. Going to United States helped make her dreams more possible, but I think she still loved her culture, despite its flaws. She looked up to her mother and the beliefs that they have adapted, but continued to struggle with her grandfather’s pressure of his old beliefs and her parents more modern ideas.
The theme of "not possible" is that of the boundaries between men and woman according to her grandfather. Even past the grandfather's death, that bird keeps reminding her of these boundaries and limitations. What she can and cannot do now that her grandfather is dead. What her role is as a woman. The 'punishment' of being a woman; not being able to protect his soul in the after life. It reflects the old values of shame of being female, and how that bird and her grandfather held it against her.
The phrase "what then" makes me thinks back to my Claudius soliloquy. (Which I have to give, I know) In the soliloquy, Claudius talks about repentant and not being able to be forgiven: “What then? What rests? Try what repentance can. What can it not? Yet what can it, when one cannot repent?"
It's basically the same case here, where she cannot change the fact that she is a woman no more than Claudius can be forgiven for killing his brother.
It think the phrase is there to remind her that she isn't forgiven, and to question what she does knowing that. Kind of taunting her, questioning where she stands about this, and to keep her in the dark confustion that Claudius was in when he made his soliloquy.
What a chilling little story...
I think Mr. Green's constant repetition of "not possible" reinforces the grandfather's view against women. He feels that they are not capable of carrying out certain tasks like, for example, consoling a deceased person's spirit in the after life--what he believes to be a man's work.
It's very obvious that the woman loved her grandfather very much, and in turn Mr. Green, who was a parrot, but also a piece of her grandfather. The grandfather taught Mr. Green everything he knew, and the phrases he was taught by the girl's grandfather followed and haunted her throughout her life.
Natalie, I do think the "wringing" of Mr. Green's neck is symbolic of leaving behind an old way of life, but I also think it could be her final ascent into womanhood. Just as her mother taught her to snap the sparrow's neck when she was younger, she ended the torture brought on by the parrot, a constant reminder of her sexist grandfather.
I think the girl realized that Mr. Green was completely stressed and in utter despair and finally helped him "cross-over" to be with his true owner, the one who taught him everything.
I really like the last line of this story. It sucks you into the the story even more, then lets you go... leaving you to ponder the woman's eerie story and exactly what it meant--for her, and all women, regardless of what culture.
(sorry for the poor analysis, my brain is all frozen over and slow, too many snow days!!)
These are the longest blog responses ever!
"I think the girl realized that Mr. Green was completely stressed and in utter despair and finally helped him "cross-over" to be with his true owner, the one who taught him everything." -Nick I couldn't tell if the bird was plucking its feathers out and driving the girl crazy because it was sad that the owner died or if it was something else? I assumed that it was just depressed at first, but then it sounded like it wasn't really the main reason why the bird started to act differently..
Sharon - I think the feathers represent the loss of the girls's ancestor's values one by one as she goes from Vietnamese to American. Mr. Green (her ancestors) are becoming less and less vibrant, I guess, as the girl is consumed by Western culture. The ancestors are suicidal in a sense too; they really just want to be at peace rather than watch their once beautiful way of life become somewhat of a bald spotted parrot.
To be or not to be.........
When i read this story it reminded me of a feminist Spanish poem I had read by Alfonsina Storni called Peso Ancestral. Translated, that means Ancestral Burden. The poem is magnificent in relation to this story. So i found a link for you guys with the side by side translation. It's very short. I highly recommend it.
http://www.kahoks.org/chs-spanish/spanish5/Storni_1.html
The reason i brought up this poem though is that i think the central theme of this poem is societal expectations of women and the influence of the past and social environment on people.
"I was a quiet little girl, but I, too, would sometimes look at myself in a mirror and primp and puff myself up, even as in public I tried to hold myself apart a little bit from the other girls."
- I think this quote shows a brief shadow of resistance to gender roles and is the only time i felt in the entire story were the tone not submissive. As most of you mentioned, the rest of the story points to a great deal of gender conformity and role suppression.
I think "not possible" refers to the strict division of roles between women and men in this society. I thought it was interesting that some of you thought that "What then" puts into question the part of one's destiny that can be controlled.
Diya- i think that "sad and depressing stories" like this one are the best kind of literature. I personally hate literature that is patently uplifting.
If you read this story carefully you will also notice that it is in fact very uplifting but it's subtle. The fact that she kills this parrot shows courage, resistance, and highlights the strength of women in controlling their own destiny despite pressures from their environment.
I find that to be a very happy ending so i guess it depends on the reader.
Remember, happiness is defined relative to sadness. It's through this kind of literature that we can identify what it means to be happy.
why is my name apple sauce? How did this happen haha?
Whenever Mr. Green would speak 'what then?' this question seems to be in expectation for what the person asked is planning to do because of the unexpected occurance that has happened. It's like he knows something could be wrong, like the family coming from the south or when he is unfamiliar with what was happening-like when he had to move to America. He seems to be very perceptive to moods or events that are out of the ordinary or perplexing to him as well as the humans.
Not possible is said whenever Mr. Green or even the girl is resisting something/someone, or does not agree with what is happening. It's kind of used as an aggressive stop, like the person using this phrase wants or needs to be in control.
The grandfather is a victim of a lifetime of Confucian conditioning, not a bad person, and does not posses the strength to shed this upbringing before his death, although he realizes that it is wrong. His attempt to free himself of his past can be seen in his affection for the girl. We can see that he loves the girl when he “realizes that he’d spoken harshly… and smiled a little smile” (19), or in the fact that he “made sure that Mr. Green came to [her]” (20).
I believe that the phrase “not possible” refers not to that which is unfeasible, but to that which the grandfather cannot bear. He is afraid of change in the sense that change means out with him and his old ways. He is afraid of being forgotten. Why else would have he taught the girl, for who it is “not possible”, the practice of ancestor worship?
“What then?” is a phrase commonly spoken when one thinks that someone is doing something absurd without properly assessing the potential consequences. I think that the grandfather employs this phrase in desperate attempt to protect himself from this inevitable change.
The fact that Mr. Green mimics the grandfather suggests that people who believe in Confucianism have just adopted the ideas of others without pondering what they really mean. This is also hinted at in the context of the grandfather and Mr. Green both being portrayed as good souls. The parrot who would “take the top of my ear in his beak, a beak that could crush the hardest shell, and hold it with the greatest gentleness” is not a bad parrot, just a misguided and ignorant parrot.
I agree with Sharon that it is disturbing that the girl decides that the killing of the birds which she loves is just “all part of growing up” (23) settling for what she feels is wrong by twisting their necks. I don’t like that either.
As for the ending, I think that the wringing of Mr. Green’s neck symbolizes eliminating the last trace of her grandfather’s misogyny. She defies her grandfather by praying for him, realizing that although it is what he forbade her from doing, it is what is best for him. This is the necessary change that her deceased grandfather did not have the strength to face in his life, and that the girl did not realize as a child.
Mr. Green is meant to represent ancestors. Specifically abandonement by their sons resulting in a rather unfortunate post-life experience. The phrases repeated frequently by Mr. Green are a way of allowing these ancestors' voices to be heard. When I read it, I thought "not possible" was referring to a daughter's inability to save her ancestors, or for them to be happy without the love and loyalty of their sons. The phrase as it's repeated is a haunting thing to the girl. To me, "what then" is similiar. It's saying, if you don't take care of me, or, if you don't remember me, what then? While the first is more of a cold and harsh statement, the second seems to be a plea, a prayer that you will think of the consequences of your actions before you commit them. Finally, I thought the story was very, very sad. And it seemed that the woman was never good enough for her ancestors, and finally she couldn't take it. So she killed him. I didn't like it.
The phrase "what then," like Natalie said, is one of the most somber sayings. It represents helplessness and carelessness for what happens next. In the story, I think it represents what someone cannot change, like Diya said, and the fact that in this story there are many things that the girl, the grandfather, and the parrot would like to change, but cannot. For the father, it is letting of his ancestors and worrying that they will not make the trip along with the family. If they don't make it, "what then."
"Not possible" stems from the sexism that was present in the Vietnamese culture, seen through her grandfather. However, I also see "not possible" as an unwillingness to accept something. The girl and the parrot say it to one another when they disagree with actions or orders they are receiving from the order. The girl says "not possible" when Mr. Green is ruining her garden. Mr. Green says "not possible" when she wishes to comfort the bird in his seemingly harsh suffering.
Mrs. Minor, I agree that it is follow-through more than courage. Mr. Green represented her grandfather, someone who she was incredibly close to. As he died, he suffered, and as he lied there in pain and anguish, everyone around him suffered as well. Her killing Mr. Green released him from his pain and at the same time released her from her bondage to her culture. My guess is that she would never kill another bird in her life, because it would only bring back pain and memories of sexism and how it was the woman's job to kill the bird. Like Elizabeth said, things went from "not possible" to "possible."
When someone close to you dies, the emotional pain enormous. It's something that's impossible to understand until you've experienced it. I believe there is yet another meaning to be gleaned from the idea of "not possible". Once her grandfather dies, she turns to her Mr. Green for consolation. Mr. Green tells her that it is "not possible" to gain closure over her grandfather through a relationship with a parrot.
When she finally decides to kill Mr. Green, it is not just a "follow through" for her. People gain closure over death in different ways, like scattering the deceased's ashes or burying them. By killing Mr. Green, she is able to accept her grandfather's death and begin moving on.
I also think killing Mr. Green is an act of forgiveness. Prior to killing, she resents her grandfather greatly for his sexist ideals. Killing the bird is only perpetuating the sexist ideals of her grandfather. But really she is telling her grandfather that she understands why he said what he said, and that she no longer resents him.
I also think that the grandfather represents the old-fashioned asian way of thinking, that woman are of lesser beings than men. The first time the grandfather says, "Not possible" is when he tells girl that it's not possible to look over her grandfather herself. His tone shows that he thought it was an obvious fact that woman aren't as capable as men, and gets angry at the girl because he assumes for a second that shes being ignorant, but later explains his reasoning. I think that in earlier times, woman grew up knowing that they were "lesser" than men, but thats not how the girl grew up, seeing that she was greatly affected by being called incapable just for being a girl.
I guess maybe also the phrase "not possible" symbolizes how men want to keep their dignity. They don't want to receive help from woman, or think that women can do better than men. When the Mr. Green rejects the medicinal drops, his "eyes showed how pleased he was to defy me", representing the pride of men.
The "what then" phrase I think represents the many older people who resent change and think that its a bad thing. Sort of like saying that it's no use doing this or that. I'm not sure.
I think the grandfather was not imposing sexism on the girl. He was challenging her to break through the barriers she would face. When he said "not possible," I think he was asking her to make it happen.
This theme came back at the grandfather's deathbed. As he called her to his bed side, he asked her to observe the chatting women, noting that that's all they did. They perpetuated the sexism by being inactive. He asked her to think, to grow into someone who would act, and change. "You don't want to grow up sounding like all these foolish women, do you?"
Mr. Green, as noted by the legends, carries on the ideals of the grandfather. As she is leaving her grandfather's bedside he says: "What then?," saying she will grow up, and then what?
Finally, I think her last act of putting Mr. Green to rest completed her grandfathers wishes. She acted. She did something for Mr. Green. I'm not versed with the bible, but as the author concluded, at Jesus's death, nobody did anything for him, not the women, nor the men.
I really enjoyed this story and found it to be surprisingly touching.
I think that the "not possible" has to do with how women were always told that they weren't allowed to do something JUST because they were female. I know there are still some things like that today, especially in asian countries. I know that my parents wanted boys more than girls. I guess this is just because they want someone to carry on the family name?
However, it seems that in today's world, women are treated fairly for the most part. Well, in Portland anyway. Being told that something you want to do is "not possible" must be something hard to swollow. When she breaks Mr. Green's neck, to me it felt like she was breaking though all the old ideas of her grandfather kind of like it was a barrier. She mentioned that it seemed like her grandfather was in the bird, so I think that works...
As for the "What then" saying could either be a good or bad thing. I dont know, but to me it seemed like it was ok, What are you going to do next? My parents always told me to keep busy and never have a moment go to waste, so I see this as a kind of reminder of the same thing, so ok what is there that I can do next.
Also, I think that she finally decided to kill Mr. Green maybe to let him be with her grandfather?
in a weird way set him free to go back to his owner...
maybe its just me.
I found the story very enjoyable. It gave me insight into a culture I hadn't much exposure too, and had alot of surprises. The beginning scene, where the grandfather leads her to his secret room, I had expected to be a touching seen where he told her to look after him after he died. Instead, he tells her that this is "not possible" will never rest because she is a girl.
These words echo after the grandfather dies, in Mr.Green. I don't think that the parrot actually meant anything by the words he said, but was really just repeating words his owner had said for so many years. Sometimes he seems to communicate something deep, but I think it is just the girl seeking to find a piece of her grandfather in the bird. After a while, she felt like there really was a part of her grandfather's soul in the bird, and thus enabled her to find closure when she ended its suffering, which she had been unable to do for her grandfather.
I agree with Sean about the phrase "not possible." Her grandfather is afraid of being forgotten. I think it is very interesting that he teaches her about ancestry even though it is "not possible" for her to worship. I don't think the parrot was making her feel down, although it was reminding her of her grandfather. And I don't think it was courage that brought her to kill the parrot, it was more a will. Like something she felt she had to do and was satisfied with doing it because she was relieving the pain from Mr. Green.
"What then" was interesting to me. I agree with Diya that it is related to change of sorts in this story. It is almost like Mr. Green and her grandfather are one, when the parrot finishes his sentence.
I rescind my former statement and have learned the girl was the one who had to "suffer, suffer into truth". The ancestors were suffering, but the girl was suffering the weight of the ancestors and her own guilt having to snap many of their roots pulling them out of Vietnam. It was in no way easy for her to end the existence of her parrot, but it was the only way forward and into life's truth. The memory is just as real if not more so.
Post a Comment