Time and time again, the protagonist attempts to convince the reader of his innocence and justification and at the same time of his wife’s evil and wickedness. In his eyes, Margaret is no better than a dog. It is she who deprives him of everything: home, children and even the pet he adores; and “she demands more and more, and still more” (47).
Like Madeleine, Margaret indulges in an insatiable appetite for life and is intellectually ambitious: “Two years ago she wanted to go back to college and get another degree…. But still she takes as much from me as before. Next thing she’ll want to be a doctor of philosophy” (47-8).
Margaret is so powerful and bossy that Tommy’s reaction to her is no more than an important rage. He cannot enjoy any peace and comfort with her, thus dying of drifting apart from her. Yet, she turns down his request for divorce. Consequently, he has to support her and the children beyond his financial ability. Tommy is obsessed with a feeling that she, like a ghost, is haunting him all the time. Like authoritarian Madeleine, Margaret orders him to neither send any postdated cheques nor to skip any payments. This financial burden leads him to the verge of a crack-up.
Margaret is a strong-minded and self-willed woman, capable of everything. Like Madeleine she can successfully win the sympathy of Tommy’s lawyer and make him stand on her side: “I got a lawyer, and she got one, too, and both of them talk and send me bills, and I eat my heart out” (48).
In the judgment of Tommy, his wife is a great “bitch” who demands not merely to be equal, but also to be superior. Whenever he thinks of her, he feels degraded, frightened, humble and irresolute. Towards the end of the novel, the reader sees him talk with his wife on the phone, begging her for sympathy and leniences “Margaret, go easy on me. You ought to. I’m at the end of my rope and feel that I’m suffocating” (113). But Margaret has no patience to hear him grumbling. She cuts in, “How did you imagine it was going to be — big shot? Everything made smooth for you” (ll4)? And in an ironic tone she asks him to call again when he has got “something Sensible to say”. Terribly insulted, he tries to “tear the apparatus from the wall” (114).
As it has been mentioned earlier, Marggret is filtered through the mind of the protagonist. For that reason, it is quite likely that Tommy narrates her through his own subjective view. But when the narrator becomes somewhat objective, the reader feels that she is not exactly the figure she has bean depicted. Tommy remembers when they were on good terms, his wife was kind and gentle to him: “Margaret nursed him. ... She sat on the bed and read to him” (89).
Additionally, both his wife and his father declare that “it was he who had left her” (113) on his own initiative. But, what caused the break-up of their intimacy? The reason might be, as his father estimates, that he has “bed-trouble with her” (5l). Perhaps he thinks his wife is too frigid to offer him sexual appeal, as his father says, “so now you pay for your stupid romantic notions” (51). He longs to divorce her so that he can seek new stimulation and fulfillment freely. Another reason is that Margaret herself is also a taker. So antagonism must arise between the two selfish persons. Hence it is not fair that Margaret should take all the responsibility for their break-up. Tommy ought to shoulder most of it.
Devoid of spiritual sustenance from Margaret, Tommy, like Joseph and Herzog, turns to his mistress Olive, who is a rather shadowy character. Olive, like Sono in Herzog, is obedient and gentle and offers Tommy flesh solace and sexual affection. Small, dark and Catholic, Olive stands a striking contrast to the energetic, big Margaret. Like Tommy, she is also passive, dominated by her powerful, domineering father and her priest. Despite her Catholic religion, she agrees to marry Tommy outside the church. Yet, her aspiration is thwarted by Margaret who firmly refuses to divorce Tommy, tike a chicken that confronts an eagle, she is no match for Margaret in the marriage rivalry.
Like Madeleine, Margaret indulges in an insatiable appetite for life and is intellectually ambitious: “Two years ago she wanted to go back to college and get another degree…. But still she takes as much from me as before. Next thing she’ll want to be a doctor of philosophy” (47-8).
Margaret is so powerful and bossy that Tommy’s reaction to her is no more than an important rage. He cannot enjoy any peace and comfort with her, thus dying of drifting apart from her. Yet, she turns down his request for divorce. Consequently, he has to support her and the children beyond his financial ability. Tommy is obsessed with a feeling that she, like a ghost, is haunting him all the time. Like authoritarian Madeleine, Margaret orders him to neither send any postdated cheques nor to skip any payments. This financial burden leads him to the verge of a crack-up.
Margaret is a strong-minded and self-willed woman, capable of everything. Like Madeleine she can successfully win the sympathy of Tommy’s lawyer and make him stand on her side: “I got a lawyer, and she got one, too, and both of them talk and send me bills, and I eat my heart out” (48).
In the judgment of Tommy, his wife is a great “bitch” who demands not merely to be equal, but also to be superior. Whenever he thinks of her, he feels degraded, frightened, humble and irresolute. Towards the end of the novel, the reader sees him talk with his wife on the phone, begging her for sympathy and leniences “Margaret, go easy on me. You ought to. I’m at the end of my rope and feel that I’m suffocating” (113). But Margaret has no patience to hear him grumbling. She cuts in, “How did you imagine it was going to be — big shot? Everything made smooth for you” (ll4)? And in an ironic tone she asks him to call again when he has got “something Sensible to say”. Terribly insulted, he tries to “tear the apparatus from the wall” (114).
As it has been mentioned earlier, Marggret is filtered through the mind of the protagonist. For that reason, it is quite likely that Tommy narrates her through his own subjective view. But when the narrator becomes somewhat objective, the reader feels that she is not exactly the figure she has bean depicted. Tommy remembers when they were on good terms, his wife was kind and gentle to him: “Margaret nursed him. ... She sat on the bed and read to him” (89).
Additionally, both his wife and his father declare that “it was he who had left her” (113) on his own initiative. But, what caused the break-up of their intimacy? The reason might be, as his father estimates, that he has “bed-trouble with her” (5l). Perhaps he thinks his wife is too frigid to offer him sexual appeal, as his father says, “so now you pay for your stupid romantic notions” (51). He longs to divorce her so that he can seek new stimulation and fulfillment freely. Another reason is that Margaret herself is also a taker. So antagonism must arise between the two selfish persons. Hence it is not fair that Margaret should take all the responsibility for their break-up. Tommy ought to shoulder most of it.
Devoid of spiritual sustenance from Margaret, Tommy, like Joseph and Herzog, turns to his mistress Olive, who is a rather shadowy character. Olive, like Sono in Herzog, is obedient and gentle and offers Tommy flesh solace and sexual affection. Small, dark and Catholic, Olive stands a striking contrast to the energetic, big Margaret. Like Tommy, she is also passive, dominated by her powerful, domineering father and her priest. Despite her Catholic religion, she agrees to marry Tommy outside the church. Yet, her aspiration is thwarted by Margaret who firmly refuses to divorce Tommy, tike a chicken that confronts an eagle, she is no match for Margaret in the marriage rivalry.
No comments:
Post a Comment