Thursday, June 21, 2007

Helen Simpson's "HOMEWORK"

When the first line of a story is a young boy groaning, “I can’t do it,” and the last line is that same son’s proclamation: “You go. I can do it now,” the reader expects the story to have shown a positive change in the son; however I think George ends “HOMEWORK” telling his mother to leave, not from renewed confidence but realized fear. His mother has shown she is on the verge of madness. Herein lies the most inventive device in “Homework”: the plot, better described in this instance as the trick. The story takes the campy, movie-like scene of a mother helping her son with his homework, and subverts the reader’s expectations. Instead of helping her son write a typical answer to the English teacher’s “Write about the Most Life Changing Event” assignment, she convinces her son to write a miserable, fictional story of his life that says more about her own confusion and sadness than it does about his life.

Consider when our narrator is helping George write a fictional emotional response to his parents’ fake divorce (the mother’s exercise becomes more morbid, the more one considers it) and starts to suggest her own childhood dreams as a template: “You could put a bad dream in, George; that would take up a few lines. / ‘What about?’/ Oh an earthquake perhaps. I was always dreaming about earthquakes and floods and fires when I was your age.” The reader begins to see that the mother’s suggestions are connected to her experiences, and this becomes further illuminated when plot decisions for the assignment are taken from her past. The mother tells George, “You might even ask if you can go and live with your grandma for a while,” and later informs the reader, “When I went to live with my grandmother for a while, she had enough to eat but not quite enough to keep warm.” By this point, the reader has no doubt that this fictional assignment has become an expression of the mother’s unhappy childhood and domestic frustration.

That said, “Homework” has major weaknesses, and left this reader disappointed. The most glaring failure is George. A case in point is when he complains that the boy of the assignment shouldn’t have to cook, because “kids should be looked after by their parents,” and the mother responds, “You’re thirteen, George!” This moment is striking, because it speaks to the story’s flaw. George isn’t thirteen; he’s eight, maybe nine. There could be a cultural difference at play, but America’s thirteen year olds are seventh graders and eight graders, and already asserting an identity. Boys this age don’t ask for homework help (even the assignment seems implausible), and have started to feel a bulging distraction in their pants. I wouldn’t be surprised if this George still believes girls have cooties. (I must be crazy; even the boy of the story’s title page photograph doesn’t look thirteen.) Okay, maybe this George just happens to be sheltered and naïve. This could be true, but this wouldn’t explain his responses to his mother’s traumatic suggestions: “why,” “What happens next,” “cool,” all make him feel unreal. His mother is weaving an alternative life for him – one quite tragic and depressing, and his most adamant concern is will his teacher accept the assignment.

Furthermore, almost as a lesson on how not to write, the reader is told George “said grimly,” “said dryly,” “looked up from his pad suspiciously,” “smiled reluctantly,” and “asked hopefully.” These are just the adverbs assigned to George in the last page of the story, and it is clear, somewhere in all these adverbs, the writer wants to show the tension George feels about his mother’s homework help, but my first read, one I attempt pen-less, became so distracted by these adverbs, I had to grab a pen and circle them. The complexity of a character can’t be fully dependent on a part of speech, especially not adverbs, yet this seems to be the story’s mode of operation. This wasn’t the only grammatical tick, either. Too many times, the story ends a moment of dialogue with a gerund clause. Examples: “George said, propped up on his elbows, eyeing me with wary optimism,” “I know, he said, spreading his hands palms upward in front of him,” “No, George said, shaking his head firmly,” “Life-changing event, I said, returning to the business in hand.” These four gerund clauses all are from the story's first page, which has three more I didn’t report. I find grammar in stories works best one of two ways: either so subtle and clear, the reader passes through it without pause, or so complex and elastic, the reader wonders how the writer composed the wonderful, mystery of the sentences. 

The language of “Homework” may lack mystery, but there is an elusive thread in the story. The narrator tells the reader, “Last week I’d been making flapjacks while [George] stood by to lick the spoon, and I mentioned that I’d always liked the picture of the lion on the Golden Syrup tin. ‘Out of the strong came forth the sweetness,’ he read aloud, peering at the green-and-gold picture.” This phrase does strike the reader as interesting, and it returns during the story’s second to last paragraph, which breaks the fiction’s otherwise consistent tone. “When a man loses his temper, people say, That’s the Irish in him, or the Scottish, or the Viking. […]Dirty players or terriers are what they call footballers with that anger-stoked edge, but strength without sweetness is no use at all.” These two references to sweetness and strength are the subtlest thread in the story, and perhaps the most interesting, but I am still unsure how they interact with the mother/son relationship of the narrative. Is the reader supposed to see the mother as the strength or the sweetness? To me, she seems like someone whose life has stepped “onto the tines of a garden fork, and the solid shaft of the handle [has reared up and hit her] in the face.”

1 comment:

lit up said...

Just as boy George opens in Helen Simpson's "Homework," I'll start this comment by groaning and bringing my my forehead to rest on the screen before me: "I can't do it." I can't bring myself to trash this story. Afterall, in my last two comments I bitched and moaned about female lit representation. And I have a soft spot for motherhood. But come on, Simpson, help me out here! So I will trash as nicelLY as possible, making sure to tie the bag tightLY.

For starters, "Homework" contains some pretty horrifying adverbs, the worst of all being "reprovingLY" (I started to count them reluctantLY, but it was tediousLY hard to do by hand). Adverbs to weak verbs are what steroids are to failing athletes. And then there are speaker attributions like "George commented" and "I declared" when "said" would've sufficed. On more than one occasion I stopped rolling my eyes at Simpson's prose and started cussing the editors, the ones who lord over the tower--have they lost touch?

The story felt cobbled together, with backstory tacked on as transparentLY as badLY sewn seams. So much deliberate exposition in a story should be outlawed--or at the very least, EDITED. Was "Homework" assigned to Simpson as homework by the NYer, for which she stayed up late to dust off an old idea and hack out a story? Did the editors use Epoxy and finish the story over Simpson's head as her narrator does over George? The rabbits pulled out of this story's hat were stuffed animals, with foam sticking out in places. And what's up with baby-robot-thirteen-year-old George's character who shouts "United! United!" in small caps? And what's up with that Sweet n' Low ending? To vagueLY quote the narrator, three double-sided pages became a lot of, uh, reading homework.

I'm not going to continue with more bad metaphors, references, puns, because then I'll just be accused of being a Mad Hat(t)er or of just not getting British sensibilities. The Brits are good people. And so are mothers and teens and English teachers and NYer contributers and editors. So I'll sign off with two of the story's redeeming qualities (which I hunted down for the purpose of bitchlessness):

-The question of why the mother is so enthusiasticalLY involved in her son's assignment adds suspense, making one wonder what is, if any, the ulterior motive in narrative she concocts. Is it her dress rehearsal for breaking bad news to George? Is it her own unfulfilled literary aspirations? Is she just plain crazy? (At the same time, Simpson could have put George to better use by having him challenge the mother with something more compelling than childish fantasy).

-(Though I did not like that the following lion image is referenced to three times)...The detail of the lion image on the Golden Syrup tin, under which is written: "Out of the strong came forth sweetness."

Lara Vapnyar's "LUDA AND MILENA"

A writing teacher once told me you can write a story with two main characters only if both characters want the same thing. Like the naïve Ro...