The New Yorker - Discussion

[garyd]

gary, I didn't get the feeling she was meant to be an archetype, although she is a "type."

Not an archetype in the Jungian sense, no, but surely as used in literature, don't you think?
 I mean , it seems she must be someone we,  or at least a significant number of people, can recognize, even
unconsciously, and because of that recognition, understand what makes her tick.
Understand why she does the things she does. 

[Ellen (tellyouwhat)]

well, I could be wrong, maybe the author should want her to be someone more archetypal but for me that isn't what I see and maybe isn't what I'm even looking for her.

I see her as an individual, a character who has something in common with all of us (need for her father's love, for example) and we understand her in that sense--

I guess I do see what you mean, in that -- what do I take away from this, what part of my life should I examine, how do I resemble her, or am I so much better, so different, that she is no threat?

We all have faults we would like to sweep under the rug.  But I guess I do feel removed from this character, except maybe the reason I dislike her personally is because in some base way she does threaten me.

not sure if I am making any sense whatsoever!  or if I understand your question properly. 

[garyd]

I thought about this when first reading and then let it go.

Do you think there is any significance to the fact that Sasha and Alex are both androgynous names and that they mean the exact same thing?

Also,the name Cox, surely cannot just be an authorial whim.

[Ellen (tellyouwhat)]

Is Sasha androgynous?

If so, then yes.

Coz -- I think you're onto something there. 

[garyd]

Is Sasha androgynous?

If so, then yes.

Coz -- I think you're onto something there. 

yeah, Coz, means "thorn" I think.  Sasha certainly considers Coz to be a thorn.

Anyway, dumb ass me.  I was thinking about the title and then thought about the illustration accompanying the thing and it hit me.
Egan is using found object, "found art", found sculpture, aleatoric music as one big metaphor for Sasha and the meaninglessness she perceives in her life.
Hell, even that damn tub is straight out of Duchamp and his exalted urinal.
Her yes/no smile is nothing more than Hinds sculpture that  both turns toward and away.
Sasha steals, or in her mind "samples" all these mundane items but she cannot get any comfort from them because it is the artist who has to place significance on the mundane and Sasha simply does not have the confidence to personally place significance on anything.
She is interested in music so the whole aleatory thing comes into play ( she samples the way "hip hop "artists sample sounds and give them new meaning and  like what's his name, oh hell, CAGE, she keeps improvising hoping to get some sort of freedom from her past but she cant' because she doesn't know what she wants to create.

Very clever on Egan's part I guess, Maybe too clever?

[Ellen (tellyouwhat)]

gary, I am comfortable with it. 

I have to be, since I would never have put that connection together in a million years!  Although the urinal as art (or not) has been discussed in my house, somewhat adnauseum.

If a writer does that, she is making a reference that she knows some people will get, and some people won't.  The story has to have merit for those of us who don't get the reference.  I think it does, it is well written and I like slice of life stuff, especially slice of unusual life.

The author also has the right, IMO, to express herself as an artist in a way that pleases HER.  So if she can do that and ALSO sell it to the New Yorker, I'm okay with it. 

[CANSTANDIT]

tellyouwhat



 

she used to shower at her best friend's place, when they used to talk.

Taking something from her friend, but not quite stealing-like how she takes the doctor's time, in the very last sentence. I think there is an implication that she is doing something in her head with the fact that she is using up the doc's time, even though paying for it. I have to work that out....deep down, she still is being covert, not sharing, even though she may not be fooling someone-a very childlike response.

She didn't like her former boss, but I'm not sure if she has a job now.

He may have known her too well-or caught her stealing.

Is she making any progress?  She gave back the wallet, but -- is that progress?

I think that's a one-off: The victim is innocent and helpless, like maybe she was when her father was lost, beginning some kind of panic cycle, perhaps. When she feels anxious or the loss looms, she takes something from the living, balancing the scale,- like how yawning is like an epidmenic, though not as automatic: You inhale shared space/oxygen, I take it back from you, and so on.... A survival response....Kleptomania, I think, is only partially understood...I do think death/loss plays a big role, myself. And taking what was not given to you, ie, esteem, love,etc.

She didn't steal anything from Alex except the little note -- "that he would probably thank her for getting rid of" -- one of her rationalizations -- do you think the message "I believe in you" was something that gave her pause, reminded her she really did not want to steal from him?

Sounds right to me. But also, it is something he clearly values...so there is an unfavorable tone to it.

[CANSTANDIT]

I don't actually know how representative this story is supposed to be; it may simply be a character study-the Sasha idea aside. not sure, yet...

[garyd]

I highly recommend "Years' End" by Jhumpa Lahiri in, I think, the December 24 issue. 
Beautiful story about "coming of age", life transition, etc.
incorporating characters with whom we are not immediately familiar.  (me at least...not having
read "Interpreter of Maladies"...tho I am told it has been sitting on
our bookshelves for quite some time...ah well.)

[CANSTANDIT]

Here we go with catching up! I travelled over the holidays, and had no concentration left for the New Yorker. I barely squeeked in this week's caption.....!

Happy New Year to all of you I may have missed...I hope this year brings you everything you want.

[Ellen (tellyouwhat)]

Happy New Year everyone --

gary I am just beginning my 12/24 New Yorker -- thanks for the recommendation.

[Rosewood]

Deceptively good story in this week's issue.
By John Updike.
Title: OUTAGE

At first I thought, well, yeah, yeah, what else is new.
But then I had second and third thoughts.
It's one of those simple stories that grabs on and won't let go.

I guess Updike never tires of writing this kind of thing.
Suburban malcontents seem to be his stock in trade.

But there's just something about the casualness of this story that stings.
Maybe it's the 'everyman' nature.
Are humans this governed by chance and impulse?

[CANSTANDIT]

I just started Outage, so I'm going to stay away for a bit until I finishe it-i keep getting pulled away...

[Rosewood]

This weeks' issue is TERRIFIC!

Great piece by film critic David Denby on Otto Preminger,
the fifties/sixties director of pot-boilers.
Films that while not acknowldedged as great, were still eminently watchable
and a few, even memorable. ANATOMY OF A MURDER especially. And even,
ADVISE AND CONSENT and parts of PORGY AND BESS.

Though, I admit, CARMEN JONES remains unwatchable.
But more likely because Harry Belafonte is so disasterously miscast
and inept.

Also in this TNY, an interesting piece on singer Kate Nash and her
myspace cronies. Interesting. Especially for a clue-less techno-phobe
like me.

The short story, WAKEFIELD, by Doctorow is rich and strange.
In truth I view it as a kind of horror story.
Couldn't put it down.

[garyd]

Agree, "Wakefield" is kind of creepy isn't it?  Fascinating , however.
Remember when you were a kid, upset with your parents, and fantasized about running away?  Problem was
you wanted to be around to see their reaction.  Also,you were not real sure how you would make it on your own, no money,
no TV, no stereo. 
"Wakefield", for some reason, brought back those memories.