"Popular Mechanics" by Raymond Carver
When I finished reading this story I said, “Holy Crap did
they just kill the baby!!??!!” I had to reread it over a couple times until I finally
came to the conclusion that they killed the baby. I was completely baffled by
the fact that these two parents would be so selfish to the extent that they
killed the only good thing that came out of their relationship.
At first I thought that this was
what Carver was trying to get at when writing this story. I thought he wanted
us to realize that when parents split up it can have detrimental consciences on
their children and that this was just an extreme case. However, after our lengthy discussion on this
story in class I found that while that is a message, it’s not the main point to
writing this story. Carver uses intentional lack of detail to say this could be
anyone. For example we never hear a single name said in this entire story.
Instead of giving a name to the baby they just say “baby.” We also don’t get
enough detail from the house or neighborhood to discern if this is a rich,
middle class, or poor family. Another
example is that there are no quotes around any of the dialog. To me I found
that this was more like a script that was meant to be improvised. What seems
like dialog is just the main points that need to be stated but it’s left up to
the actually people to put their own spin on it. The people in this story can
be poor, rich, African American, Caucasian, Mexican, famous, or never been
heard of. This could be the family who lives right next to you. Carver meant to
leave out details so that we as the readers can put our own faces and names to
these characters.
The question we should ask ourselves
if who are these people and what cause these events to take place but how can we
prevent this from happening to children of any social class?
Now I have another question for you that actually
has nothing to do with what I just stated. I want to hear who actually thinks
that there was a baby and who things it was just a picture. For me I thought there
was a baby but I can see points to argue that it was a picture. What do you
think??
When I finished reading this story I said, “Holy Crap did
they just kill the baby!!??!!” I had to reread it over a couple times until I finally
came to the conclusion that they killed the baby. I was completely baffled by
the fact that these two parents would be so selfish to the extent that they
killed the only good thing that came out of their relationship. 
I think that the parents were fighting over a real baby. In the text the statement about the issue being decided confers to this. By the issue being decided means that the baby has died due to the parents being selfish and not having the interests of the baby in mind, This happens so much in society where parents split and the lives of a child have been made worse. Divorce is too common in our society and only is we look at our moral values can this be changed.
ReplyDeleteI definitely believe it is a real baby, only because the situation would lose a lot of its affect if it were just a picture. The destroying of a picture of a baby has a much smaller impact on a person than the actually destroying of an innocent child. And since I believe that Carver wanted to send a message to society he would want to use a real child. Since it is up to interpretation, i guess it could go either way, but I think it was a real baby. I agree with the structure you mentioned, that it allows for the fitting of many scenarios and classes of people. Almost like an equation that you simply plug in the info in to variables and every time you'll get the same result.
ReplyDeleteI think the baby is real too. I thought because of carvers lack of detail, it didn't matter where the picture ended up. I thought the sole meaning of the picture being taken away from the man was that anything can set a couple off and lose sight of what really matters, or something like that. With the lack of description though, anything is up for interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI like how you said Carver uses lack of detail, because that is so true. I didnt really think about it before but this could be anyone. Im sure that's why its as broad as it was.I dont think anyone's interpretation is wrong the author definitely wants us to see it from all different points.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the selfish parents were fighting over a real child not a picture. At a certain point of the story it tells us that the baby cried & pictures can't cry. I agree that Carver purposefully left out names of the characters & the setting to let readers fill in their own exposition to his piece of work. He is a genius for that ,sick and twisted, but still a genius!
ReplyDelete