Looking back on the story, "The Man Child," I realized that there was a crucial character in the story that I barely even noticed the first time I read it: Eric's unborn brother or sister. We touched on this a little bit in class, but the loss of this child and, presumably, the possibility of having more children, was very important in Jamie's role in the story.
When Eric's mother was still pregnant with Eric's younger brother or sister, we can already see that it is not quite as happy for Jamie as it is for Eric's parents. We get a glimpse of their life before Eric's mother gets "taken away" on Jamie's birthday. The conversation on that day keeps has to do with how Jamie is getting old, which, as we can imagine, doesn't make him very happy. However, the conversation soon turns to Jamie's failed marriage, and how Jamie is getting a bit old to start a life like that of Eric's father, who seems to have it all: wife, son, and land. Jamie gets particularly upset, when Eric's father mentions their next child:
"--if it's a boy this time," his father said, "we'll name it after you."
"That's touching," said Jamie, "but that really won't do me -- or the kid -- a hell of a lot of good."
Here, Jamie is definitely bitter because he probably feels that he doesn't have all of the good things that Eric's father has. It probably feels like the fact that they are having another kid just rubs this in, and by offering to name the kid after him, if probably feels like they're offering him some sort of consolation prize. This all could contribute towards Jamie's general bitterness towards the family.
After Eric's mother is taken away and they lose the baby, Jamie's role in the family seems to change. Although he spends more time at the house while Eric's mother is away, when she gets back, it is implied that the mother is in some way colder toward Jamie. It could be possible that Jamie had some sort of deeper connection to the child (perhaps he was even the father, but that would probably take up another blog post). Whatever that connection was, the loss of this child affected Jamie's relationship with the family.
The fact that Eric will not have a baby brother or sister, and probably not any more in the future, also makes the ending much more brutal. Though the murder of any child is a terrible thing, Jamie's murder of Eric seems to be even more intense because he is taking away the parents' only child that they will probably ever have. This means that he also takes away the possibility that anyone will inherit the land after Eric's father. From reading this story, there seem to be three very important things in life: wife, child, and land. By killing Eric, Jamie has basically taken away two of those three things, because the parents will never have another child or someone to inherit the land.
Anyway, I know these thoughts are a bit scattered, but I thought it was really interesting how pivotal a role Eric's unborn sibling plays in the story, even though it was silent and basically invisible.
This is a very interesting way to view the story. I would have never thought about seeing the story with the unborn child as the focal point. I find what you say incredibly thought out. I really like how you explained what Jamie's motivation might have been to kill Eric. It was something that was bothering me about the story. Great post!
ReplyDeleteI definitely caught on to the sense that the shift in dynamics between Jamie and Eric's family occurred because of Eric's mother's miscarriage. The fact that he had another sibling too, who was either born dead or died soon after birth, is mentioned in the beginning of the story, and gives the rest of the story a ghostly kind of quality, as though the spirit of the dead child is lingering among the living characters (and is certainly present in the characters' memories, especially the mother's). Even though I doubt Jamie could have anything to do with Eric's mother's later miscarriage (I don't know, maybe he slipped some sort of concoction into her drink that made her lose the baby), I had a strong, eerie sense that he was somehow responsible.
ReplyDeleteI was trying to figure out that dynamic myself. I was a little hesitant to say that Jamie was the father, as I thought that was a bit rash, and while I do see that he would not want the baby to grow up and inherit the land, being considered one of Eric's family, I saw it more as he wanted the baby to not exist so that the land could be brought back to Jamie.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to think about what effect the unborn baby could have had if it was alive. Jamie, at the time when Eric's parents say that they will name the baby after him if it is a boy, already is starting to really dislike the teasing that Eric's father is doing. If the baby was born, I think that Jamie may have just given up on getting revenge on Eric's parents. Eric's murder really has an effect because he is the only child, but if the other one was born, he would have to kill both to have the same effect, and I don't know if Jamie would have had it in him to go through with that. This gives off the implication that Jamie may have had some influence on the miscarriage, but it is extremely hard to tell.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how the relationship is between Jamie and Eric's mother. We know the father chose to buy Jamie's land, and take care of him, but I wonder how much of Eric's mother's kindness toward Jamie is her following her husband. I only bring this up because this could drastically alter her relationship with Jamie. I was thinking that maybe Eric's mother was worried to some degree about Jamie's stability. Maybe she knew at some level that Eric was in some sort of danger now that her baby had died. This point is definitely a stretch, but I thought i'd bring it up.
ReplyDelete