Blocking "I had Barbara"

My favorite scene from the entire story of “Roman Fever” was the very ending when Mrs. Ansley walked towards the stairs to leave the terrace. She quickly turned to Mrs. Slade and said, “I had Barbara.” While this interaction is short, it’s the pinnacle of the entire story.

If I were to block the scene out for a play, I first want to make the lights dim as if the play were ending. Mrs. Ansley will look like she’s about to leave the terrace without saying a word, pause on the stairs, and then turn around with confidence (like she’s made an important decision). A spotlight will aim at the two women. I envision Mrs. Ansley just saying, “I had Barbara” in a normal voice without any emphasis on a specific word. (Just one flowed out sentence).

Mrs. Slade would initially be stunned at the statement as if confused. A few moments later, she’ll gasp and finally understand the meaning of the sentence. After Mrs. Slade realizes Mrs. Ansley’s statement, Mrs. Ansley’s will turn back around and exit backstage. The audience will be left with Mrs. Slade as she sits back down in shock realizing all her jabs at Mrs. Ansley were for nothing. Then, the lights will fade to black.

“Just Once”

If I were to change the title of “This is What it Means to Say Pheonix, Arizona” I’d take the last line between Victor and Thomas: “Just Once.” I like titles that are either cliff hangers. The phrase can be interpreted in different ways by the reader.

First, the new title will provide a sense of mystery. Does Victor want something or does Thomas? What is Thomas’ reason for providing money and not asking much in return? Perhaps the reader would view Thomas as suspicious. We’d see Thomas through Victor’s perspective better.

Next, the title could be a reference to a past memory leaving the reader to constantly search for an answer. Once Victor and Thomas hung out with each other. Was there one moment in their lives that broke them apart? Maybe the answer was when Victor beat up Thomas: the “just once” incident.

The constant engagement from the reader would be great for the moral of the story: to take care of each other (specifically through listening to one another). There isn’t a backhanded motive but a wholesome request.

Another Look at Sibling Connection Now that We’re in Quarantine

In a brief summary, “The Evolution of My Brother” depicts a relatively abusive relationship between an older sister and a younger brother. Despite the questionable activities the two did together, the siblings were very close to each other. As time progressed, Jenny went through a period where she wished to be away from her family. However, once she lost the connection she once had with her brother, she began to miss him and started reminiscing. Ultimately, Jenny realized how she treated her brother and wished to be close to him again.

Hopefully, those of you who also have a sibling doesn’t have a relationship as extreme as the one in this short story. Yet, I believe that while we’re all stuck at home, we can learn to take another look at how we interact with our siblings/family. I’m sure most of us are dying to go outside and hang out with our peers. But, if you happen to have a sibling at home with you right now, I think you’re extremely lucky.

I have two older brothers with a 7-8 year gap from me. For the past eight years, before COVID19 hit, I was basically living my life as an only child. Sure, they came home during college breaks. However, once they graduated from college, the number of times I saw them dropped significantly. Just like the younger brother, I didn’t think too much about my brothers. I didn’t even have phone calls with them. I didn’t bother sending them texts. I figured they were too busy or just didn’t want to hand out with their younger sister. I just hung out with my friends and spent most of my day at school.

Now, I’ve never wanted to hang out with my brothers more. Both of them live away from home, so the number of times I see them is limited depending on their schedules. One of them is in medical school, so I don’t get to see him for months at a time. When they visited home, I’d chill with them until they had to leave. With COVID19, we came to the consensus that having all five of us stay together wasn’t a great idea. So, we all quarantined separately. Any plans to see each other were canceled. Fortunately, I saw both my brothers last weekend since one of them was moving apartments and needed help. Even though it was hard labor, I wouldn’t trade those two days for anything.

While I am in the completely opposite position as Jenny, I think it goes to show how easy it is to forget how wonderful family is. So, the next time you don’t think you can stand being in the same room as another family member, whether its a sibling or even your parent, remember the time you have together is limited. You’re going to move on to other stages in your life, so you might as well enjoy the time you have with your family while we’re all stuck at home.

"It isn't fair, it isn't right!" - The Lottery

(Image from: Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery": The Authorized Graphic Adaptation)
The sentence in question: “It isn’t fair, it isn’t right,” Mrs. Hutchinson screamed, and then they were upon her.

What is fair? While the tradition and values of the community are sickening, the process itself is fair in my eyes. Granted, the society follows a heavily patriarchal system: women go with whoever’s name they adopt, men are delegated as head of the family (or whoever is the next male inline). However, everyone, no matter what age or gender, counts as one “entry.”

The “winner” of the Lottery is randomly drawn twice. The first time is to pick the family, the second time is to pick the specific member. This system accounts for the fact that every household’s size is different. You aren’t punished for having many children under one family. The Lottery could have left it at the random individual or allowing a family head to decide who to send off, but the double draw takes any version of “unfairness” out.

Normally, we say a random draw is fair. Everything is left up to chance, however, the process has flaws. Suddenly, the order in which you draw is unfair. Once you’re chosen, it’s now unfair. The chance of being chosen varies from family to family. Was it wrong of Mrs. Hutchinson to turn on her family by trying to get her daughters in the family draw? Screaming about how “it isn’t fair” is a contradiction to her own attempts of escape (making her daughters count twice: once for their husbands’ families and once for their own). I also find it bogus that you are exempt from the lottery if you are injured. So, shouldn’t everyone just have a broken leg on that day?

We’re shown two important things: the danger of blindly following tradition and the randomness of persecution. What I truly deem unfair is the fact you must participate in the lottery even if you don’t want to. It isn’t fair that one tradition can destroy your life. It isn’t right that a single tradition can break the bond of family and turn your nice neighbor into an emotionless killer. If they’re locked into this society against their will, they’re stuck appeasing a system that destroys all forms of community. There’s also no reason for the “winner” to be targeted other than the fact she drew the black dot. Assuming she hasn’t committed any crime apart from being late, she’s just a normal housewife and mother. Perhaps that's just my opinion. It seems that fairness is in the eye of the beholder so we'll never know what's truly fair.

Side note: Maybe this idea is too gruesome, but if they really wanted everything to be “fair”, shouldn’t they have just done a coin flip for each person?

The Threat of the Digital Age - "There Will Come Soft Rains"

(Google Images: EC Comics & Ray Bradbury)

How should we feel about the post-apocalyptic story of the AI house in “There Will Come Soft Rains”? Does the story hit us differently now that we’re in a digital age?

Now the truth of the matter is that the story can be read in several ways. While I realize that type of analysis is eye-rolling, I believe “There Will Come Soft Rains” is a more difficult story to decipher due to its ambiguity. Answering the digital threat question would’ve been much easier with “The Machine Stops.” The story only gives us a sequence of events and their descriptions. We, as the readers, are left to decipher the story on our own. Yet to my surprise, many people in class expressed how they felt sad reading the story. However, I believed this story rang a scarier tone than a sad one for me.

The initial premise of the story is about how the essence of humanity is boiled down to an artificial intelligence house that follows the routine of a family -- a glimpse of what was and will never be again. Many found this tidbit depressing. A house is left all alone to continue on in pure bliss until its inevitable downfall: We pity its loneliness. We even see a sad sick dog draw its last breath, never to be seen again. We learn that the children had their own playroom, the mother had a hobby of listening to the poems from her favorite poet, and the family ate a “standard American” breakfast.

Yet, if the house was the sole survivor of a nuclear explosion, we can imply that humans have more or less outdone themselves. They’ve created objects that not only fail to protect their human creators but also manage to outlive its purpose. Technology has already become too powerful. We’ve given technology permission to run our lives. We’ll forget how to cook, how to remember things, or even how to write nicely. The reason I find the post-apocalyptic tech genre so threatening is due to its proximity to our age. We currently have self-driving cars to AI assistants like the Google Home, Alexa, or Siri. Considering that Ray Bradbury wrote the story in 1950 leads me to believe our lives are scarier than ever before. One man’s fictional story is turning into reality. While a nuclear attack is one of the last worries on my list, the idea of a house knowing everything about you isn’t too far away. August 2026 is now a measly six years away and could very well be the time frame needed to create an independent intelligent household.

The schedule of the house alone proves the monotony of humanity’s day-to-day life. We’ve become robots ourselves -- and, in all honesty, bad ones. Perhaps all forms of technology failed, would I survive? Have I relied on technology so much that I would end up stranded in the middle of the highway if my car broke down and I couldn’t search up a solution or contact help? Scratch that idea, I would die eating the wrong plant. The advance in technology isn’t what we should fear, per se, but what happens to us as we rely on it. Do we really want the last essence of humanity represented by a robot bird cawing from a pile of rubble?