When I first starting reading this piece, I quickly grew agitated. Why? The sentence structure was all over the place. It honestly made me want to red ink the entire thing. However, when I delved deeper into his words a fondness for his character quickly subsided the agitation. I will be honest, it was hard for me to understand what was going on in the story until I was almost done with it. I believe this story was more of a satirical attack on class systems today with the use of dystopian ideologies and scenarios created throughout the story.
The narrator starts writing into a journal, he received on his 40th birthday, with the desire to record the present for future generations to read and understand the feelings, emotions, happenings of his time. Throughout the piece, he makes little notes for himself to remember in the future. His obsession with the future is hard to explain. He is a complex character, caught up in the notion of recording the past but focuses on the future without losing sight of the present as well. Which, in itself, is contradictory and a – rather – crazy notion, if not confusing. How can one obsess about the future but still focus on the present? (Or rather the past, in which he is documenting the daily events in his journal?) This story was hard to digest, let alone try to comprehend the message behind it. There was a lot going on throughout the story. His character, in itself, is amazing. I grew to love him as a person. The doting love and care he wrote about having for his children and wife were so sweet and caring.
One of the interesting aspects of this story that I noticed was George Saunders’s attention to the social and economic classes. This story, following the narrator and his daily life, is littered with financial struggles of a working man. He tells stories of his father, another hard working man that went through a divorce and also had major financial issues. The narrator then describes the types of people in the world, describing the life he would like to live in a daydream-like fashion. He captures the essence of a dystopian society. Although, it seems as only his world is falling apart. Maybe not falling, per se, but more-so things not going the way he wants them to go. He tells of his “rich” father-in-law that is very strict and traditional; when they reached out to him for financial help, he condemned them for being “wasteful” with their money and refused to help them. He later tells of “Farmer Rich’s” speech at a family gathering that condemned the use of “Semplica Girls,” bashing anyone (older generation or younger generation) who uses them as a sign of wealth or simply a decoration. “Farmer Rich” represents the hard-working, manual labor workers that have earned their riches and somehow still remain bitter. I came to the conclusion of class systems as one of the story’s aspects of a dystopia due to the character of Jerry. Jerry is one of the detectives that is assigned their case of the missing “SG’s.” He first ploys his idea that big corporations are the real enemy.
Says he knows we are behind eight-ball in terms of money, feels shysters at Greenway deserve to be boiled in oil. Is man of limited means himself, he says, is family man, knows how upset he would be if he owed big faceless corporation &8600. Will not rest until activists found. Has low regard for activists. Activists think they are doing a noble thing? Are not. SG’s become illegal immigrants, take jobs away from “legit Americans.” Jerry very much against. (162)
Jerry represents the obvious target and influence of his character, racist people.
Jerry a talker. Before he became cop, was teacher. Is so glad to not be teaching anymore. His students brats. Brattier every year. For last few years, was just biding his time, waiting to be knifed or shot by some brat. Things got worse as kids got darker. If I know what he means. Has nothing against dark people but does have something against dark people who refuse to work and learn language and insist on pulling mean pranks on teachers. (163)
The obvious fantastic elements of this story are the “Semplica Girls.” They describe the women who leave their past lives to have a chip inserted in their temples to stand decoration in “rich” people’s gardens or yards. The narrator tries to justify the use of “SG’s” to his daughter, Eva, who is weary about their use as a decoration and described as “sensitive” by the narrator. As an eight-year-old, I was very impressed by her complex mind and thoughts, as well as her awareness of what is morally right and wrong as she questions her father about the use of the “SG’s” in their yard (eventually releasing them.)
Point is, I said, everything relative. SG’s have lived very different lives from us. Their lives brutal, harsh, unpromising. What looks scary/unpleasant to us may not be so scary/unpleasant to them, i.e., they have seen worse. (143)
As I may have mentioned above, Eva = sensitive. This good, Pam and I feel: this = sign of intelligence. But Eva seems to have somehow gotten idea that sensitivity = effective way to get attention, i.e., has developed tendency to set herself apart from others, possibly a way of distinguishing self, i.e., casting self as better, more refined than others? Has, in past, refused to eat meat, sit on leather seats, use plastic forks made in China. Is endearing enough when little kid does. But Eva getting older now, this tendency to object on principle starting to feel a bit precious + becoming fundamental to how she views herself? (140)
Eva: So just because everyone is doing it, that makes it right. (141)