ENGL 4310

Our class discussion of Alice Munro's "Free Radicals" introduced, as I remember, an interpretation of the story that wasn't totally in line with my own reading of it. It seemed like people saw Nita more or less evolving/devolving into Bett, her late husband's first wife, throughout the story and especially when Nita claims Bett's sins as her own in an attempt to stay safe when the creeper showed up in her home. It's not that I didn't see this conclusion as plausible or justified; it just wasn't where I came to with the story.

We talked some about a writer's intentions. I'm pretty sure that discussion came up in regards to the difference in the intentions of letters and the intentions of stories, but I think the question applies to "Free Radicals" and fiction-writing in general. We're not supposed to care what an author was trying to do, but I can't help but be curious about that sometimes. Short stories usually leave clues to help the reader in his/her process, and - kind of for fun, since I enjoyed the story, and kind of for the sake of being an engaged student - I read "Free Radicals" again, looking for the clues that led to or away from the aforementioned conclusion. I'm not sure if it's a structural thing, but it may very well be; I'll keep an eye out as we reread O'Connor and Porter.

In the story's second paragraph, Munro writes that Nita didn't notify Bett of Rich's death, even though she (Bett), along with Rich's brother, "might have understood, perhaps better than the people near at hand, why she had proceeded with the non-funeral as she had done." I don't really know why Bett should understand Nita's justification, but I feel okay about my assumption that it would simply be a byproduct of both of these women having been Rich's wives and sharing a certain understanding of him. A bit later, it's mentioned that the sort of "contemporary affair" people were expecting at his funeral was "the sort of thing that Rich had said made him puke." However, this initial passage could easily be seen as an early clue that Munro wants Nita and Bett to be seen as similar characters.

On the second page of the story (as far as my printout is concerned, anyway), we read, "This was Rich's house. He'd bought it when he was with his first wife, Bett." Now, it's not Bett's house or anything, at least not apparently; however, Nita is living in a house that isn't really hers, and the person to whom it actually belongs - Rich - bought it with his former wife. Is Nita some sort of invader, a conquistador of this house? Does this make her more or less similar to Bett? Does it highlight common ground between Nita and the man who "invades" her home and threatens her life? Hmm ... Really, though, maybe the house was always more Nita's than Bett's, because it was Rich's relationship with Nita that prompted him to stay so long and so often at the house and to make it more than "a weekend place, closed up in the winter."

On page two again: "Bett had become interested; she'd claimed in the beginning not to understand why he'd bought such a dump, but practical improvements always engaged her, and she bought matching carpenter's aprons."
And later: "The usual ruckus followed, trite and painful, and ended with Bett going off to California, then Arizona, Nita quitting her job at the suggestion of the registrar, and Rich missing out on becoming dean of arts. He took early retirement, sold the city house. Nita did not inherit the small carpenter's apron ..."
The apron, at least, is something they don't have in common. Also, Nita can't get up on a stepladder the way Bett could, though she later claims to have this talent.

Page eight is where Nita makes the claim, more or less, to be Bett. One thing I didn't take into account entirely my first time through was the actual story Nita tells of Bett's experience; I must've been more focused on trying to figure out what she was getting at. Anyhow, she actually seems to be very well-attuned to the idea I'd have of what Bett's experience was actually like; Nita could've told the story in a very straightforward fashion, but she inserts personal observations that give depth to the story she's telling. This, for me, contributes to the idea that Munro meant for them to "end up" the same. At the same time, though, one imporant discrepancy appears between Bett's experience and Nita's telling of it. In real life for Bett, the "other woman" survives and even ends up with Rich. In Nita's story, the "other woman" dies, and Rich stays with his first wife.

And, finally:
Dear Bett, Rich is dead and I have saved my life by becoming you.

So, this whole "looking for clues" thing ... I don't really like it so much. It has it's advantages, and I did notice things that I hadn't before or in different ways than I'd noticed them previously. That was cool, and I think it'd be especially advantageous if I was in the position of having read a story that other people had interpreted in a way that I didn't understand at all. However, seeing the little things that contradicted my original reading this time didn't really make me change my perception, and it also served to sort of break the story down into it's smaller particles instead of seeing it for its wonderful whole. A short story is so short that reducing it further isn't altogether useful, as opposed to the options one has when analyzing a novel or other long work.