This story has really confused me. At first I thought it was about sexual abuse but after reading through almost the third of the story I began to suspect that the author might be trying to bring attention to the brutal and unethical practices of doctors in the early part of the 20Th century. I remember reading about the practice known as lobotomy in which a part of frontal lobe of the brain was cut by a sharp instrument. it was the practice which was widely used in the early part of 20Th century as a cure for mentally disable people. the practice was later disqualified by the medical associations around the world an was banned.
Another point that came towards the end was about the human nature at its worst. when the doctor over powered the little girl he admitted that he was in fact enjoying the feeling of control over another human being. Reading this story through the lens of recent news of prisoner abuse and torture in Iraq and Guantanamo puts it in a whole new perspective. Ordinary people when put in charge over other human beings could commit such atrocities that are incomprehensible under any other circumstances.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, on a closer read, I'm sure you'll see that this is not about "brutal" medical practices, etc., though it does have something to say about human "nature," esp. in a Western socio-cultural context
In any case, below are some comments from "Previous Blogs," which should give you some more specific points of focus; to address some of the story's thematic issues noted below, focus on key scenes, character and setting descriptions, the contrasting use of language (parents v. doctor), etc:
Think about what those characters represent? The story does explore questions of power, resistance, authority,ec. How many different levels of conflict can you find in the story? We have a child and adult, doctor and patient, etc. How does the story explore conflicts between various aspects of our culture? how are those various "forces" characterized?
The strangeness, or extraordinariness of the doctor's reactions may lead to some interesting discussion of the doctor-patient relationship, but beyond that, questions of power, authority, cultural roles v. human nature, etc. think about what the various characters represent.
Sexuality is an important "force" in the story; discussing it in this context will avoid the trap of judging the doctor as "perverted," which of course is not the issue. In this "nature" V. "culture" dichotomy--which the story suggests is no "dichotomy" at all--the story does give us a glimpse at what underlies our socio-cultural roles, one of which is the stereotype of "professionalism"; we often call this the "dark" side of "human nature"--dark, of course, because we often hide (from) it, exclude it from light.
There are some clear parallels between the language that might be used to describe a rape and that used to describe the force used by the doctor against the little girl. I think the doctor probably acted reasonably here and don't think it should be read as brutal practices. If there was an atrocity, it was not the force used but rather the pleasure that the doctor took from using it.
Post a Comment