Classics and the Western Canon discussion

For our interim read this time around, I selected Why I Live at the P.O., a delightful short story by Eudora Welty. It first appeared in 1941 in A Curtain of Green and Other Stories. I selected it because it is funny. But, more importantly, I think it also has something relevant to say about today.

The narrative unfolds in the first-person point of view of the post mistress (“Sister”) who tries to justify her behavior for leaving home and moving to the post office. It is a story about familial relationships, replete with sibling rivalry, jealousy, dishonesty, isolation, and an attempt at independence.

A link to the short story:
https://art-bin.com/art/or_weltyposto...

Some things to think about as you read the story:

We live in an era when we are bombarded with “fake news.” This story has its own version of fake news with Stella-Rondo fabricating all sorts of lies about Sister. Why do you think the family chooses to believe Stella-Rondo’s “fake news” and deny Sister’s truths? How do family members react when confronted with truths they refuse to believe?

Leo Tolstoy opens Anna Karenina with, “All happy families are like one another; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” How would you characterize this family?

Is Sister a reliable narrator? Why or why not?

I saw the family's resistance to acknowledge Stella-Rondo's separation with her husband or her child (probably from a premarital birth?) reflected in their resistance to changes in the outside world by shutting the windows and opting to stay away from mails and radios. They stick firm to traditional values like The Fourth of July celebration and long beards, yet when things don't seem to follow the standard conventions, they seem to simply ignore them and sweep it under the rug, or just make up things as they go along.

I wonder why the father is missing from the story. Instead of the father, the mother and the mother's father (Papa Daddy) seems to be the domineering presence in this house, whereas uncle Rondo seems to be suffering from some kind of insecurity and fragility, or some kind of trauma he suffered in the previous great war.

Apart from Sister, the family seems to take it for granted that one needs to depend on someone else.
For example Papa daddy thinks it is surely the work of nepotism that got Sister her job and thinks she should be grateful to him, whereas she thinks that Stella is the smart one for getting married instead of working on her own. Stella either relies on her husband or on her family to raise her and her baby. Mama wouldn't be making pickles without the black help (whereas Sister seemed to make lots of preservatives from the jars she took along with her move to the P.O.). Uncle Rondo seems to depend on Papa Daddy and so do the people who quit buying stamps to get on Papa Daddy's good side.

The inventory of things she takes with her to the PO seems to describe how she forged her independence bit by bit, yet is also material proof of how she felt neglected by her family.

However her independence (which, ironically happens on Fourth of July) seems to be another form of isolation from her family and anyone who takes the family's side. She blocks her ears and 'refuses to listen' to what is being said about her and 'draws her own conclusions', which is what makes us doubt whether she's a truly reliable narrator. She draws a strong line between who is 'taking up for' her and 'turning against' her. She even seems to be ready to regard everything that is related to Stella in a negative aspect, like how she suspects Shirley T to have mental problems.

I even came to wonder at what kind of 'lies' told by Stella made Mr. Whitaker leave Sister for Stella? Is it really Stella who 'stole' Mr. Whitaker from her? Why is Sister so curious about what led to his separation with Stella? Would things have been that different if she had gone off with Mr Whitaker instead of Stella?

Although life and people can turn against on you at times, it's more likely that life (and people) is more complex that we would like to believe, and subtle hints (like uncle Rondo giving the girl a nickel or donating the army cot or drinking on 4th of July) makes me wonder if we can take all of Sister's words for granted.

Her little 'corner' of post-office might be her kingdom of 'freedom' and 'independence' but may also be her prison of isolation and entrapment. Hints at radio news of war reminds me of the American isolation from world events until bombings of Pearl Harbor, as well as the isolation of the southern states after the Civil War. These days this might reflect how we cannot keep a wall between ourselves and the outside world like the wall on the Mexican borders or the new Russian Wall.

I know that this story inspired the programmer of Eudora, to name the email client after the author. Like her father, Eudora Welty was very interested in mechanical technology and worked at a local radio station and was a photographer as well as a writer. She probably knew very well how the power of the media, both image and words could transform or even mutilate as well as capture the reality.

Why does Sister not have a proper name? It makes her sound like she's not her own person. The story is composed of her reactions to others, so maybe it's appropriate that her name is a relation. She wants to live at the PO to be free of her family, but without her family, who is she?

What a hilarious story! I laughed so hard my eyes teared up.

Borum wrote: "She blocks her ears and 'refuses to listen' to what is being said about her and 'draws her own conclusions', which is what makes us doubt whether she's a truly reliable narrator."

Borum, this was one of the parts that stuck out for me as well, where the narrator's childishness really comes out. Her behavior is spoiled. If Stella-Rondo is old enough to marry, have a child, and go to Illinois, and if the two of them are only a year apart in age, "Sister" probably isn't a teenager, even if she acts like one.

Another thing right in the beginning of the story that struck me is that she still nurses a grudge over a "gorgeous Add-a-Pearl necklace" that her sister got when she was eight (!!) One would hope she'd have gotten over that by now! It instantly made me suspicious of the way she sees things - she's coming at things from a very petty perspective.

And then the exaggeration in her descriptions as well . . . Such as when she says, "Papa-Daddy is about a million years old." That exaggeration is part of what makes the story absolutely hilarious, but at the same time, it also makes me unsure of how reliably she's narrating things. What other parts might also be exaggerated? Is Stella-Rondo really the evil mastermind she is made out to be?

Borum, I like too how you point out Uncle Rondo giving a nickel to the girl who helps "Sister" move into the P.O. Although "Sister" herself might be too self absorbed to give "the girl" something for her efforts, Uncle Rondo is observent and empathetic enough to do it. I agree, this is one of those details where we can see that other people in the story might have a better grip on things than the narrator does.

It's hard to know how much of what "Sister" describes is real and how much is exaggerated or slanted, but if she's describing things accurately, this family is pretty disfunctional to say the least! Though if Stella-Rondo has really behaved in the way the story describes, maybe all of "Sister's" past exaggerations have made her an easy victim for Stella-Rondo's fake news? The whole family might already have been primed to disbelieve "Sister" . . . or at least to not take her altogether seriously.

Thomas wrote: "Why does Sister not have a proper name? It makes her sound like she's not her own person. The story is composed of her reactions to others, so maybe it's appropriate that her name is a relation. Sh..."

Thomas, this is a fantastic comment! I think it's completely true. Her identity is so wrapped up in family pettiness that I'm not sure she'd have any idea who she was without them.

Thomas wrote: "Why does Sister not have a proper name? It makes her sound like she's not her own person. The story is composed of her reactions to others, so maybe it's appropriate that her name is a relation. Sh..."

Yes! I think that's a significant point, considering how the Rondo was taken out after Stella's event with uncle Rondo. Even Shirley T.'s name made me rethink about the remark about her resemblance to Shirley Temple and her ability to tap dance. Why is T abbreviated instead of being shown in full like Stella-Rondo?

Could Sister's name be intentionally chosen by her to remain 'anonymous'? Could this be another way to show how the family treated Stella as Stella whereas Sister was just the 'sister' of Stella?

Greg wrote: "What a hilarious story! I laughed so hard my eyes teared up.

Borum wrote: "She blocks her ears and 'refuses to listen' to what is being said about her and 'draws her own conclusions', which is wha..."

I also laughed at her abrupt non-sequitur about Mama being so big yet her feet being so tiny. :-)

Borum wrote: "Could this be another way to show how the family treated Stella as Stella whereas Sister was just the 'sister' of Stella?."

That's how I see it. Sister could just as easily be identified as "Daughter" or "Granddaughter" or "Niece" while still remaining nameless. But she is identified as "Sister" to reinforce her subordinate position to her sister even though she is the older sibling. The fact that the whole family refers to her as "Sister" tells us they see her exclusively through Stella Rondo's eyes and they will take Stella Rondo's side against her at every opportunity.

When Sister suggests to Mama there may be something wrong with Shirley T because she hasn't spoken a single word, Mama looks horrified and says,

I remember well that Joe Whitaker frequently drank like a fish," says Mama. "I believed to my soul he drank chemicals."

If Mama really believes Stella Rondo's claim that Shirley T is adopted, why does she bring up Joe Whitaker's drinking problem?

Speaking of names and the way Sister can seem somewhat dehumanizing or distancing, compared to a proper name, there is something very childish in the way Sister consistently titles Joe Whitaker by referring to him as "Mr. Whitaker". Even Mama refers to him as Joe Whitaker. If Sister was with Mr. Whitaker first, one would think there would be a level of familiarity to refer to him by his first name. Is it safe to assume this relationship with Mr. Whitaker exists only in her own head, or maybe an overblown drunken one-night stand situation?

I wonder if Sister is in some degree underdeveloped. I am puzzled when. . .

Mama says. "Ungrateful child! After all the money we spent on you at the Normal."

What is the Normal? Written with a capital "N", it sounds like some sort of institution or special school perhaps. For some reason I am recalling Benjy from Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury when thinking on Sister.

David wrote: "What is the Normal? Written with a capital "N", it sounds like some sort of institution or special school perhaps.."

Good point. It does sound like some sort of institution to "normalize" people.

Tamara wrote: "David wrote: "What is the Normal? Written with a capital "N", it sounds like some sort of institution or special school perhaps.."

Good point. It does sound like some sort of institution to "norma..."

Maybe Mama is referring to extra expense in keeping Sister in the "normal" public school system: keeping her out of a school for children with learning disabilities? This would be more in line with the family's apparent need to cover up the unpleasant facts.

Greg wrote: "And then the exaggeration in her descriptions as well . . . Such as when she says, "Papa-Daddy is about a million years old.""

There's a lot of exaggeration to go around.

Think of Papa-Daddy's reaction when Stella-Rondo tells him Sister doesn't understand why he doesn't cut his beard. He has a fit and verbally abuses her. Uncle Rondo throws a temper tantrum when he is told Sister thinks he looks like a fool in the kimono. He spills out all the ketchup, tears off the kimono, and stomps on it. Later, he sets off fireworks in her bedroom. All their reactions seem pretty exaggerated.

How far do we take Sister's unreliability as a narrator? Is all this in her head? Or did this really happen? If the latter, maybe she is the only "normal" one in the family.

"Normal school" is an old term for a teacher's college turning out primary-school teachers.

Tamara wrote: "Greg wrote: "And then the exaggeration in her descriptions as well . . . Such as when she says, "Papa-Daddy is about a million years old.""

There's a lot of exaggeration to go around.

Think of P..."

For sure Tamara, there's no way to know.

I imagine if I knew someone with a childish and petty perspective and an overblown way of talking like Sister, and if she told me all of these things had happened, I wouldn't know what to believe. Some of it is probably real, other things could be exaggerated or invented. Who knows if everyone in the story really reacted the exact way it is being described?

But absolutely, she could indeed be one of the more normal ones in the story. If Sister is telling the truth, the family must truly favor Stella-Rondo. Stella-Rondo is telling a whole bunch of monstrous lies that all of these other eccentric members of her family are believing, regardless of what Sister says.

Either that, or the family has such a hostile way of relating to each other that they are always willing to believe the worst - if someone suggests that a bad thing was said about them, they believe instantly that the bad thing must have been said! And Stella-Rondo is clever enough to know how to take advantage of this family dynamic by diverting their paranoia onto Sister at every opportunity.

Roger wrote: ""Normal school" is an old term for a teacher's college turning out primary-school teachers."

I didn't know that. Thanks, Roger.

Thanks for clearing that up for us, Roger. I was also wondering what Normal stands for.

Stella's mother's knee-jerk reaction to the suggestion of Shirley's mental problem betrays her inner suspicion under the surface of her faith in her daughter's propriety.

What I don't understand is how Uncle Rondo, who seems to be suffering from some kind of PTSD from his war experiences in France (his drinking on 4th of July and his army cot, his violent temper tantrums and his desire for peace and quiet) opted to get back at Sister with firecrackers in her room, a possible reminder of artillery fire. (I mean, HE would have heard all the racket in the same house) That seemed too bizarre to be true even for such a dysfunctional family unless either Sister or Uncle Rondo is suffering from mental problems.

Use of name “Sister” for a sibling.

The symbolism is definitely there, but wanted to add this type of nickname is not uncommon in the Southern US. I’ve seen “Sister”, “Sis” and “Sissy”. This article has more examples, including a child known as “Son”. https://www.yahoo.com/video/why-every...

Susan wrote: "FYI, here is a YouTube link to Eudora Welty reading this story: https://youtu.be/DeZTYQL4sW0 It’s a great recording, but Warning: It includes racist term n***** omitted in the print version we have..."

Thank you, Susan! I love this recording. She writes as if I can just hear the Southern intonation sing straight from the written words, but the audio reading is even better. She has a very musical soft-spoken voice and is a great voice actor. I love how she makes Mama go birdybirdybirdy and Shirley T sing Popeye..

Susan wrote: "Use of name “Sister” for a sibling.

The symbolism is definitely there, but wanted to add this type of nickname is not uncommon in the Southern US. I’ve seen “Sister”, “Sis” and “Sissy”. This artic..."

And here I was thinking of Sister and Brother in the Berenstain Bears.. The little boy bear was originally Small Bear until Sister Bear came to be one of the bear family and his name turned into Brother Bear. I was wondering if Sister's name was Sister before Stella, her younger sister came along.

Borum wrote: "What I don't understand is how Uncle Rondo, who seems to be suffering from some kind of PTSD from his war experiences in France (his drinking on 4th of July and his army cot, his violent temper tantrums and his desire for peace and quiet) opted to get back at Sister with firecrackers in her room, a possible reminder of artillery fire"

I noticed this too and I'm starting to think now that if something in this story doesn't make sense, it's probably because Sister is making it up. She's building a case against her family and doesn't realize how absurd some of it is, which is I suppose what makes the story comical.

The war imagery is interesting though. Uncle Rondo being in France, his army cot, breaking the chain letter from Flanders, the firecrackers, Stella Rondo being "mortally wounded," the kimono that Uncle throws down and stomps on (and a servant with the interesting name "Jaypan") and in the end Sister just wants to listen to the war news on the radio "in peace". There's the World War going on outside, and then there's the war going on inside Sister with her family.

If we are to accept Sister is making some of this stuff up, where do we draw the line? Did she actually ridicule Papa-Daddy’s beard or Uncle Rondo in the kimono as Stella-Ronda has accused her of doing?

The problem is we have no evidence of her saying any such thing in the narrative. Or are we to think Sister is being selective in what she includes and what she leaves out? In other words, she did say these things but has chosen not to report them? I have a problem with that because I can only go with the words in the text. I don’t know at which point we can say this actually happened, but this part is in her head.

I’d like to turn the tables and suggest an alternative reading.

Granted that Sister is immature, jealous of Stella Rondo, and probably has some developmental problems. There's no denying she's flawed. But having said that, I’m wondering if it is possible to think of Sister as playing the role similar to that of the Fool in Shakespeare or even Cassandra in Greek mythology. She speaks the truth, but no one believes her. In this case, they actively choose not to believe her because she punctures their version of reality.

For example, Sister claims to have predicted Mr. Whitaker would leave Stella Rondo, but no one believed her: “I said from the beginning he'd up and leave her. I foretold every single thing that's happened." She speaks the truth about Shirley T. Even Mama suspects she is correct as evidenced by her statement about Mr. Whitaker’s alcoholism. But if Mama holds on to that truth, she would also have to accept the truth Shirley T was conceived before Stella Rondo was married. Since that is unpalatable, she denies the truth and turns her venom on Sister.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest the family can’t handle Sister’s truths. They marginalize her, stifle her, verbally abuse her, turn their back on her, isolate her, violate her private space (her bedroom), threaten her with violence (the firecrackers), and expel her. And it’s all because they live in a private bubble that is divorced from reality. They resent Sister for puncturing that bubble and do all they can to shut her up.

It is significant Sister takes the radio with her when she leaves. She hears news of the war and learns what is happening in the outside world. She is connected. It is also significant her family refuses to go to the post office once she is there. In effect, they are cutting themselves off from two vital sources that connect them to the real world—the radio and the mail.

As Sister tells them, you are “Cutting off your nose to spite your face.”

Tamara wrote: "I’d like to turn the tables and suggest an alternative reading.

Granted that Sister is immature, jealous of Stella Rondo, and probably has some developmental problems. There's no denying she's fla..."

I like that Tamara! So under this interpretation, the reason the family believes Stella-Rondo's lies about Sister is because they're already inclined to dislike/disbelieve Sister based on the hard truths Sister tells?

I don't see anything in the story that invalidates this way of seeing it. It seems viable to me, and I like that quote you point out. Stella-Rondo's supposedly adopted daughter is mighty suspicious, and the mother's reaction does have a whiff of denial.

The only thing that gives me a slight pause is Uncle Rondo giving the coin to the girl that helps Sister move. There's some caring in that gesture. The girl has already helped Sister; it's not like Uncle Rondo has to do that to be sure sister vacates. It's as though he's looking out for the girl and perhaps looking out for Sister too despite everything, sort of the way a parent might. But I guess nothing is monolithic. No matter how much we resent someone or resent what someone says, there might still be love there too that shows out in small ways. And maybe way deep-down he just subconsciously feels a little guilty about going so extreme with the fireworks?

Greg wrote: "The only thing that gives me a slight pause is Uncle Rondo giving the coin to the girl that helps Sister move. There's some caring in that gesture..."

Sister does acknowledge that Uncle Rondo has treated her well in the past. He gave her the radio and paid for her trip to Mammoth Cave. She says of him, “I always thought Uncle Rondo had all the brains of the entire family.” But she also acknowledges he has a terrible temper. “Anything is liable to make him tear the house down if it comes at the wrong time.” Perhaps his setting the firecrackers off in her bedroom is an example of "the wrong time."

Greg wrote: "And maybe way deep-down he just subconsciously feels a little guilty about going so extreme with the fireworks?

I think that is probably a part of it, too.

Tamara wrote: "Perhaps his setting the firecrackers off in her bedroom is an example of "the wrong time.""

Ah, that makes sense Tamara.

Tamara wrote: "I’d like to turn the tables and suggest an alternative reading.

Granted that Sister is immature, jealous of Stella Rondo, and probably has some developmental problems. There's no denying she's fla..."

I think the most telling declaration in the story is,

"I," says Mama, "I prefer to take my children's word for anything when it's humanly possible."

It is a fine line between good intentions and enabling and this attitude from Mama is the root of the issue and the rivalry between the two sisters. When one gets away with something due to Mama having taken them for their word, she inevitably lights the fuse of injustice in the rival sibling. Even Sister sees the fault in Mama's attitude with her immediate comment,You ought to see Mama, she weighs two hundred pounds and has real tiny feet.. This seems and indictment of the weak foundation of Mama's position. The problem is compounded by the fact that Sister is still blind to how Mama has enabled her as well as her sister.

Mama knows Shirley-T is Stella-Rhondo and Joe Whittaker's illegitimate child when she implies the reason Shirley-T may not be able to talk is because,

"I remember well that Joe Whitaker frequently drank like a fish," says Mama. "I believed to my soul he drank chemicals."

David wrote: "Even Sister sees the fault in Mama's attitude with her immediate comment,You ought to see Mama, she weighs two hundred pounds and has real tiny feet.. This seems and indictment of the weak foundation of Mama's position. .."

Great point! I love it.

David wrote: "I think the most telling declaration in the story is,
"I," says Mama, "I prefer to take my children's word for anything when it's humanly possible."."

I think the most telling declaration is Sister's saying, "If I have anything at all I have pride."

Sister is jealous of Stella Rondo, and her pride is hurt. The story springs from that jealousy and is told through its lens. Her constant exaggeration makes her difficult to believe in terms of factual accuracy, though I think there is pyschological truth in what she says. As the saying goes, when you feel like a nail, everyone looks like a hammer.

It looks to me like her family feeds into her paranoia and makes it worse, but the way she sees the world around her does not make her a reliable witness to the facts. She tells the story because she wants allies, so of course she is going to put her spin on it. The question then becomes the difference between spin and propaganda. Neither is the truth, but one is closer to it than the other.

I keep thinking about Sister’s comment how she had to stretch two chickens to feed five people and a child. While it’s not easy for a cook to suddenly adjust meal plans, two chickens for five people and a little girl sounds ample to me. Unless the chickens were very small, this sounds like more of an emotional grievance than a real one. On the other hand, Sister did fix dinner. Plus she is the one with a job (even if it doesn’t involve that much work)

Susan wrote: "I keep thinking about Sister’s comment how she had to stretch two chickens to feed five people and a child. While it’s not easy for a cook to suddenly adjust meal plans, two chickens for five peopl..."

Sister seems to do a lot around the house, including the cooking. She takes items she helped pay for or made herself when she leaves--the sewing machine, preserves, seeds, etc. She seems to contribute her labor and her finances to the maintenance of the home.

The story describes events that took place on July 4, the day Sister asserts her independence by moving to the Post Office. She has been living in the Post Office for five days and claims to be perfectly happy. But has she achieved true independence? Can she sustain her “independence” indefinitely? She has physically left home but how successful has she been in disengaging from her family or reducing her dependence on them?