When the lancers were over Gabriel went away to a remote corner of the room
This imagery here is very reflective of the two encounters that he had with Lily and Miss Ivors. Given that Gabriel seems very respected by his family and has a good reputation, these two encounters definitely hurt Gabriel's ego since they both challenged Gabriel's expectations of conversation.
“The men that is now is only all palaver and what they can get out of you.”
This scene is particularly progressive given the time it was written. Gabriel asks Lily if she will marry since she is done with college, yet she replies that all men do is make trouble and use women. Is this a critique on purely Irishmen?
So Maria let him have his way and they sat by the fire talking over old times and Maria thought she would put in a good word for Alphy. But Joe cried that God might strike him stone dead if ever he spoke a word to his brother again and Maria said she was sorry she had mentioned the matter. Mrs. Donnelly told her husband it was a great shame for him to speak that way of his own flesh and blood but Joe said that Alphy was no brother of his and there was nearly being a row on the head of it. But Joe said he would not lose his temper on account of the night it was and asked his wife to open some more stout.
What is the purpose in this short story of having dialogue being written in this format, without quotation marks? Since this story is very indirect, is this to add to the writing style?
disreputable sheriff’s man used to come every other day to the office, asking to be allowed to say a word to his daughter, she had taken her daughter home again and set her to do housework. As Polly was very lively the intention was to give her the run of the young men.
Mrs. Mooney's desire for a reputable husband for her daughter is very explicit here. She made her daughter quit her job because a man was trying to pursue Holly that didn't fit Mrs. M's standards, so she tries to have her daughter find a suitor but interacting with the young guests.
TWO GALLANTS
The title of this story is very ironic since Corley and Lenehan are far from the definition of gallant (noble, courageous, etc.) I'm sure that this title is used because this is how the two men view themselves.
No! No! No! It was impossible. Her hands clutched the iron in frenzy. Amid the seas she sent a cry of anguish!
There is a definite motif, if not theme, of womanhood in this era. There was an internal struggle in the early 20th century -- whether or not women should remain domesticated and serve their family, or live life to serve themselves. Here, Evangeline's duty to her family intensified when she reflected upon her mother's death.
The former tenant of our house, a priest, had died in the back drawing-room
Is this a reference to Father Flynn?
He described to me how he would whip such a boy as if he were unfolding some elaborate mystery. He would love that, he said, better than anything in this world; and his voice, as he led me monotonously through the mystery, grew almost affectionate and seemed to plead with me that I should understand him.
In both stories, especially in this one, there is the theme of intimate relationships between men and young boys, particularly around Catholicism. Were these stories a critique on this notion, or a way to inform people about this dilemma?
“It’s bad for children,” said old Cotter, “because their minds are so impressionable. When children see things like that, you know, it has an effect….”
There are only slight implications throughout the story that give us insight into the true (malevolent?) nature of Father Flynn. Like Mansfield, the information given to us isn't told explicitly; as readers we are expected to connect the dots through the small hints of information that the authors give us.
Old Mr. Neave, forgotten, sank into the broad lap of his chair, and, dozing, heard them as though he dreamed.
Mr. Neave's character is very similar to William in Marriage a la mode. There is a reoccurring motif of the patriarch being forgotten by his family due to materialism and greed. It's very interesting that in these two stories Mansfield critiques the upper class in the eyes of individuals who are actually part of the upper class.
The tiny ones that clung wriggled like fishes caught on a line. “... I am not a marrying man... “ The voices were silent; the piano waited.
Mansfield does a great job of showing the reality of coping with loss and heartbreak. This is also very similar to Ma Parker, both protagonists must carry on their professional duties while they are simultaneously experiencing extreme heartbreak.
her small dark head
Mansfield expresses her subtlety again in this description of Leila. The youth that are enjoying the ball and the ball itself has so far been described with "light" adjectives (golden., bright, etc.) while the parents and chaperones who have grown out of attending balls have been descried with "dark" adjectives. Since the illusion of balls has been demystified for Leila, she is now described with "dark" adjectives like the adults.
“Light’s wrong,” he said rudely, “far too much yellow”; and went on eating.
The "far too much yellow" is a reference to the description of William's hall being yellow. Is this quote also an indirect way of insulting and ostracizing William in the eyes of Isabel and her friends?
. If she could only cry now, cry for a long time, over everything, beginning with her first place and the cruel cook, going on to the doctor’s, and then the seven little ones, death of her husband, the children’s leaving her, and all the years of misery that led up to Lennie.
The hint of foreshadowing in the beginning of the story -- where it's described that Ma Parker is used to the pain of putting on her boots --- draws a parallel to the pain throughout her life in which she also must get used to in order to survive.
“You simply dirty everything you’ve got, get a hag in once a week to clean up, and the thing’s done.”
By this quotation, it's now clear that the "literary gentleman" isn't that much of a gentleman, and his concern for Ma Parker's grandson's wedding was disingenuous and merely for formality. The exposition of multiple facets of a character is a lot more discreet in Mansfield's writing in comparison to The Moonstone.
There had been this other life, running out, bringing things home in bags, getting things on approval, discussing them with Jug, and taking them back to get more things on approval, and arranging father’s trays and trying not to annoy father. But it all seemed to have happened in a kind of tunnel. It wasn’t real. It was only when she came out of the tunnel into the moonlight or by the sea or into a thunderstorm that she really felt herself.
With her father present in her life, Constatntia had to serve her father before tending to her own needs (like finding a partner). Now that her father is gone, she feels that she can be herself and live to serve herself, but she's confused with this new independence. Patriarchy is a definite theme, if not motif, in this story.
But it was a bother. It meant they had to have regular sit-down meals at the proper times, whereas if they’d been alone they could just have asked Kate if she wouldn’t have minded bringing them a tray wherever they were.
The two girls' feel inconvenienced by their nurse staying as a guest due to their consistent meal times, yet cried about the misfortune of a mouse. It gives a little perspective into where the mindset it in terms of empathy for other people.
What did garden-parties and baskets and lace frocks matter to him?
Laura seems to be disenchanted by the garden party and its frivolous elements due to her experience of seeing what a true working class life looks like.
She felt just like a work-girl.
It's interesting that she feels a sense of kinship to the working class men and feels like she is participating in the labor herself. It seems to me that she is romanticizing labor because she has obviously never been in a position where she would have to work.
He came back (in disguise), and redeemed the Moonstone, on the appointed day.
I like how Godfrey used a disguise as a way to show that he led a double life. However, I wonder if there is any significance that his disguise was mean to be a foreigner?
THE GUARDIAN; THE TATLER; Richardson’s PAMELA; Mackenzie’s MAN OF FEELING; Roscoe’s LORENZO DE MEDICI; and Robertson’s CHARLES THE FIFTH–all classical works; all (of course) immeasurably superior to anything produced in later times; and all (from my present point of view) possessing the one great merit of enchaining nobody’s interest, and exciting nobody’s brain.
All of these books seems to represent the narrators in order. THE GUARDIAN = mr. betteredge, THE TATLER = miss clack, Richardson's PAMELA = Rosanna, etc. "the one great merit of enchaining nobody's interest, and exciting nobody's brain" seems to be a jab at the characters themselves. I wonder if these stories influenced the characters' traits or if this was just a way to categorize them?
You’re miles away still from getting at the truth.
This phrase has popped up a lot in this narrative. Is this hinting that Franklin is physically distant from the truth? Will he have to travel somewhere in order for the truth to be revealed? I would like to somehow see if there is a pattern when "truth" is mentioned to see if the "truth" is correlated to the distance of evidence, people, and locations.
The chance of searching into the loss of the Moonstone, is the one chance of inquiry that Rachel herself has left me.”
I wonder if the moonstone is supposed to draw parallels with Rachel.. The mysterious disappearance of the moonstone could be correlated with the "disappearance" of Rachel's persona/essence. Her secrecy and withholding nature that start right after the disappearance of the stone must be related. And for Franklin Blake, Rachel can only return to him if the moonstone is returned as well.
And now, here was the man–whom I had always believed to be a smooth-tongued impostor–justifying the very worst that I had thought of him, and plainly revealing the mercenary object of the marriage, on his side!
The multiple facets of "truth" are finally coming to light. Miss Clack's "truth" was that Godfrey was a very honest and Christian-like man. However, The third narrative has proved his deceitful intentions. I would love to analyze the different perspectives each narrative has on particular individuals, and whether or not they all seem to align or not.
Oh, don’t say this was immodest! don’t even hint that the recklessness of guilty terror could alone account for such conduct as I have described! We must not judge others. My Christian friends, indeed, indeed, indeed, we must not judge others!
This new narrator has a big Christian persona; she uses her religion and Christian "humility" to make it seem as if she's acting very Christian-like when in fact she's doing the exact opposite. I wonder if this is a critique on Christianity?
Mr. Luker’s attention was absorbed, as Mr. Godfrey’s attention had been absorbed, by this beautiful work of Indian art.
The Indian manuscript, a foreign object, is praised for its beauty and exoticism like the moonstone, but carries similar danger as the moonstone as well.
. Now I’ll tell you, at parting, of three things which will happen in the future, and which, I believe, will force themselves on your attention, whether you like it or not.”
Cuff seems to be acting as the prophet in this scene--I wonder how he has come to these three conclusions? It's interesting how he's acting as the modern prophet of the moonstone's effects.
When you next see the Shivering Sand, try to forgive me once more. I have found my grave where my grave was waiting for me. I have lived, and died, sir, grateful for your kindness.”
This confirms that the discussion of the foreshadowing of Rosanna calling the Shivering Sands her grave was a prophetic scene.
purpose of permitting two beautiful native productions to admire each other
"...purpose of permitting..." seems to be such particularly chosen wording that I think that it must allude to something more. I think this particular section gives a glimpse into the argument.that The Moonstone is a critique on colonialism. This section gives the presumption that Rachel has the power to allow two native objects interact, which can draw a parallel with how the British believed they had the power to control native Indian resources and people.
Being close behind these two at the sideboard, I can testify, from what I heard pass between them, that the company lost a good deal of very improving conversation, which I caught up while drawing the corks, and carving the mutton, and so forth.
A very straightforward example of questioning the accuracy and trustworthiness of the narrative. He is very adamant on the tone of the party, the awkwardness from it; he testifies this notion and yet it is only from him eavesdropping on a couple of other guests.
beginning a work before we count the cost, and before we judge rightly of our own strength to go through with it. Please to remember, I opened the book by accident, at that bit, only the day before I rashly undertook the business now in hand; and, allow me to ask–if THAT isn’t prophecy, what is?
I appreciate the foreshadowing that occurred with the Robinson Crusoe quote and how the speaker also compares the coincidence of the situation to a "prophecy", which can be related to the moonstone. I wonder if the mention of "prophecy" here will also act as a foreshadowing tool in regard to the moonstone's own prophecy?