For this blog post I decided to focus on “The Kid’s Guide to Divorce”. We only had ~10 minutes to discuss it in class and although I believe there are definitely more explicatable stories in Laurie Moore’s Self-Help, this especially short story is very effective at achieving its goal and worthy of exploration.
The purpose of the story is to give its readers a look into divorce and how it affects a family through the eyes of a child. However, instead of telling us directly how it feels and supporting this statement with emotional and anecdotal narrative evidence (think how Baldwin’s narrator in Paris stated plainly that Paris is much better to African Americans than America, and that he was worried about his son Paul), Moore takes a more O’Brien-esque approach. Much like how O’Brien tried to create stories that would invoke in its readers the most similar feeling to wartime experience possible, in “The Kid’s Guide to Divorce” Moore attempts to place us in a child’s position and show instead of tell, through a nostalgic story with little tidbits to drive her point in.
I believe the most effective choice Moore made was to make the story second person. This narration device literally puts the readers in the position of the narrator, making it much easier for us to put ourselves in the position of the child. Even if we haven’t experienced parents divorcing ourselves, the second-person narration is able to give us the guise that we have. Would the story be as effective if told in first or third person? First person would allow Moore to delve further into the main character’s thoughts without it feeling off, but we’d end up feeling more sympathetic from a bystander’s perspective, like we were hearing the experience of a friend, not experiencing a snippet of life for ourselves. Third person would bring the same issues, while alienating us even further from the child. Second person is hard to write efficiently, but in this case I think it was a good choice that was executed well.
The other main factor of this story that I liked and felt contributed to the child’s experience is the premise. We’re not getting an overview of the parents’ divorce, or even seeing both parents, just a simple movie night between a mother and daughter (or son, debatably). This choice makes the story seem much more real for me. It allows us to understand the relationship between the mother and child and the impact the divorce has had on both through subtleties, which feels much more natural. I really liked the way that Moore set up this story as well as how she executed it. What do you guys think, did you like it? Was it effective for you? What parts were/weren’t effective?
I agree that Moore did a really good job setting up this story to show us what one day would be like in this situation instead of giving us an overview. However, I think that we did get a sense of a larger story and some of the dynamics between them. I think the ending was especially enlightening, the daughter telling some parts of her time with her father but not everything. I think that the subtleties throughout really made this story and allowed us to get a better picture of this situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree that first person was a really good choice by Moore for writing this story. Divorce is something that's surprisingly difficult to write about, especially from a child's point of view, but I think Moore was actually pretty successful in this story. You're also right in that writing just a story about one night but keeping the divorce sort of looming over them was a very realistic choice. Good post!
ReplyDeleteI like the comparison you make to O'Brien and agree that the second-person narrative is a good choice on Moore's part. The second-person narrative makes the story seem more like a real guide (a kid's guide to divorce!) and fits in really well with the idea that Moore's short story collection is a self-help book (as the title suggests). Nice post!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree, the second person narration worked perfectly in this story. Although it was short, the story was extremely packed with tiny details that conveyed the premise really well. Even though the divorce is never explicitly talked about, I understood what was going on and could view the situation not only through the daughter's point of view but through the mother's as well just from the actions and expressions her daughter (or son) observed about her.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The child kind of just coming back from their father's house also gives the reader a kind of limbo feeling. The second person brings us in and the discussion of the father's time with the child is effective in bringing the reader into the child's world.
ReplyDeleteThough at first I wanted to know much more about the mother's divorce and this snapshot of an evening together was too fragmental for me to become attached to the story, I agree there's a special effect you get from the divorce being only a peripheral presence. More like a study in the mother's emotions in the aftermath than why the relationship fell apart.
ReplyDelete