2013년 11월 21일 목요일

Human nature embedded in Roald Dahl's Tales of the Unexpected

Each short story in ‘Tales of the Unexpected’ is seemingly bizarre and may appear to have no relationship between each other. However, under the grotesque and strange storyline of each different story, there lie repulsive aspects of human nature. In fact, though the stories of ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’, ‘Skin’, and ‘Man From the South’ are three separate stories, they share the subject which they portray: a monster that lurks within human mind, ready to manipulate fragile human heart whenever it attempts to satiate its evil greed. This ‘monster’ can be both interpreted as obsession and duplicity of human heart, which are parts of human nature that Roald Dahl attempted to explore in ‘Tales of the Unexpected.’

Individual’s tendency to obsess with certain value or subject is one of human nature that Roald Dahl illustrated in ‘Tales of the Unexpected.’ Why did Mary Maloney kill her own husband with a leg of lamb in the story ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’? It is because of her obsession to seize her husband. Mary Maloney’s obsession towards her husband is implied when she killed her husband when he said “Don’t make supper for me. I’m going out.” This phrase indicates that her husband’s affection towards her was slipping away from Mary’s grip. Therefore, Mary, who was desperate to retrieve her husband’s love and attention, decided to kill her husband instead of letting him escape from her life, since her obsession with her husband was so intense and incontrollable. Why did the woman of Carlos in the story ‘Man From the South’ have only one finger on her hand and a thumb? It is because her strong obsession with materialistic values was strong enough to overwhelm her fear of losing most of her fingers. Why did the stranger trick Drioli in the story ‘Skin’ to peel the tattoo off Drioli’s back? It is because of the stranger’s inordinate obsession with aesthetic value that made him neglect moral concerns. In other words, seemingly absurd and immoral decisions of the characters in each story imply individuals’ nature to succumb to their own desire and obsession. 

Duplicity of human mind is another aspect of human nature that is portrayed in ‘Tales of the Unexpected.’ One of the common aspects of ‘Lamb to the Slaughter’, ‘Skin’, and ‘Man from the South’ is that these stories have characters who behave in the manner that belies their intentions. For instance, cheerful and courteous manners that Mary Maloney showed in front of Sam at a grocery shop or detectives investigating a murder scene were all feigned behaviors intentioned to hide her guilt and evidence of murder. Carlos’s woman in ‘Man From the South’ displayed duplicity when she forcefully stopped Carlos from further engaging in his unusual bet, since she was actually the one who most eagerly participated in Carlos’s bizarre bet to win his assets from him. The stranger in ‘Skin’ that faked Drioli to attain the tattoo on his back is another flagrant example of human’s ability to belie his or her real intentions. Alluring suggestions that the stranger made to Drioli superficially seem to be a persuasion to induce win-win situation for both Drioli and stranger, but those were actually critical death traps that the stranger had set to garner only his own profits. By portraying characters with extreme duplicity and excellent skills in concealing their true intentions, Roald Dahl managed to emphasize untrustworthiness of human nature.  

Roald Dahl successfully reveals the ‘monster’ hidden inside human mind to the surface by blending obsessive and duplicitous human nature with interesting story lines. Roald Dahl is commendable for his brilliant talents in humorously and interestingly combining rather dark and grave subjects pertaining to human nature with unique story lines. With his prominent talents, Roald Dahl made ‘Tales of the Unexpected’ into a book that is more effective than a series of didactic words and complicated philosophical teachings in inducing readers to contemplate about human nature.


댓글 1개:

  1. Good work. You cover the stories well and connect the appropriate dots. I see a bit of the Wilde paragraph in your opening paragraph. Was that intentional?

    I might argue that your statement about the stories appearing "to have no relationship between each other" is a stretch. Clearly, the stories follow similar structures and focus on similar themes, and some critics feel the book features this tendency too heavily (to the point where the twists at the end are predictable). I like your observations about Mary and her intense obsession with her husband, and how she wants to "keep him." But is she really that crazy and in love? I think she probably repressed her real feelings, which came out truly when it became clear that he was going to ruin her life (a life she fought hard to idealize - by pampering her husband like all housewives in the 50's were expected to). I think she's a sympathetic protagonist to some extent, and most readers want her to get away with murder (which she cleverly does).

    All in all, the writing is good here, but not your best. Pay attention to your use of quotes:

    https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/03/

    답글삭제