View Full Version : Book 36: THE EASTER PARADE by Richard Yates
amner
28th Sep 2007, 11:13
Fire when ready, troops.
amner
28th Sep 2007, 11:37
Actually, I'll start. With a question:
How is it that such a slim, simple book, using straightforward unencumbered prose, can stir up so many huge emotions?
I read The Easter Parade incredibly swiftly, and the impressive thing was that I didn't feel bowled over in the act of reading, but later, during the day, whilst otherwise distracted, and then bang, it hits you.
Emily and Sarah get in under your skin by virtue of the one thing you share with them: your humanity. They're just people trying to cope with stuff. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but that's life. Yates doesn't use stylistic flourishes or a showy self-aware lexicon, he just tells a tale, simply and economically and it is massively affecting for all that.
His genius - may I use that word - is to make it all so easy to take in.
Kimberley
28th Sep 2007, 14:22
I'm not sure how to talk about this book without ruining it for people who haven't finished reading it yet. But I want to say a couple of things,
the first is that it isn't just Yates's quiet, unpretentious, spot-on with exactly the right word language that is really astounding, it's also the way the story grabs you with its quick pace right form the start, and never lets you go. And for all that years and relationships pass with the turning of pages, you never fail to be caught up in the raw emotion of it all.
It's the voice of Emily Grimes that I think makes this possible and is the novel's greatest strength. She is a marvellous creation, so alive the book just about pulses. For all that the other characters see her as a 'liberated' woman, there is an essential naivete to her, a willingness to take a chance on life, that is just heartbreaking in its consequences. I've rarely felt more for a character than in that moment when she recognises in her own reflection her 'hopeless and terrible need'.
I want to talk about how it ends. Has everything that can be said about Emily been said, or is this the start of a new understanding and self-knowledge?
Some people on the existing Yates thread mentioned that they saw a glimmer of hope or optimism at the end of the book. I must say that at least at the first (and so far, the only) reading I didn't see that, at least I didn't see anything comforting in how the relationship between Peter and "aunt Emily" developed. This relationship had always been rather far in a background, but Emily had been for Peter someone he could admire, not necessarily a model figure, but a "free spirit" - and I think he needed someone like that. I don't want to play an amateur psychologist here, but I think he displays some ACA traits - taking up the role of family appeaser, the responsible one. Seeing Emily broken down might have been another lesson in humanity and understanding for him, but also a bitter disillusionment. We don't get to hear Peter's whole story, as the book concentrates on Emily and Sarah, but we can see that in the field of vision there is yet another deeply hurt person.
However I think it is possible that at the end of book Emily gained certain self-knowledge, and that must be worth something - surely?
I loved that book. I can't really pin down where its strength comes from. Maybe from the fact that the author chooses to show only the moments that really matter, those that stay in memory for ever even if one doesn't understand their significance or pivotal role while they are happening.
*****
I'm a bit tired now so I may need to edit this post tomorrow morning.
Another five stars from these quarters. Loved the novel, and I had a great time with the book. My copy is secondhand, with notes and asides penciled by a very careful reader. I'll never know that person, but I got to know Emily, Sarah, and Pookie traveling in tandem with the vapor of a discriminating someone. Just a smattering of the themes sketched out for relishing: teeth, writing, alcoholism, repetitive phrases, Sarah's scar, The Easter Parade. Also: solace in externals, further outlined as alcohol, sex, movies/art, books/writing.
Of these, I'm finding the parade theme the most compelling so far. It's a very thin thread in the novel, but I was deeply affected each time it appears, especially the final one. As for Emily's status as the novel ends? A year ago I read Revolutionary Road and pulled some optimism from it, if only the sort that can be found in relief that the parking ticket is on someone else's car. But tonight, I'm thinking Yates answered that question in the novel's opening sentence. Brutal, beautifully so.
I'm thinking Yates answered that question in the novel's opening sentence.
Yes, so simple but so great an opening: "Neither of the Grimes sisters would have a happy life, and looking back it always seemed that the trouble began with their parents' divorce".
I give it ****0
I loved every minute of reading it, so it deserves better, but it just didn't resonate with as much meaning as Revolutionary Road. I'm not sure what I would have given it if I had read them in the other order, probably *****.
This one felt bleaker to me though, and I think that's because Emily was fighting against alcoholism all the way through. She did a good job of it, sticking to beer instead of spirits, for example. She did have the self control but I think it was hell. This story starts out like it's going to be from both girl's point of view but seems to move to Emily only. I think that was effective.
m., sorry but I don't know what ACA stands for - can you elaborate? I love trying to figure out the psychology of the characters.
Beth, could you help me with the significance of the parade by pointing out a couple pages for me to re-read.
Another theme I'd like to ponder is: Why doesn't Emily have any female friends? I hadn't noticed it until she was really down and out and only had one female she could even phone. That's terribly sad. She would be a difficult person to get close to, and maybe that was part of the appeal to Peter (her nephew).
Meant to say, Kim, I want to talk about the end also... I think it's okay in these threads to assume that if anyone's reading they don't mind spoilers, so fire away!
Sorry Ang :oops: - I assumed it is as well-known as its Polish equivalent DDA, something one should never do speaking foreign language. It stands for Adult Children of Alcoholics.
Sorry Ang :oops: - I assumed it is as well-known as its Polish equivalent DDA, something one should never do speaking foreign language. It stands for Adult Children of Alcoholics.Ah, I see, thanks. I should look it up and read about it, but I know I'll never get around to it. Is it considered a disorder as a result of being a child of an alcoholic, or would every adult child of an alcoholic be considered ACA?
Either way, Emily is certainly ACA also, but was displaying the tendency to alcoholism herself. We don't really get to know whether Peter had the same fight with himself.
Is it considered a disorder as a result of being a child of an alcoholic, or would every adult child of an alcoholic be considered ACA?
Rather the former, I reckon, as the latter is just a statement of the fact. Some short information can be found here (http://www.couns.uiuc.edu/brochures/adult.htm).
Consider the following questions:
"How can I be sure if my parent is really an alcoholic?"
It is not necessary to diagnose your parent. Alcohol disrupts the consistency and predictability which should be present in every family. It is this disruption and the resulting confusion and chaos that are important - not a medical diagnosis of your parent. A recent poll reported that one in every three American families is affected by alcohol abuse. If alcohol was or is an important influence in your family, it is important that you learn about patterns related to being an Adult Child of an Alcoholic. An "alcoholic" family is any family disrupted by alcohol abuse.
"But I'm gone from home now; why should my parents' problems bother me?"
If you grew up in an alcoholic family you may have longed for the day when you could go to college and leave the pain and chaos of your family behind. You may be surprised, therefore, to find at college that you experience feelings of dissatisfaction, apathy, or distance from other people, similar to those you felt at home. Such feelings are easy to understand when you consider that families are places where you learn about yourself and about life. Although all families operate with "rules," alcoholic families have rules which severely limit the development and growth of their members.
Claudia Black, a leading author and theorist regarding ACoAs, has identified three such rules in alcoholic homes:
Don't trust. In alcoholic familes, promises are often forgotten, celebrations cancelled and parents' moods unpredictable. As a result, ACoAs learn to not count on others and often have a hard time believing that others can care enough to follow through on their commitments.
Don't feel. Due to the constant pain of living with an alcoholic, a child in an alcoholic family must "quit feeling" in order to survive. After all, what's the use of hurting all the time? In these families, when emotions are expressed, they are often abusive, and prompted by drunkenness. These outbursts have no positive result and, along with the drinking, are usually denied the following day. Thus, ACoAs have had few if any opportunities to see emotions expressed appropriately and used to foster constructive change. "So," the ACoA thinks, "why feel anything when the feelings will only get out of control and won't change anything anyway? I don't want to hurt more than I already do."
Don't talk. ACoAs learn in their families not to talk about a huge part of their reality - drinking. This results from the family's need to deny that a problem exists and that drinking is tied to that problem. That which is so evident must not be spoken aloud. There is often an unspoken hope that if no one mentions the drinking it won't happen again. Also, there is no good time to talk. It is impossible to talk when a parent is drunk. When that parent is sober, everyone wants to forget. From this early training, ACoAs often develop a tendency to not talk about anything unpleasant."If my family is the root of all this, why do my brothers and sisters seem OK?"
Each member of an alcoholic family tends to find his or her own way to live with these three rules. Claudia Black and others talk about different "roles" that emerge for children in their attempts to make sense of the chaos:
Hero: These children try to ensure that the family looks "normal" to the rest of the world. In addition, they often project a personal image of achievement, competence, and responsibility to the outside world. They tend to be academically or professionally very successful. The cost of such success is often denial of their own feelings and a belief that they are "imposters."
Adjuster: In order to cope with the chaos of their families, these children learn to adjust in inappropriate ways. They learn never to expect or to plan anything. They often strive to be invisible and to avoid taking a stand or rocking the boat. As a result, they often come to feel that they are drifting through life and are out of control.
Placater: These children learn early to smooth over potentially upsetting situations in the family. They seem to have an uncanny ability to sense what others are feeling at the expense of their own feelings. They tend to take total responsibility for the emotional care of the family. Because of their experience in this role, they often choose careers as helping professionals, careers which can reinforce their tendencies to ignore their own needs.
Scapegoat: These people are identified as the "family problem." They are likely to get into various kinds of trouble, including drug and alcohol abuse, as a way of expressing their anger at the family. They also function as a sort of pressure valve. When tension builds in the family, the scapegoat will misbehave as a way of relieving pressure while allowing the family to avoid dealing with the drinking problem. Scapegoats tend to be unaware of feelings other than anger.Some of these roles may look more effective than others, but each has its own drawbacks and its own pain. From the perspective of your role, it may be hard for you to understand the pain of a brother or sister in another role. Even though their pain may not be obvious, all of these roles have potentially serious consequences.
"The past is the past; shouldn't I just try to forget it and move on?"
Trying to forget the past without understanding how if affected you will usually not work and may lead to more problems. The best way to "move on" is to squarely face the past, its importance, and its meaning for you. Often this means understanding and forgiving your parents so that the healing process can begin. You can learn more about making peace with the past in several ways. You may choose to read some of the excellent books written for ACoAs or you may opt for individual therapy, group therapy, Al-Anon, or support groups for ACoAs. Most communities also offer educational programs for ACoAs. Recovery is not easy, but it is possible.
Yes, of course both Emily and Sarah are ACA too. And yes, to some extent it is just labelling and popular psychology, but I must say that for me that was an important aspect of the book.
Ang, the page numbers in the Picador paperback are 27-28, p. 187, and p. 193. The final passage
Dark blue shadows filled the house when Emily got up to make her way to the bathroom. In the hallway she stumbled and nearly fell; righting herself, she found she had collided with a small cabinet bearing old copies of the Daily News stacked three feet high. On the way back she passed a framed photoraph, the picture of Tony and Sarah on Easter Sunday of 1941. It was hanging awry, as if from the impact of some heavy blow that had shuddered the wall. Carefully, with unsteady fingers, she reached up and straightened it.
so subtly speaks to the heart of what I've found in Yates' work thus far. That's primarily an almost childlike disillusionment at the clash between reality and something that is a backbone of American life - optimism. The sort that sends people forward into both greatness and despairing failure. Not finding very good words right now but will think on it and try to say better.
Beth, I've got the Methuen edition and our pages match for the first section. Your excerpt from the end goes nicely with this from the first mention of the parade, when Pookie* asked Emily to buy "four more papers. Get six".
Emily knew how important it was to have as many copies as possible. It was a picture that could be mounted and framed and treasured forever.
I wouldn't have remembered that, so it's good to have these discussions!
This part, from your quote:
It was hanging awry, as if from the impact of some heavy blow that had shuddered the wall.
It might just have been knocked that way by Emily on her way to the bathroom and she forgot doing it!
* Pookie! There's not a lot to smile about while reading this book, but this name made me smile each time I came across it.
You know, Ang, it was probably inappropriate but I laughed several times reading this. Yes, Pookie was such a comical figure, absurdly optimistic in such a false way. From what I gather, Yates sent his mother up in almost everything he wrote. In Revolutionary Road, I found her in Mrs. Goings. Apparently Yates' mom was alcoholic and egotistic. Stewart and Jim (and possibly others) know more as they've read A Tragic Honesty. I laughed at the portrayal of the professional jealousy between Jack Flanders (Yates?) and his rival at the University of Iowa. I laughed at almost all of Pookie's antics, the call from the nursing home re Pookie's behavior and her subsequent shipment to the state. And, sadly and most tellingly, laughed at Emily's glimpses of self knowledge between boozy blackouts. I found a theme in The Easter Parade that my forereader hadn't teased out- A woman's backhanded search for solitude. So much more to say about this story...
Stewart
1st Oct 2007, 12:59
* Pookie! There's not a lot to smile about while reading this book, but this name made me smile each time I came across it.
In real life, Yates referred to his mother as Dookie.
Apparently Yates' mom was alcoholic and egotistic.
In real life, Yates referred to his mother as Dookie.
Hmm.
And yes, there were some funny bits - I had already forgotten that. I've found a few notes I made along the way and I love this bit, from page 98 in my edition:
A NEW YORKER DISCOVERS THE MIDDLE WEST
Except for parts of New Jersey, and maybe Pennsylvania, I had always pictured everything between the Hudson River and the Rockies as a wasteland.
And I smiled knowingly about the Iowa weather.*
And pages 130 and 131 where Emily has to correct Sarah's use of "pedantic", which Sarah thought meant "conventional". Ha!
On that same page, I made a note about the portrayal of Tony's accent - "I'm ve'y sorry about Pewkeh." Was Yates well traveled? It doesn't seem like it when I read this.
*Edit: Parts of Iowa are lovely and the weather is gorgeous in May and September.
John Self
1st Oct 2007, 14:16
The Easter Parade was the second Yates book I read (as it was the second one Methuen reissued in the UK, after Revolutionary Road), and that was a few years ago, so I can't remember much about it other than what I wrote in the Yates thread.
I'll be interested to re-read it, next I hope, and see whether I find it more or less satisfying now that I've read all Yates's other books.
kirsty
1st Oct 2007, 14:36
I'm around 130 pages in at the moment, and zipping through it at a rate of knots. (I would have stayed up to finish it last night had I not been in toothache hell).
This is my first Yates book, and I am already desperate to read his other books, especially Revolutionary Road.
Stewart
1st Oct 2007, 14:54
Was Yates well traveled? It doesn't seem like it when I read this.
In a way. He'd done his stints around America, mostly central and east coast, although there was some time, when he was scriptwriting, that he was nearer Hollywood.
Other than that, he spent some time in Ireland (honeymoon) and the UK. When he was in the military he was posted to France.
kirsty
2nd Oct 2007, 18:59
Have just finished it.
I thought it was marvellous, and I am a fully paid up Yates convert. It was so incredibly infused with sadness, but not in a cloying, irritating way.
Would certainly be interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on the ending. I think there was a hopeful note in the very end.
Just one thing though, and I've probably missed something blindingly obvious, but why was it called The Easter Parade? :oops:
Just one thing though, and I've probably missed something blindingly obvious, but why was it called The Easter Parade? :oops:
I don't think it's obvious but I wonder if it has to do with the optimism they must have felt as a young couple, the perfect photo of them having been taken on the day. Any other guesses? Or did Kirsty and I both miss something blindingly obvious?
That's how I see it as well. These Yatesian characters, like Frank and April Wheeler, are all stuffed to the seams with false optimism that isn't based upon anything which they can concretely bring about. Take Pookie's excitement at the guest house residence for Sarah and Tony. Her romanticized notion of the estate is all consuming and casts a long shadow over Sarah's expectations of marriage. An even crueler metaphor might be the use of the particular holiday, Easter. The hope some feel at that season juxtaposed with what Yates shows full out as rot and decay. I don't see Yates as an overtly symbolic writer, and maybe it's just because someone else sketched it for me, but in this story there seems to be quite a bit. I'll be curious to see what others find relevant to the title.
Colyngbourne
3rd Oct 2007, 7:26
I haven't re-read this one yet but my brain suggests for me the phrase "turned out fine" when I think of "Easter Parade" (is it a line from a song?) and my thinking would be that people would dress up in their very best outfits and bonnets for Easter - they would put on a show of happiness and ease and everything being fine and dandy (my girls were always bought a new very posh dress for Easter by their grandma). Yet beneath the show - the sunshine and signs of new life and freshness, there's dullness and tor, as you say, and a wide margin between the appearance and the reality of repeatedly failing lives.
But I remember agreeing that the ending has more than a touch of hope: it was possibly the happiest note of positive sight that I've come across in a Yates ;-)
I think there was a tinge of hope at the end also, Peter, the kind soul, reaching out to Emily even after she tries to alienate him.
I did think it was a bit ambiguous though - was the abuse made up, or did Peter not see it, or did he blank it out? Did Sarah have black eyes, etc because she fell down drunk? In which case, why did she make up the abuse? Tony didn't seem to know what Emily was saying either, when she confronted him.
ono no komachi
3rd Oct 2007, 8:57
I didn't think the abuse was made up, and I thought Yates was effectively displaying his 'negative capability' in portraying Emily's ineffectual attempts to bring her brother-in-law to task. One of the most uncomfortable scenes for me was the telephone call when Sarah asks to come and stay with Emily, and Emily is reluctant because of her new relationship.
I would imagine there could be many reasons why Peter might not have a straightforward perspective on the abuse, having (presumably) grown up with it, and perhaps having been told the same versions of events as his parents told everyone else (I doubt it would have happened in front of him).
Kimberley
3rd Oct 2007, 12:31
Just one thing though, and I've probably missed something blindingly obvious, but why was it called The Easter Parade? :oops:
The parade is a recurrent motif, from the first scene where during her courtship with Tony, Sarah’s employers lend her a beautiful Chinese-style dress to wear while mingling with the crowds, and Tony wears a suit and they are photographed looking ‘like the very soul of romance’ (27). Then Emily’s memories after Sarah’s death include, ‘Sarah at twenty, elegantly dressed in borrowed clothes and complaining that she didn’t care about the silly Easter parade’ (186) and finally, at Tony and Sarah’s home, ‘she passed a framed photograph, the picture of Tony and Sarah on Easter Sunday of 1941. it was hanging awry, as if from the impact of some heavy blow that had shuddered the wall. Carefully, with unsteady fingers, she reached up and straightened it’ (192)
That straightening is what Emily does; an aid to the sef-delusion that I think is her greatest flaw (and that I'm going to have something else to say about once I've got my thoughts in order).
Kim, I'm wondering what your thoughts on Emily are, especially what you found to be her self-delusion. I found that too, but haven't fully worked it out. I've thought a little bit about the tinge of optimism towards the end and it feels as though any positive belongs solely to Peter. Peter is the person whose life has purpose and meaning. Even as a child, he knew what he wanted, he took the steps to make it happen, and his compassion gets a workout and is proved faithful in the car with his aunt Emily. While his parents may have paraded about at one time in finery, Peter gets to lead the real Easter parade by devoting his life to a cause greater than himself and by putting those principles in action towards his aunt. This turns the whole story around for me in a sense and shifts my sympathies somewhat. Emily and Sarah still command the story, but Peter, the rock, stands for me as a wonderment. Was Yates making a comment about Christianity, the practice versus Jesus, the simple man who met others at their point of need?
I keep thinking on a family photo of my younger sister and I on an Easter morning. We are hunting eggs and, just as the photo snapped, Gwen, about 3 at the time, pounced on an egg and revealed her ultra frilly underpants. Nothing to do with the novel per se, but the photo always brings a smile. Under all the frippery and finery, we're just little clay pouches that misbehave and misunderstand, mangle and malign. Jesus understood this, and even though I think he was a man who lived and died, I believe in the nature of undefended living that he perfectly espoused. And I'm finding a little bit of Christian ethos in The Easter Parade. Or is it merely Sunday?
And I'm finding a little bit of Christian ethos in The Easter Parade. Or is it merely Sunday?
Well, it wasn't titled The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade now was it?:-)
I think that's a good observation. It's been a while since I read this, but like Col, I found this to be one of his least emotionally bleak novels.
Well, it wasn't titled The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade now was it?:-)
Yep, for a book with a title including Easter, it took 2 weeks to sink in for this atheistic dingdong! ;-) Really got me wondering whether I read the whole thing improperly, guided by someone else's pencil marks. Plus, Emily and Sarah loom so largely and darkly. I'd love it if you could zip through it again, Oryx, and elaborate more. Dare we hope for something hopeful from Yates?
Colyngbourne
8th Oct 2007, 16:25
I'd like to join in comments later, once I've got offline book group (and birthday) reads out of the way, but I certainly found it the most hopeful of the four I've read.
Kimberley
8th Oct 2007, 22:23
Because I’m about to make a few criticisms, let me say first that I do find this to be an excellent, though flawed, novel. Its dialogue is brilliant: realistic, purposeful, revealing. Yates’s prose narrative, here often in summary because of the pace, that is crisp, unadorned and devastating. Emily is believable from childhood to middle age. (Who are her forebears? I keep imagining Emma Bovary but my thoughts or this require some development) From time to time, she says 'I see' but you do get the feeling her tragedy is not understanding her own predicament, until the end where realises she's never understood anything (and I do think there is the potential element of redemption here). I did wonder what Emily looked for in her succession of disastrous relationships and what it says about her that the one man she tries to cling to (literally) is in love with someone else. In Yates, people are lonely, disappointed and their most common self-delusion seems to be that there is something different and special about their own lives. Yates seems to make characters saddest where they think they can escape. And it is in the way this theme continues from novel to novel that I have some hesitations with him as a writer.
Dostoyevsky tells us that all unhappy families are unhappy in their own ways but Yates’s are unhappy in the same ways (perhaps borrowing themes from own life of alcoholism and professional disappointment) and many autobiographical elements seem to have crept into this story. (I was particularly interested in this here because he chose a female as his point of view character. I’m always very impressed when writers can do this gender-swapping.) To what extent was Yates aware of his own life following a path that was at once self-determined and also apparently inescapable? Eventually dying of emphysema, own demons were pursuing him as alcohol pursues and captures Sarah and Emily. Yet, more so than with RR, I felt that texture world be richer if there was comic relief (Yates seems to follow Fitzgerald but there are some real laugh out loud moments in Gatsby (eg the drunk in the driveway at his party) that we're denied here. Tragedy needs these moments (as Shakespeare understood) to function at its most profound. It is the absense of this additional dimension that I find the most limiting aspect of this novel.
[Oops, Pedant alert] I think Easter Parade was 1976 and Yates death 1992. Even so, certainly his longstanding battles pervade the stories. Yet I don't find that offputting in the least. The autobiographical nature of Yates' writing is, imho, somehow brave and all the more worthy of regard because he didn't reach the pinnacles he might have. A sad, transparent man, writing breathtaking novels, and in them reaching out to readers by placing himself up for viewing. I don't see this as self-preening narcissism, but as, well, that same brutal, tragic honesty of his biography.
Emily is definitely operating under a delusion, especially while she's with Howard. But I don't see it as the delusion that something is special about her life. Fact is, I can't help but see it as the gambler's sort of delusion that the next roll will bring in the house. Maybe those two are the same thing when it comes right down to it. But when I think of Emily and Sarah, I'm thinking of mostly just bad luck, compounded by, as you say, the unwillingness to face their lives for what they are. For me, Emily is such a hapless, lovable character, right up until the moment she turns bitter and lashes out towards Peter. Maybe this anger is the brace she needs to turn her life around, but I don't hold out much hope for her as the novel ends. I see her taking Sarah's place as the new Pookie on whatever sofa she can find.
Kimberley
9th Oct 2007, 6:38
Beth, I don't find the autobiographical elements of his writing off-putting, but I do think they limited him as a writer. I don't mean that he isn't very, very good. But I have read of him being compared to writers like Fitzgerald and I don't think he's quite in that class. Here, I was having a stab at the reasons why.
I know what you mean about Emily taking her place as the new Pookie. I had something of that feeling too. Aren't there some lines about her being careful to drink wine rather than spirits? -- a fairly typical alcoholic delusion that it matters what form the alcohol takes! I think there are probably some other early clues that alcohol is a longer-standing problem for her, too, I shall have to go and check.
I know what you mean about Emily taking her place as the new Pookie. I had something of that feeling too. Aren't there some lines about her being careful to drink wine rather than spirits? -- a fairly typical alcoholic delusion that it matters what form the alcohol takes! I think there are probably some other early clues that alcohol is a longer-standing problem for her, too, I shall have to go and check.Yes, it was lager she drank instead of spirits, but the same principle. And this fight against alcoholism is why I saw this as more bleak than RevRd. Emily hasn't admitted to herself that she has this fight and she's going to have this fight all of her life. The tinge of hope is her allowing Peter to help her. I'm sure he knows exactly what she's fighting.
Beth, I don't find the autobiographical elements of his writing off-putting, but I do think they limited him as a writer. I don't mean that he isn't very, very good. But I have read of him being compared to writers like Fitzgerald and I don't think he's quite in that class. Here, I was having a stab at the reasons why.
Yes, I would have to agree that his inners may have limited him. But what inners! I was trying to speak to a more general opinion that expresses a degree of frustration with Yates for those autobiographical insertions. So far, I haven't found them tiresome, but I've only read RR, EP, and his collected short stories. If that's all he ever manages, there may be some disappointment in the overall.
The depiction of the alcoholic rationale for sticking with lager is incredibly realistic. And I would place her blackout experience with Ned/Ted? at the top of the list of clues to her disease. Far as her delusions about men? Fuck me, but some days that doesn't sound a bad way to go!
Kimberley
9th Oct 2007, 15:58
Tolstoy?
Um... yes. :oops: Anna Karenina, of course. Thanks, m.
I did skim through The Easter Parade again on the weekend and have these thoughts:
If we accept that Yates deliberately used Easter as a metaphor for redemption, and I think we can, then the novel can be read as a parable, with Emily as the reluctant apostle or failed saviour.
She is seen by her family and by her various suitors as been strong and independent, one to be relied upon. However, over and over again, she rejects this role. She doesn’t want to deal with the neuroses of Andrew or Jack, she doesn’t want to give safe haven to her sister or her mother. But neither does she know how to be saved. In the one relationship that she finds herself content with and in love, she continually misses his cues as to what he needs from her: that is for her to be kind. Howard gives her the opportunity to help her sister- inviting Emily to come live with him, surely an indicator that he was willing to put the relationship on firmer ground, and she turns away from this too.
It is her final acceptance of help from Peter*, so narrowly attained, that finally puts her on the path to redemption. I take this as the optimistic glimmer I suggested i my earlier post.
In scripture, literal blindness refers to spiritual blindness. Emily often says “ I see”, when she doesn’t, at all. Her acknowledgment, on the last page of the book, of her lifelong “blindness” leads me to believe she is finally on a healing path.
Edit: just want to say that the above is pretty simplistic-just a quick thought.
*Peter, of course, alludes to the apostle Simon Peter, first among equals, and who is credited as being the “rock” that the Christian church is built on
Ah! :idea: Thank you Oryx.
I would never have thought of any religious meaning behind this book, despite the title. It's interesting to see these theories and wonder whether that was the intention of the author. I suppose that is one of the benefits of Yates writing "autobiographically" - the author's intention is more of an educated guess than a wild stab.
I didn't meant that there is a religious meaning to the story. It's just that if one takes things to be allusions, then there is a back story, if you will, to refer to. The Easter story is about redemption and so I chose to read that as a theme in the book-not nessessarily a spiritual redemption. Of course, you could still see this without even knowing what Easter was, or you could disagree with that as a theme altogether. It's just one way of looking at it.
I would never have thought of any religious meaning behind this book, despite the title.
This makes me smile, because, if I could think of anyone less religious than, say, Richard Dawkins, it would be Richard Yates.
This makes me smile, because, if I could think of anyone less religious than, say, Richard Dawkins, it would be Richard Yates.Ah, I wondered... so my autobiographical comment has no bearing here, and in fact the opposite, it seems.
Not being one to look for religious meaning anywhere, I took the Easter parade as a time when the young couple were glamorous and on show, and the rest of their life takes it's toll to show them in a completely different light. The name "Peter" might have been intentional as "the rock" but then again, it's a very common name and the majority of Americans are named after saints, or at least were back then.
I would never have thought of any religious meaning behind this book, despite the title.
Me either, I must say.
but why was it called The Easter Parade? http://palimpsest.org.uk/forum/../images/smilies/icon_redface.gif Read the last few replies Kirsty, and decide for your self.
I'm tempted by Oryx's "one possibility" of a read for this book; for example, I would have to set out to deliberately watch for and discard a "religious" back-story in a novel with this name.
Like Beth and Ang, though, (didn't you two say this?) I think it might be more about a relentless American optimism, and how it's deflated, in many complex ways.
(I found a site quoting Vonnegut about Yates: "Few men since Flaubert have offered such sympathy to women whose lives are hell.")
But the undermining of optimism comes out very strongly (and anachronistically) in the musical "Easter Parade" (1948 ) ... where the Parade is New York's 5th Avenue's spring "show-off" day in what was then a very toney and glamourous part of the city.
The film was shallow and not really even based on the book ... just acknowledging how different takes can happen, esp. for those who thought they remembered a tune (Col).
Lots. Irving Berlin.
"Oh, I could write a sonnet
About your Easter bonnet
And of the girl I'm taking to the Easter Parade."
(Never said they were good lyrics!)
Like Beth and Ang, though, (didn't you two say this?) I think it might be more about a relentless American optimism, and how it's deflated, in many complex ways.
Well, yeah, I guess so, but not as well as you!
(I found a site quoting Vonnegut about Yates: "Few men since Flaubert have offered such sympathy to women whose lives are hell.")
Nice quote.
Like Beth and Ang, though, (didn't you two say this?) I think it might be more about a relentless American optimism, and how it's deflated, in many complex ways.
But is that not just Easter in its reality?
Easter is out and out optimism. Its the world renewed. However, once we start thinking about the symbolism, we get depressed. Easter necessarily makes one conjure the crucifiction -one of the cruelest images Christianity has to offer. But, God gets to rise again-that's optimism in my book.
Easter is out and out optimism. Its the world renewed. However, once we start thinking about the symbolism, we get depressed. Easter necessarily makes one conjure the crucifiction -one of the cruelest images Christianity has to offer. But, God gets to rise again-that's optimism in my book.
And out and out delusion in mine ;-), just like the Grimes sisters and everyone in their lives. And all of us, somedays.
Like Beth and Ang, though, (didn't you two say this?) I think it might be more about a relentless American optimism, and how it's deflated, in many complex ways.
I like that a lot, although it's not a reference I'd automatically - or even after a significant amount of careful consideration - come up with. But I guess what we do have here is a series, a parade, of one thing after another which seems to be The Answer for both sisters, only to watch it go past either untouched or with the briefest of rides, before being dropped off, only to see the float head off 'round the corner...
Yes.
I like that a lot, although it's not a reference I'd automatically - or even after a significant amount of careful consideration - come up with. But I guess what we do have here is a series, a parade, of one thing after another which seems to be The Answer for both sisters, only to watch it go past either untouched or with the briefest of rides, before being dropped off, only to see the float head off 'round the corner...
Yes.Wow, that's heavy man!
I don't think Emily ever thought she had anything near The Answer for herself, but she thought her sister was more lucky in life and love, at least when they were young...
And out and out delusion in mine ;-), just like the Grimes sisters and everyone in their lives. And all of us, somedays.
Too true, in the instance of Yates. But I did think that Emily's final submission to help from Peter was an optimistic ending. No promises there, just a possibility.
I too, like the parade analogy that Amner and other's have made. It does conjure the notion that life has passed the Grimes' by. Most of us tend to watch parades, rather than participate in them.
One thing, Ang, I don't think that Emily thought her sister had an enviable life at any point in time. I think she was quite contemptuous of her, really.
amner
16th Oct 2007, 16:01
Most of us tend to watch parades, rather than participate in them.
I kind of wish I'd said it just like that, in fact!
One thing, Ang, I don't think that Emily thought her sister had an enviable life at any point in time. I think she was quite contemptuous of her, really.
Early on I thought she was somewhat envious, but maybe it was just because she had a crush on Tony.
There is a scene in the novel-first or second chapter, I believe, that in some ways sums up the sisters lives. Its the scene where the two girls have been left by Pookie to play with a family of boys and the boys convince Sarah that she's just the right height to run full tilt at and under a jungle gym thing. Of course, she runs right into it, splitting her eyelid and narrowly misses losing the eye altogether (another allusion to blindness). And Emily, recounting the story, recalls how at the very last second, too late to call out a warning, she realizes that Sarah is going to run straight into the steel bar. Coming out from the emergency room where Sarah was stitched up, the mother of the boys comments upon how she's never seen a chid so stoic in the face of pain
There it is; one sister who runs headlong into life only to be pounded in the head, and the other one, sitting on the sidelines, watching her. Sarah's stoicism continues throughout her married life-where she continues to take the pounding in silence. Emily realizes too late and then fails to act.
Colyngbourne
16th Oct 2007, 22:22
You're good at this analogy spotting, Oryx. I'm standing by, reading all this about parades and blindness/injury and getting far more insight into TEP.
Thanks, Col. Analogy hunting is a result of two uni level Englishes I flunked :-)So take it all with a grain of salt.
But I do do recall reading the above cited passage thinking "this can't be here for nothing".
In fact, the very best writers, for me, never put anything in their books for nothing. So, when I read it, I try to tie it back to the story. I hope this makes some sense.
:-( I've really little time lately - so I can't participate in this thread properly, and I would love to, because I think I don't quite agree with some thoughts here. And because it's a great book of course. :-)
Well, I've missed your comments, m.! Ya just have to put everyone else on hold and Palimp. Big smile because I know what you mean about being busy.
Kimberley
17th Oct 2007, 23:39
Oryx, again, I think that's a very perceptive reading of the scene.
I can't remember if I said this earlier or not, but I thought your 'Easter reading' was really interesting, too. (Symbolism inspired by a religious story doesn't make the book religious -- it's just a layer of imagery, and it's one that probably resonates so well with us because it comes from myth that we're all familiar with.)
Well, I've missed your comments, m.! Ya just have to put everyone else on hold and Palimp. Big smile because I know what you mean about being busy.m., I've missed your comments too. You always add a lot to these discussions... Come back soon...
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.