Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Inside Out Perspectives on John Updike’s A&P

Comparison of two literary criticisms by Harriet Blodgett and Lawrence Jay Dessner on John Updikes classical "A&P" short.

Travis Thomas AEGL 102- 8am DR. Claxon 1.27.12 In the two scholarly articles on John Updike’s A & P both writers Harriet Blodgett and Lawrence Jay Dessner agree Sammy is the main focus and a hero. However the type of hero Sammy is in both authors’ perspectives differ greatly as you read further into their explications. Although both authors agree on Sammy being the main focus they interpret the purpose of the plot and scenery from extremely different ends of the spectrum of reality and fantasy. Dessner takes everything literal and psychoanalyzes Sammy’s every action, revealing a hero partially in heart but mentally inept and overly confident. Blodgett however takes the fantasy route painting Sammy as a mythological hero and the girls as temptresses that seduce and trip him up in his mission. The central contrast between the two articles is that Dessnar explicates the story from the inside out while Blodgett explicates the story from the outside in. Comparisons Although Dessner and Blodgett disagree on the extent of Sammy’s heroism both agree Sammy was a hero nonetheless. Blodgett breathes far more heroism and dignity into Sammy’s character than Dessnar, stating, “Sammy plays a mythical role, too, seeing himself as the damsel’s proverbial knight in shining armor”(237). Dessnar in a condescending tone gives Sammy the title of a, “naïve yet morally ambitious teen-age hero”(315). In being a hero of anything one must be opposed to something and here is another point the both authors agree on. Both agree on the notion that Sammy is a defender of chivalry, Blodgett blatantly calling Sammy a “knight in shining armor”(237) and Dessnar highlighting how Sammy protests the “unchivalrous treatment of the three girls in swimming suits”(315) With these two examples it is easy to infer both authors agree Sammy stood for something and wasn’t just making an irrational decision to quit on a random spurt of emotion. Sammy’s rationale (although distorted) of what was decent and right made him quit and the author’s thoughts on Sammy quitting is the final comparison I found between the two writings. Both writers agree that Sammy’s decision to quit was regrettable and he overreacted. Dessnar believes Sammy underestimates his decision to quit then overestimates the reality of quitting (317). Blodgett argues Sammy quits for the noble cause of “aesthetics” however he may “realize belatedly that he should not have made the gesture he did…”(237). Despite the nuances both scholars agree quitting was a bad choice on Sammy’s part. Contrasts If the comparisons and contrasts of these two articles were balanced in a scale the contrasts would be noticeably weightier. Drawing comparisons was like hitting a moving target in the dark, however the contrasts between these two writings stand out in broad daylight. The fundamental contrast is how both authors approach the story from the start line. Blodgett’s approach sizes up the story from the outside paying more attention to the girls and food items to support his argument. However, Dessnar confidently argues his point of view from the inside out, standing at his pulpit positioned in Sammy’s mind. As I stated earlier both writers agreed on Sammy being a hero however their interpretation of the type of hero he is differs tremendously. Reiterating my earlier point Blodgett believes Sammy to be a juvenile god with Odysseus like qualities and the girls not quite the seductive Sirens of The Odyssey, but more like mermaids yet, “above all else symbols of seduction”(237). Blodgett spends most of her explication propping up her belief that Updike’s A&P is more of a fantasy while using food items and minute details to support her argument. Blodgett feels authors that take Sammy literal and too seriously undermine the good nature of the original story (237). She also argues A&P was written not to appeal to “academically learned readers, but relies more instead on popular association” (237). Conversely, Dessnar takes an utterly academically learned and literal course in explicating A&P. Dessnar acknowledges Sammy’s heroism early in his writing then completely annihilates his character by the end of his explication revealing Sammy to be an acute observer, yet incompetent to see his own hypocrisy and highly insensitive toward the working class customers that make his job possible (316). Aside from the blatant contrasts and the slim similarities of the two articles, what has stood out the most to me in the process of viewing the two explications is the endurance and longevity of A&P. Dessnar’s explication written in 1988 and Blodgett’s in 2003 speaks volumes of the depth and sacredness of A & P in the literary world just as the U.S. constitution is revered in the world at large. A&P is a story that has stood the test of time and that makes it a great story worth reading and agreeing to disagree about. Works Cited Blodgett, Harriet, “Updike’s A&P”, Explicator 61.4 (Summer 2003): 236-237.Print. Dessner, Lawrence Jay, “Irony and Innocence in John Updike’s ‘A&P.”’ Studies in Short Fiction. 25 (Summer 1988): 315-317. Print. PAGE 1 Inside Out Perspectives on John Updike’s A&P