Sunday, October 12, 2008
The WIll of Nature in "The Decapitated Chicken" Cannot be Opposed
Although, Quiroga's stories like "The Decapitated Chicken" or "The Feathered Pillow" were quite disgusting and grotesque, nature was what created the disgusting scenes. The nature was bizarre and almost unrealistic; one blood-sucking parasite becomes the size of a pillow, and one couple creates four "idiot" and zombie-like children. Aside from his extremely tragic and violent life, Quiroga's writings were greatly influenced by the modernismo movement at attempt to be different. Nature, a popular subject of these writers, became the driving force behind some of the tragedies in his stories. Nature created the giant parasite and the zombie children. Nature at this point in history could not be tamed. No matter how hard the couple from "The Decapitated Chicken" tried, they could not produce a "normal" child until there third try. However, a spoiled daughter is born and eventually, is tragically killed by the four freaks of nature. That somewhat innocent murder was a sign that nature rules. The parents of the children were so concerned about there children being ideal that finally when nature had granted wish, their wish eventually was killed. Nature created the opposite of what the parents wanted. The nature of the "idiot" boys killed the parents' wish. Nature prevailed over selfish desire.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I actually think it is quite interesting to think that nature played an important part in Quiroga's stories. As I was reading both of these stories, my first reaction was that these sitations were totally irrealistic and was obvious that it was made up. However, as I was reading your post I began to consider that maybe nature did play an important role in these stories. All of the deaths in Quiroga's life seem pretty irrealistic, as if it were too tragic to actaully happen. I think Quiroga is playing around with this idea and kinda incorporates it within his short stories.
I would agree that nature is the dominant force in these two stories. I would not agree however that the murder of the daughter was innocent in any way. The four idiots did what they intended to do in an incredibly brutal way. Whether they knew what they were doing or not does not make it a situation of innocence.
I also agree with Mel in that the events of his life undoubtedly played an important roll in his writing.
I think this is an interesting point. Like Mel, I did not take into consideration that nature could have had such a big effect on the tragedies of Quiroga's stories. Your point of nature being a driving and controlling force, reminds me of Sarmiento's novel, Facundo. Like Quiroga's short stories, in Facundo, nature shapes people and the outcomes of events.
I agree with your evaluation of nautres role in "The Decapitated Chicken", although i also think it is very interesting how Quiroga not only shows nature prevailing but also teaches the reader a valuable lesson, which is that sometimes getting what you want is not always what you need or the best thing. The two lovers hope for 'normal' children, and in not getting it, it makes them want one more, and the more they set their focus on that the more they loose their love for one another. This shows how sometimes you become so overly infatuated with getting what you want that you loose sight of what really matters. Also, once they get what they want, it ends up not being as perfect as they thought it would be. Their daughter is healthy, yes, but she is also selfish, so with that in mind, had the boys all been healthy but selfish, would that of been better?
So, while I agree with your analysis I also think nature is not the only focus of this story.
interesting to note that Quiroga spent some of his life farming, simply trying to control the natural world. It seems like as in his real life, in which nature would always best him, nature tends to get the best of man. I have to disagree, however, with your writing mechanics. At the beginning, "Although," not a necessary comma. You used the wrong "there/their," and then in the next sentence there's some funky stuff. Oh, and Mel, the word is unrealistic. Good thoughts, though.
Post a Comment