E.M.A. Universität Greifswald Proseminar

Theme: Sinclair Ross’ short storie “The Lamp at Noon”

Thesis: The natural phenomenons in the short stories can not only be seen as antagonist but also as protagonist

Katharina Joachim English/History LA GYM 4th semester

Contents

1. Introduction 2. Nature phenomenon and its influence in “A lamp at Noon”

p. p.

2.1. The influence on the relationship between Ellen and Paul p. 2.2. The problems for the baby and its relationships to its parents 2.3. Ross describtions of the nature phenomenons 3. Conclusion 4. Bibliography p. p. p. p.

2

1. Introduction In my term paper I want to discuss if the nature phenomenons in the short story “A Lamp at Noon” written by Sinclair Ross (1908-1996) have such a loom large that they can be seen as a protagonist. During my research I found the statement:
(D)ie enge Verbindung von Mensch und natürlicher Umwelt, welche in ihren extremen klimatischen Verhältnissen [...] immer wieder übermächtig und indifferent grausam gegenüber den ums […] Überleben kämpfende Farmersleuten, ja beinahe als >Protagonist< erscheint. (Gross 158)

I found that point of view very interessting and that is way I will discuss this theses. A protagonist is “the main character in a play, film/movie or book [...]” (Wehmeier) Even though the nature phenomenons can’t be the protagonist as such because they are not represented by a character, they have an important situation in the short story. Obvious is that the nature phenomenons embody the antagonist, somebody “who strongly opposes sb/sth [...]”(Wehmeier Page) The conditions on the farm are worse for the small family caused by the dust, storm and wind. So here it is clear that the natural phenomenons function as antagonist. But as they have such in important position I want to include the possibility of having the function as protagonist. Sinclair Ross introduces the prairie stories or the prairie realism.(Gross 158) He was against the romantical and sentimantical description of prairie life and so he wrote the first prairie stories such as “A Lamp at Noon”. (Gross 158) In these stories the combination of nature, plot and characters are very strong. The stories want to show the real prairie life especially during the Great Depression where farmers nearly had nothing. (Eisenschmid 52) In my term paper I concentrated on the story itself. I wanted to analyse it from his roots with the meaningful words and sentences. For general information concerning Canadas history or Canadian Literature I used edited books such as Gross’ Kanadische Literatur Geschichte or Eisenschmid’s Kanada. Westen.

3

2. Nature phenomenon and its influence in“A lamp at Noon” “A Lamp at Noon” is about the married couple Ellen, Paul and their baby. They live on a farm in Canadas west during the Great Depression which was not only economically difficult for farmers also the drought was an obstacle for their happiness (Groß 158). They have to lit a lamp at noon because of the dust. Ellen is unsatisfied with her situation and is also concerned about her son who cries all the time. She tries to convince Paul to leave the farm and move to the city. But Paul cherishs his dream of being a farmer and does not want to compromise. The hole conflict between Ellen and Paul is caused by the nature and the resultant troubles. The conflict finds its climax when Ellen really leaves the farm with her son on her own. But the storm was to strong so that Paul finds her hiding for the sand with the dead baby in her arm. 2.1. The influence on the relationship between Ellen and Paul The drought which now holds on since 5 years stressed the relationship between Ellen and Paul. Paul works a lot in the stable and on the fields. Because of the weather the farm does not have enough crop and Paul works more and more to improve the situation. Therfore Ellen is often alone and that for a long time. She makes the meals but Paul often “[...] seemed a long time” (Ross 8). When Ellen is waiting for him, she has the desire to look after him but Paul would not accept that. She feels like jailed as she expresses in the sentence:“I’m so caged. [...] I stand like this all day.”(12,13) When they are together they often argue. Their life situation concernes both of them but it seems like they have different ways to handle it. Ellen tries to convince him to leave the farm, to go back to the city and may be live with her family. But Paul does not want that. So they fight and Ellen says something she does not want to but her real anger “[...] was only the dust and wind that had driven her” (8). But not only the dust and the situation of being caged is a problem for Ellen, also the problem of feeling lonley displeases her. Because Paul works so much, she is on her own, only with the baby. When Paul comes, it seems like they have a lack of communication. Ellen wants to have Paul as a husband who is obviously concerned about his family especially about his wife. She wants to feel protected but because of the fights which last 4

on every day, they distance oneself from the other. “She wanted him now, the assurance of his strength and nearness, but he would stand aloof, wary, remembering the words she had flung at him in her anger [...]” (Ross 8). They do not overcome the arguments and the spoken words therefore they can not give each other the support they would needed. Everytime they come together they speak about their situation and about their future. They have different opinions and on both sides a compromise is seen like a lost. The hard work at the farm is for Paul the “[...] fulfillment of his inmost and essential nature.” (9) Whereas for Ellen the situation she now lives in and the pain she suffers “ [...] had brought a plaintive indignation, a nervous dread of what was still to come.” (9) It is obvious that both have fear for the future, both want to have a safe future but the way they think about it so different that they can not go the way together. For Ellen the situation now is not the way she wants to live. Because of the bad crop they do not have enough money to finance their lifes. Paul can not feed his horses and they had to borrow money.(10) Even their food is every day the same and Ellen has to wear old slippers.(12) The arguments are about small things such as the shoes or the meals but they are results of the weather, the drought and the dust. Now that the fields are not productive there is no work for Ellen which she usually “wouldn’t mind [...]”, even though the “[...] skimping if there was something to look forward to.” (11) For Ellen the drought lasted to long so that they “[...] never get (the years) back” (10). All theses troubles and differences had brought Ellen and Paul too far away from each other. Paul now thinks of his own problems. He does not see them anymore as a familiy affair and Ellen should not disturb him with her problems of being lonely or afraid. He just imagine the safe and silence situation in the house which he does not have in the stables or outside on the fields. He accuses Ellen she does not “[...] know how well off” (12) she is. But even though it is a story of nature crisis and family problems it can also be seen as a story of pride. When Paul recognizes that Ellen is right with her theory of too long drought and wrong farming but he is too pride to talk to her in a serious sensible way, when she opens up and say him that she needs him as a support. “It was his self-respect and manhood against the fretful weakness of a woman [...]” (12) Ellen expresses that she wants to run away and escape the unsatisfactory surrounding. But Paul does not see the intensity of the problem and does not take it as a serious demand. He just focuses on his hope 5

that the “[...] dry years won’t last forever.” (Ross 11) Paul cherishs again on his dream and is not thinking about reality and his family. When he has the strength to go back to the house, to look if Ellen went away, he overcomes his pride but in the moment he saw her, quietly walking with the baby on his arm he went back to work and “one by one he defeated [...]”(15) the argumentation of Ellen for leaving the farm. So the pride of Paul not to show that a did a mistake becomes clear. On page 14 Paul imagines the wind as a woman’s cry. Sinclair Ross shows with the movements of the wind the feeling of the woman and he shows that Paul is not able to hear his wife screaming when she is in front of him but through the wind it is clarified. The wind as one figure of the nature seems to be more definite as the words from Ellen. It seems like the wind is the character who expresses the feeling. So between the relationship of Ellen and Paul the nature phenomenons have huge influence. In the following sheme the influences and the resultant problems for the couple’s relationship are shown as a summary.

6

For both parties changes are caused by nature phenomenons. Their would have to change their live which costs a lot of strength and discipline. Ross shows a family whos destiny is a heavy one and where the family is nearly destroyed by the nature proceedings. The nature is the figure which is in every scene present and which changes the plot. If the weather would change also the plot, the character and the atmosphere would change. The nature in the case of the relationship between Ellen and Paul has a central position. In every situation when they are together they talk about it and it is a topic which is the most important in the short story “A Lamp at Noon”. 2.2. The problems for the baby and its relationships to its parents The baby has a central meaning in Ross short story “A Lamp at Noon”. It embodies a character who is completely dependend. The son is reliant on the welfare and protection of their parents. The only way a baby can call attention to itself is crying. As Ross expresses in his story through the character Ellen the baby “[...] cries all the time” (Ross 9) This symbolizes the dissatisfaction the baby has. The situation is difficult for a baby. The small two room house is full of dust. “The table had been set less than ten minutes, and already a film was gathering in the dishes.”(8) So the air he is breathing is very unhealthy for the little body. It seems so dangerous that Ellen is not able to take her son on the arm because she is afraid that “[...] the dust-filled air [...] might contract pneumonia.” (8) The body of a baby is more liable to become ill. The small lungs can not take so much dust which makes the fear of Ellen more comprehensable. Ellen wants her son to be away from the circumstances in the prairie. She wants that he has a better way to live which is for her in the city, “anything would be better than [...]”(10) the prairie. For her the baby has no life in the prairie and no future. Even if the weather would change and the crop would be better, she asks Paul “what’s ahead of him [...]” (11) She is afraid that the years of drought and bad crop had destroyed the future on a farm for her son. But even though she wants to go away for the baby’s sake, Pauls accuses her to do it just to give herself a treat. (10) Later in the story Paul thinks objective about his son’s situation and realizes, that there will not be the future, he wanted for his son. He wanted “land for the boy – land and still more land – or education, whatever he might want.” 7

(14) But even though he does not really think of moving away. So the thoughts for his son’s future were just for a short time and then his own lifelong dream came back and he concentrated on it again. “There would be rain again [...]. [...] (H)e would be better now.” (15) So it is obvious that both parties actually want the best for their son but they are not selfless enough to really do the best for him. They both are too concentrated in winning out over the other. The nature phenomenons which cause the problems for the marriage and for the child are too strong for them to handle them on their own. As it becomes clear in the end of the story. Ellen ran away with the baby in her arms. But at that point she carries her baby in the direct danger. The dust without a protective wall is too heavy for the small lungs of the baby. Also the tight arms of Ellen who just want do know her baby safe are may be the cause for his death.(17) In the end Sinclair Ross does not express what really killed the baby. “It had been her arms, perhaps, too frantic to protect him, or the smother of dust upon his throat and lungs.” (17) So here it is shown that the nature phenomenons caused a death. Even when the arms of Ellen killed the baby the worries about her son’s life were provoked by the weather situation. The following scheme shows the causes for the baby in an overview:

8

2.3. Ross describtions of the nature phenomenons The nature is the main fact in the story which determine the hole family situation. Ross uses a lot of nature expressions to define the atmosphere between the characters and during the actions. In the beginning he creates a uncomfortable and cold mood. “Demented wind fled keening past the house” (Ross 7) Right in the second sentence the central position of the nature aspect is shown. The dust which is everywhere, described as “an impenetrable fog” (7) makes the atmosphere more unclear and point to the problem which will come. Ross’s explanation concerning the nature have two functions. The one is to create a mood and the second to expresses the environment. This double function is clarified in the following quote:
There were two winds: the wind in flight, and the wind that pursued. The one sought refuge in the eaves, whimpering, in fear; the other assailed it there, and shook the eaves apart to make it flee again. Once as she listened this first wind sprang inside the room, distraught like a bird that has felt the gaze of talons on its wing; while furious the other wind shook the walls, and thudded tumbleweeds against the window till its quarry glanced away again in fright. But only to return – to return and quake among the feeble eaves, as if in all this dust-mad wilderness it knew no other sanctuary. (8)

By concentrating on the natural aspect it is obvious that these are two strong winds who are intimidating for the characters. They are both very intimidating as the one “[...]sprang inside the room”(8) and the other “[...]shook the walls”(8). If a wind can be define so clearly it must be very direct and strong otherwise it would not be possible to focus on it. The wind comes near the house and also comes into the room which is a sign that the nature is again a central fact in the family. In a symbolical way the wind is directly between them. By concentration on the rhetorical way, it can be seen in two variants. The one could be that one wind embodies Ellen and the other wind could be embodies Paul. Ellen is the “[...]wind in flight [...]” (8) and Paul would be the “[...]wind of pursued.” (8) Ellen wants to leave the farm and escape the problems which came up during their five year´s of marriage. Whereas Paul pursues his lifelong dream who fight for the farm and who tries to awake the other wind (Ellen) by “(shaking) the eaves apart to make it flee again.” (8) A third interpretation is that both winds belong to Ellen and that they “suggest an imminent schizophrenia.” (Reingart 107) The wind of flight stands for the tranquility she searches and the fear shown by the try to flee. The wind of pursued expresses the other way Ellen thinks of the situation.There she is 9

stronger and has more assertiveness. The image of schizophrenia could stand in direct combination to the end of the story where she does not realize that her baby is dead. Ellen says to Paul that he should “(s)ee how his head falls forward on (his) arm.” (17) These two winds show the narrowness between descriptions of the nature and the feelings of the characters. In these expressions personifications of the dust, storm and wind are made. For example in the passage where Ellen thinks about the argumentation with Paul and realizes “[...] it was only the dust and wind that had driven her.” (Ross 8) According to the laws of nature dust and wind are not really able to influence directly the life of a human being. Even when Paul reconsider the force of the nature he assures hisself that “it was a ruthless wind, blacking the sky with his earth, but it was not his master.” (15) But in the end of the story one can see that the nature is so powerful that it has the authority to control about life and death. Ross awards nature phenomenons a high worth and the possibility to influence lifes. As it was in the Great Depression in Canada. The new kind of wheat which was introduced around 1900 was at that time very fruitful but during the Great Depression the export was minimized and the farmers did not have any source of income. (Eisenschmid 51-52) The shown nature phenomenons like storm, wind and dust were in addition a tough task for the farmers. The story expresses the “[...] bone wearying labour, helplessness in the face of the elements and psychological strain[...]”. (New, Encyclopedia 715) Ross combines in his short story the mood caused by the situation between the couple and the nature phenomenons. As already shown in the beginning where Ellen is waiting for Paul to come back from the stable Ross creates a uncomfortable mood. But also later in the story the nature changes in consideration to the plot. As Paul realizes that Ellen is frightened and wants to escape he hears a scream which was made by the wind. He gets the imagination it could be a scream of a woman. (Ross 14)So here the awareness for the problem occurs to Paul and at the same time the wind beats so heavy. In the end Paul rejects all his regrets of being wrong about his dream and imagines a new strategy to establish his farm again. Then “the wind was slackening” (15) The reader can get the feeling that now a happy ending is coming and the misery is over. But it can also be seen as the “calm before the storm”. A few moments later the fields “lay black, nacked. Beaten and mounded smouth with dust as if a sea in gentle swell had turned to stone.”(15) The misery starts again and the weather clarified it. 10

Also the house which was empty after Ellen’s departure expresses actions through the storm:
The tatters of the storm still whimpered through the eaves, and in their moaning told the desolation of the miles they had traversed. (16)

The storm is obviously not over and the storm with its desolation expresses the suffering Ellen had undergone. In the very end is the last example for the correlation of nature and plot. Paul finds Ellen with the dead baby and it seems like everything is still and in the end the storm will be over.
[...] (I)t seemed that now the dusk was drawn apart in breathless waiting, a finger on its lips until they passed. [...] So still now, and a red sky – it means tommorrow will be fine.

The nature changes and the mood between Paul and Ellen too. It seems like Paul recongnized the worries of his wife. 3. Conclusion In my opinion do the nature phenomens have the function of “protegonism”. They have a central position and without the nature development the story would change completely. As we can see in the relationship of Ellen and Paul the nature crisis causes a family seperation. They talk just about problems which were provoked by the nature consequences. So the nature has also a central position in their lives. Its influence on their life is enormous, so restrictive and structured in a minimized way. Concerning the baby’s development, the nature phenomenons had the most dramatic influence. The baby which is totally dependent from its parents can not break free from the dust-filled air. It can not move or go outside even the relationship towards its mother is difficult because she can’t ignore the bad health situation. The story of the baby is one of the most biggest fact to say the nature phenomenons do have the function as a “protegonist” because the baby has to pay with its life. The nature has such a force to structure the life not only the life of the baby also the life of Ellen and Paul. Paul works more and spents more time in the stable and on the fields to escape the pressure and Ellen has to clean up fastly that no dust can come again and has to be satisfied with the life she has in her two room house. The situation is very difficult for them and that is caused by the Great Depression and the nature phenomenons which make it 11

slightly more difficult. In generale though I would not say that they are the protegonists because a protegonist should be a real character of the story but what is definatly obvious is that the nature developments are so serious that the hole plot is based on it and therefore the nature functions as a protegonist.

12

4. Bibliography Jeffrares, Norman, ed. Macmillan History of Literature. A History of Canadian Literature, Hampshire, London: Macmillan Education Ltd. 1989. Nischik, Reingard M., ed. The Canadian Short Story. Interpretations, Rochester: Camden House 2007. Gross, Klooss, Nischik, eds. Kanadische Literaturgeschichte. Stuttgart. Metzler’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung und Carl Ernst Poeschel Verlage 2005. Ross, Sinclair, A Lamp at Noon and other stories. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Inc. The Canadian Publishers 1968. Eisenschmid, Rainer, ed. Kanada. Westen, Ostfildern Kart Baedeker Verlag 2000. Wehmeier, Sally, ed. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005. New, William Herbert, ed. Encyclopedia of Literature in Canada, Toronto: University Toronto Press 2002.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

13