The Claims of Elaine E. Whitaker Whitaker makes several interesting claims about the characters in Why I Live at the P.O. The three claims I found most insightful were that “Throughout the narrative, Sister views her own efforts as undervalued”(115), “Like her furnishings, Sister appears incomplete” (Whitaker 115), and “ Why I Live at the P.O. also bottles up knowledge itself through its deliberate repression by various characters” (115). Each of these claims allows the reader to contemplate different aspects of the story so they can gain a better understanding of the characters. I will examine theses three claims and try to find evidence in the story to support or disprove them.

When reading Why I Live at the P.O. it is easy to see why Whitaker would make the claim that “Throughout the narrative, Sister views her own efforts as undervalued” (115) From the very start of the story sister expresses a sense of feeling unappreciated with her comment “There I was over the hot stove, trying to stretch two chickens over five people and a completely unexpected child into the bargain without one moment’s notice” (Welty 415). This comment shows that Sister believes no body cared enough about the effort she puts into making dinner for the family to inform her that there would be more people to feed. As the family sits down to eat the dinner Sister has prepared no one thanks her or even acknowledges the fact that she alone made dinner for everyone. Sister later tells how she was making green-tomato pickle because “Somebody had to do it.” (Welty 418) This gives the reader a sense that Sister feels like if she does not do it no one will. As she is preparing the pickle her mother comes in and instead of praising Sister for taking it upon herself to preserve food for the family, she criticizes Sister stating “H’m! Not very Duratz 2

good for your Uncle Rondo in his precarious condition, I must say. Or poor little adopted Shirley-T. Shame on you!” (Welty 418) It is easy after reading this part of the story to understand that Sister feels as though she is undervalued and anything she does will be viewed by those around her in a negative way. At this point in the story I found myself sympathizing with Sister and becoming upset with her family for treating her as if she is useless. When Sister decides to leave the house to go live at the P.O. she takes all of the jars of food she has put up (Welty 422). This action of taking the food she had worked to save makes me think she is feeling as if she does all this work for her family and yet instead of seeing how valuable she is they treat her badly. For all of these reasons I believe Whitaker is correct in her assertion that Sister feels undervalued (115). I also think that Sister is indeed undervalued by her family.

Whitaker believes that “ Like her furnishings, Sister appears incomplete”(115).I found this claim to be true on more than one level. First I do agree with her in that it appears sister does not seem to have a complete sense of herself. I think the reason for this is that she has been stifled by her family. Even her name Sister gives a sense that she is defined by her relation to Stella-Ronda and not deserving of recognition on her own. The family seems to have cast her aside as not as good as her sister. I think Sister would feel emotionally abandoned by her family leading to her inability to fully grow and flourish as a young woman. I also think sister is incomplete because of the loss of her connection to her family. The items Sister takes from the family home and brings to the P.O., bookends, piano lamp, iron, and a sewing machine motor (Welty 423) all appear to be incomplete or as Whitaker states “pieces”(115). I think the items give the reader a sense that Sister feels incomplete without her family. Like a sewing machine motor with out the Duratz 3

rest of the sewing machine, Sister is not whole if she is detached from her family. She has for so long been defined by her family, even in her name that she can not separate herself fully from them. Even if Sister tries to state she is happy now, it is evident by the fact that she felt the need to tell her story that she in someway needs her family. While living with her family she always had something to do such as cooking dinner (Welty 415), pickling green tomatoes (Welty418), or dealing with family drama (Welty 415-423). In contrast the end of the story finds Sister living at the P.O. with little to do as evident by her comment “Of course, there’s not much mail” (Welty 424). She also mentions that “My family are naturally the main people in China Grove” (Welty 424). Both of these comments lead to the conclusion that without her family she is incomplete and perhaps even China Grove would be incomplete without there presence.

When reading Whitaker’s analysis of Welty’s story it was apparent that she felt that ““ Why I Live at the P.O. also bottles up knowledge itself through its deliberate repression by various characters” (115). I found this observation to be very accurate because it appears that there is a lot of information that the characters are eluding to but not being forthcoming with details on. For instance Stella-Rondo states “Shirley-T.’s adopted, I can prove it” (Welty 415) however she makes no effort to do so and no one except Sister even questions her statement. Sister points out that Shirley-T looks like Papa-Daddy and Mr. Whitaker and her mother just dismisses her. The reader is told that Stella-Rondo is “just separated” (Welty 414) however there is no explanation of what happened. I would think that a normal family would ask questions or expect some explanation for the sudden arrival of Stella-Rondo and Shirley-T. As Whitaker points out there is a reference to Annie Flo as having “went to her grave denying the facts of life”(Welty 418)which Duratz 4

also goes unexplained (115). It appears that the family is very used to giving each other only limited information and expecting not to be questioned. This shows me that there is an undertone of repression of knowledge by all of the characters. Even Sister seems to only give surface details like when she states “Stella-Rondo broke us up” (Welty 414) she only goes on to give limited details. No one in the story really opens up and shows any real part of themselves. This leads me to believe that they are all hiding thoughts and feelings in a deliberate attempt to avoid having to deal with them.

As you can see there is evidence to support each of the claims made by Whitaker. I feel that Why I Live at the P.O. is more than just the story that Sister tells. Whitaker was able to pick out undertones in the story and bring them to the front making it easier to understand the characters and their actions. I have found that the three claims examined above are each well supported by evidence in the story. I believe Whitaker has done a wonderful job of challenging the reader to look deeper into Why I Live at the P.O. Looking deeper in to the story allowed me to find different aspects of each character that made the story come to life. On the surface Why I Live at the P.O. appears to be simply Sister’s attempt to explain why she lives at the P.O, however when I really examined the claims I was able to see that there is much more going on than just an upset Sister trying to explain herself.

Duratz 5

Works Cited
Whitaker, Elaine E. "Why I live at the P.O." Explicator 50.2 (1992): 115. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Web. 21 Sept. 2011.

Welty, Eudora “Why I Live at the P.O.” The Norton Introduction To Literature. Peter Simon. Portable 10th ed. New York, London: W.W Norton & Company, 2006. 414-424.