Cheever and O'Connor Comparisons

First of all, i have to say that these two stories - "The Swimmer" and "Good Country People" - were really weird. They were both stories about nothing and seemed like there was no point to them, that is, until you have completed reading the two works.

In "The Swimmer" i kept saying to myself, "Ok. So what's the point behind the story?" It seemed like it was just a simple tale about a drunk who came up with this crazy idea of being able to swim across an entire county by swimming from pool to pool (i could be wrong, but i think a lot of other people might have been thinking this as well while they were reading it). In the end we find out what Cheever was building up to which is the swimmer finally returning home to an abandoned house. He had been drinking so much that hadn't realized how much time had passed that his family left him. This was, to me, a complete surprise ending. i never saw that coming.

"Good Country People" was another weird story to read. This, Like "The Swimmer", started off as a pointless tale to me. But, in another surprise ending in which we find out the reality behind the boy selling the bibles, we can understand what O'Connor was building up to. It wasn't until the very end that I saw the whole point of the story.

I think the obvious similarity between the two stories is the way that they are structured. They both start out as seemingly pointless tales. But, after surprise endings in both, we see what the point was behind each authors story. In "The Swimmer", the man was so caught up in his drinking and trying to achieve his goal of swimming across the county, that he had lost track of what's really important to him - his family - and in the end, they leave him. it shows that life is only sweet when you have people you love around you. In "Good Country People" we discover that the point of O'Connor's work is that we must pay attention to what's in front of us and that we shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. Although someone or something may look harmless, they might actually be lying and deceitful. So, in that sense, the similarities in these to short stories is that we have to read to the very end to see what the message is behind each author's writing.

women

i think that Zora Neal Thurston portrays women in her story in a relatively poor way. throughout the entire novel Janie is treated as more so of a piece of property than she is treated like a person. her first husband was using her as basically a work horse. she would have to get up to work in the fields and still be able to have a hot meal on the table for her husband when he got home at the end of the day. Janie's first husband didn't actually care about her and she obviously never cared about him. the only reason that she stuck around for so long was because he kept telling her that after he was dead and gone that she would inherit all of his land (something like 60 acres). eventually she cannot take it anymore and runs off with Joe Starks, a rich man looking to make his mark in society. starks was different she thought. she married him because she actually loved him. although he did care for her at the start of their relationship, he ended up treating her the exact same as she had been treated by her previous husband. being the mayor of the town and all, starks felt that he was the alpha male and everytime that Janie would try and defend herself against him, he would demoralize her and eventually hit her to "put her in her place". starks dies and after her period of mourning she begins to fall for a younger man. teacake, she feels, treats her like a woman should be treated. although she loves him he begins to take the same shape as her two previous husbands when he hits her to prove a point that he is suppose to have the upper hand in the relationship. thurston portrays women in this novel as items, not as people, and i think that this is how women used to be treated in earlier years of our countries history.