Closed Prompt #2- 10/18/15

“The following passage is an excerpt from “The Other Paris,” a short story by the Canadian writer Mavis Gallant. Read the passage carefully. Then, in a well-written essay, explain how the author uses narrative voice and characterization to provide social commentary."

            This excerpt from “The Other Paris” is an excellent example of a short piece of fiction that has a great deal to say about its subject, even without the larger work to provide context. In this case, Gallant provides a hilariously satirical commentary on love and its relationship, or lack of one, to the social expectations of marriage. He achieves this through precise characterization of Carol and Howard, his description of their circumstances, and his narrative portrayal of their respective backgrounds.

            Gallant’s satire is apparent from the very beginning of the piece. He contrasts Carol’s vision of the ideal proposal, a deeply cliché depiction of just about any over-the-top movie proposal, with reality, which comes in the form of Howard’s bland request over a tuna-fish salad. He uses this scene to begin on a hilarious explanation of why the apparent lack of enthusiasm in the proposal was logically justifiable by either member of the engagement. Carol expresses concern about her lack of affection for Howard, but is soon comforted by the ridiculous advice of her college lectures, which explain that other bland and ordinary similarities among marital partners, such as “liking Irish setters” or having the same socioeconomic status were the key ingredients to a successful marriage. Through the juxtaposition of canned “movie industry” styled romance and the advice of Carol’s lectures, Gallant alienates love from his depiction of the societal idealization of marriage to make the point that without it, a truly arbitrary pair the likes of Howard and Carol could hit it off seamlessly.

            The second aspect of the narration that adds to Gallant’s satire is Howard’s background. Howard Mitchell is interested in marriage primarily because of his need for a “competent housemade,” stressing that his loneliness is simply due to “overwork,” and not because of an actual desire for human connection. Ironically, this is exactly the quality Carol rejoices over in her self-appraisal for saying “yes.” More importantly, he is pressured into the engagement by his sister, under the threat that he may become the one who “fills in at dinner.” This is an excellent depiction of the other, uglier aspect of socially acceptable marriage. Howard marries because he fears obsolescence in old age, and in quite a circular way, fears that he will fail his family, and thus society, simply by not getting married. With this point, Gallant hits on a deeply-rooted arbitration in the entire system. 

            Carol’s attempt to fall in love serves as another way in which Gallant pokes fun at the institution of marriage. Carol takes a cold, almost scientific approach to doing so, naively comparing the proper conditions for love to the proper conditions for the growth of a geranium. Gallant forms an amusing analogy, making Paris, the typical city for falling in love, into the ineffective ingredient for spurring her own infatuation. The heart of the passage’s humor is in the way that Carol finds nothing wrong with the lack of emotional investment in her relationship, even with regard to its most emotional components.

            While some stories are intent on depicting love as a mechanical process in itself, built on arbitrary surroundings and signifying little, Gallant’s excerpt goes deeper by describing a situation in which society accepts marriage as an institution independent and even excluding of love. He suggests that true love itself is neither present in cultural depictions such as in Hollywood; nor in the supposed culmination of a romantic relationship, such as marriage. Instead, both institutions miss it entirely, and their victims, Carol and Howard, do not know the difference between what these institutions offer and what they falsely represent.