"It's bad for children": Suppression of Emerging Adulthood in James Joyce's "The Sisters"

**It has been a hot second since I last posted anything. Several of my writings are currently submitted for publication and thus cannot be published online at the moment. For now, here is a sample of some literary criticism for the time being. It lacks sources other than Joyce's writings which I lament but it was for an assignment. So enjoy a little bit of Joycean criticism. 

https://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.3347820.1515362811!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg

In 1904, a native Dubliner by the name of James Joyce wrote a short story called “The Sisters.” This short story later became a part of a collection of stories entitled Dubliners. Scholars agree that this story is told from the perspective of a young boy. Joyce portrays this young narrator through the way he is treated and referred to as a child throughout the piece. The adults in the story expect the narrator to follow always and not to act-- or speak-- for himself. While this specific reading has textual evidence, there is also evidence to support that the boy narrator isn’t a boy at all, but a young emerging adult. Joyce gives this evidence through the narrator walking alone in the dark, his education, his abhorrence to the term “child”, and his choice to think about Christmas during the dream scene. With a new lens through the eyes of a young man rather than a boy, we see that “The Sisters” becomes a story of the suppression of an emerging young adult as evidenced through the meal scene, usage of the word “child”, and the use of ellipsis. This reading of the story then comments on the potential that young adults have一 and urges for a call to action 一 while also giving commentary on the attitude of adults toward the emerging generation in Dublin.

The narrator is proved to be a part of the emerging generation from the very beginning of the story. The narrator expresses that he has passed the house “night after night” (line 2). The fact that he is walking alone at night shows that he is old enough to be without adult protection after dark. The age of the narrator is made clearer when we discover he is under the tutelage of Father Flynn. The tutelage to become a priest is called the Holy Order; this process of priestly education is understood to be completed by adults一after receiving and participating in the other sacraments (New Advent). Furthermore, the narrator proves both his religious maturity as well as emotional maturity with his determination to think about Christmas (75-76). As Father Flynn comes to haunt his dream with death and rejection of religion, the narrator makes a conscious effort to imagine the opposite: birth and Christ himself. The thought, while containing the appearance of childlike wonder of candy and presents, shows the depth of which he is capable. In fact, even the narrator recognizes his capacity is greater than that of a child. Before the dream, he is seething because of the comment made by the Old Cotter: “Though I was angry with old Cotter for alluding to me as a child” (71-72). Anyone who considers themself above childhood would become frustrated when called a child. Thus the “boy narrator” is not a boy at all and in calling him such only exacerbated the suppression that he is subjected to.

The evidence of the suppression begins at the meal with his aunt, uncle, and Old Cotter. The narrator is given stirabout (a porridge or gruel, often made with oatmeal) (18) while the rest of the table is given mutton (59). This contrast suggests that he is not considered old enough to eat meat at the table and thus given a child’s food. The suppression continues when the narrator is given his only chance to speak in the story一 or at least, it seems that way. Old Cotter says, “Well, so your old friend is gone, you’ll be sorry to hear” (31). Old Cotter is not eliciting an opinion or even a response. What does the narrator have the option of saying in that context? Old Cotter has just forced emotion (“you’ll be sorry to hear”) upon the “boy” and doesn’t even phrase the sentence as a question but rather a statement of fact. The narrator understands that his opinion will not matter and answers accordingly with “Who?” (32). The narrator plays as though he does not know what is going on. This translates by the fact that he calls Old Cotter a “tiresome old fool” (23). The conversation continues and the opinion that children should play outside arises. Old Cotter remarks, “let a young lad run about and play with young lads of his own age” (52-53). The narrator, who is learning to become a priest, is expected to run and play instead of learn. Considering the age of the narrator to be far beyond that of a young child, the situation is interpreted as verbal suppression.

The suppression of the narrator is further evidenced through the usage of the word “child” itself. As expressed with Old Cotter alluding to the narrator as a child, the adults refer to him similarly either directly, through variations of the word “child”, or in the way he is treated. In fact, the word “child”一 and its variations一 is always followed by pointless, meaningless, and lacking-in-depth conversations. For example, in line 40 of the story the narrator’s uncle says in reference to Father Flynn, “The youngster and he were great friends.” This commentary by the uncle is immediately followed by the aunt’s exclamation: “God, have mercy on his soul” (43). This phrase, while religious and proper, is just a filler phrase that is said when no one really knows what else to say. The aunt in this context is simply filling the air with words rather than expounding upon what is being said about the narrator as if to leave him out of the conversation一 repressing him from making commentary regarding their friendship. The contrast between the trivial and “child” is further illustrated when the chalice is finally discussed. Eliza, in alluding to the chalice, says, “They say it was the boy’s fault. But poor James was so nervous” (284-285). Eliza, immediately after using the word “boy” (a variation of the word “child”), defaults to diminutive and detail-less exclamations regarding James. Instead of expounding upon why the “boy” was blamed for Father Flynn’s “resignation” (211), she simply avoids the details. The narrator has spent time with Father Flynn and was taught by him with reference to the epiphany that Father Flynn has experienced. We know that the narrator has adopted some of these rejections through his interaction with the sacrament as he refuses to take the cracker (193-194). The narrator evidently understands something that the adults do not which makes him an asset to the situation. However, instead of asking the narrator about the situation, Eliza (and the rest of the adults) keep him stifled by avoiding the topic altogether.  

To further the suppression of the narrator, the speech is interlaced with ellipsis that often fall at moments when the story is entering into the realm of a topic of significance. While the ellipsis have multiple connotations and interpretations as to what they mean, it seems that Joyce is presenting the fact that these adults never truly dive into the depth of real topics. An example is seen in lines 27-28 when Old Cotter is speaking. He says, “I have my own theory about it, he said. I think it was one of those . . . peculiar cases. . . . But it’s hard to say . . .” Old Cotter is speaking about the narrator as if he is not there (like one would do to a young child) and then speaks in vague terms as if to avoid the truth. Old Cotter does this later in the conversation when he says “It’s bad for children [. . . ] because their minds are so impressionable. When children see things like that, you know, it has an effect. . . .” (66-68). Cotter is alluding the effect that Father Finn’s resignation from the church can have on the “boy”. And yet, the narrator is not a child at all. In referring to him as a child in this context, it makes the rejection of the church seem childish, uneducated, and naive. This diminishing of the rejection of religion as invalid shows the suppression of the adult generation towards the emerging adults, specifically the narrator.

The story ends when Eliza explains that Father Flynn was “wideawake and laughing-like to himself. . . . So then of course when they saw that that made them think that there was something gone wrong with him. . . .” (305-307). The adults have determined that something went wrong with Father Flynn but no one even asks the narrator (the person who has spent the most time with Father Flynn) what may have happened. The entire story has shown that the narrator has been suppressed through the little nuances and finally Joyce decides to end the story with the elephant in the room: the narrator knew better than anyone else what happened and yet was not asked about the situation. Joyce shows a situation that likely reverberated through the lives of many young adults in Dublin at the time, due to the ignorance of the adult generation. Joyce calls to action the rising generation when he shows a suppressed narrator with a potential for change. The story ends without a sense of resolution as though to invite the rising generation to finish their own stories by making a change.