EH200.12 Precis Draft 1

EH200.12 09/25/2012 Allison Manson Précis Draft 1 Fight vs. Flight: A Re-evaluation of Dee in Alice Walker’s “Everyday Use” by Susan Farrell This essay is taking a look at the article Fight vs. Flight: A Re-evaluation of Dee in Alice Walker’s “Everyday Use” by Susan Farrell. Susan Farrell is a credible source and analyzes what the purpose of Walker’s text was. We will be looking at who was Farrell’s intended audience, what Farrell’s reasoning was to write her piece and why it was prompted. We will also be taking a look at what questions Farrell may have asked herself when writing her article. After addressing these things, we will look at the important issues in Farrell’s piece, and see how she supported her points. The author of this text is Susan Farrell. She is from South Carolina and works in the department of English at the College of Charleston. She has Ph.D. English and has been teaching since 1985. She has received College of Charleston Summer Research Grant in 2001 and 1994. College of Charleston Sabbatical Leave Grant in spring of 2000, South Carolina Humanities Council Grant in 1995, and Professional Development Awards from the University of Texas in 1991 and 1992. She has written many published papers. She is a very credible source and knowledgeable. (Information from http://farrells.people.cofc.edu/vita.html?referrer=webcluster&) The text that we are using is Fight vs. Flight: A Re-evaluation of Dee in Alice Walker’s “Everyday Use” by Susan Farrell. It was copyrighted in 2003 by EBSCO Publishing. The text is a re-evaluation of the character Dee, who comes across as a harsh unlikeable person in Alice Walker’s “Everyday Use”. The idea of this article was to reanalyze the initial reaction to Dee and if not change your perception of her, at least understand her character better. The text was redundant and could have been much more to the point. She used direct quotes from the story to help her point, and with the second piece of literature helped strengthened her point. One thing that really was a big part of what may have shaped Dee is the father, who was not even mentioned in Alice Walker’s story. I think that if Farrell had used the idea of the father not being there made each of the characters a certain way it would have strengthened her argument. The fact the father was not even mention may have a lot of insight to why mama is so submissive and Dee is so headstrong. The father could have died or left their family, causing each woman to take a different role, it would have been an interesting idea to explore. The reader of the text is those who have previously read the story “Everyday Use” and are looking into what the author Alice Walker was intending to portray with the character Dee. Those reading this are either very interested in extending their knowledge of Dee’s character or were assigned the reading in class. It was intended for people who like to read, debate, for people who did not like Dee’s character. Not clear if it is for children or adults. I know that it is hard to make an article like this interesting and fun to read, but it makes the reader fall asleep. The constraints of this article are your audience; it is limited to the people who have read Alice Walker’s “Everyday Use”. You also have the constraint of the secondary example she used in her article, the example of “Meridian” which was published in 1976. Not everyone had read this novel, so the example did not mean as much to the audience if the audience had read it. Having different points of view on characters, but did not have Maggie’s point of view or Dee’s point of view, only mamas. Not having the character of the father mentioned who should have been a pivotal character in Walker’s story makes it so there are many situations we don’t know. There are many things that could have shaped each character, including mama and Maggie, giving us understanding why they are who they are. The exigency in this article is to understand what Alice Walker intended with the character of Dee, to give readers a better understanding of her to in turn understand the overall message of her short story “Everyday Use”. Farrell wrote this to help clarify meaning behind actions and things said in the story for the audience to not judge a character so rashly, but to understand the importance of the character. Flaws needed to be pointed out to understand Dee; you do not see the full picture. If the story was written in a different point of view, we would feel differently. If the father was mention the story would have been totally different and we would understand much more about all of the characters. One of the major questions that Farrell had in mind when writing her essay, she thought about what would my reader think if Dee had a better more contemporary way to cope with an oppressive society that is more valid than Mama’s and Maggie’s. She thought about this to get her reader to think there are two sides to the story, not just Mama’s. By having this be the base question for her article, she hopes that her reader will better understand that character of Dee and possibly change their initial opinion of her. Another question I believe Farrell asked herself was what if I change how Maggie is perceived. In Walker’s story Maggie looks like a controlled victim. Farrell points out that Maggie is more disgusted with her sister than in awe of her like Mama is. Other actions support Farrell’s point, with Maggie banging things around in the background instead of speaking. Farrell wants you to take a second look at Maggie, to see she is not just a victim, and the way Mama perceives her may be wrong. An additional question Farrell asked was how a reader would react to the idea that Mama puts how she feels onto what other characters like Maggie feel. She thinks they are misconstrued, because they are not what Maggie said at all. Farrell quotes the original text to support this. The examples also provide insight to what Mama’s daydream is no one else’s. One more question she would have asked is how a reader’s opinion of Dee would change if I point out all the good things she does for her family. She points out how Dee tries to extend her education to her family, and how Dee is very proud of her African heritage. Dee wants to preserve the things her family has, which isn’t a horrible thing to want. Farrell’s questions try to have you change your opinion of Dee, and if not change it; at least understand that there is more than Mama’s side of the story and that Dee isn’t the worst person in the world. The thesis of Farrell’s article was the character Dee offers an alternative way to cope with an oppressive society that is better than in some ways than the other perspective offered by Maggie and Mama. One of her supporting points were Dee’s bold actions and good things she did pointing out how Dee may not be such a bad person. Another is when she points out how Maggie’s behavior is totally opposite of Dee’s, and how it prevents her from doing more with her life. Lastly she brings up the point that Mama puts her influence on how things happened, and may be putting how she feels onto other characters and it may not be true. Farrell provides direct examples from the text explaining how Dee is not a terrible person, which is usually the initial reaction to the character. She points out how Dee tried to extend her education to her family, and how she is very proud of her African heritage. Dee also wants to preserve things that have been in her family, so they will last for generations. Farrell talks about how Maggie is limiting herself, because of how Mama raised her. Farrell uses the fact that Mama being the narrator limits what you know. Mama puts how she feels on other characters that may not be how they feel. Farrell uses specific parts of Walker’s article to support this. Farrell uses important points to support the idea of how Dee may offer a better way to deal with an oppressive society. She is a reliable source and is unbiased in her reasoning and successfully uses Walker’s text to support her ideas.