"A Smile to Remember" by Charles Bukowski
In Charles Bukowski’s poem, “A Smile
to Remember,” the extended metaphor, denotation and dialogue enhance the
mother’s trapped and delusional state as she falsely tries to convince herself
otherwise. The poem depicts the narrator as a child, struggling alongside his
mother to be freed from the weight of his abusive father.
The most important aspect to the
poem is the symbolism or metaphor of the goldfish. The fish appear both in the
very beginning of the poem and at the end to tie the piece together. The first
visual of the goldfish as they “circled around and around” (Bukowski 1) clearly
mirrors the mother’s situation, reflecting the fact that she is trapped
physically and emotionally with her denial to accept the truth and fix it. At
the end, the goldfish reappear as they float “on their sides, their/ eyes still
open” (Bukowski 18-19) after they have been mysteriously killed. Their death,
untraditionally, represents a freedom for both the mother and themselves.
Readers infer that it was in fact the mother that killed them as a symbol for
her rising up.
It is the son who describes this
connection, relaying the story in a rather detached tone. The choppy sentences
and line breaks along with very simplistic diction create denotation that
parallels the mother’s casual attitude when there is so much turmoil within.
The narrator describes that the mother is “beaten two or three times a week”
(Bukowski 12) but “always smiling, wanting us all/to be happy” (Bukowski 4-5).
He states the facts as they are, not lending any emotion to the reality of this
situation and contrasting the positive and negative in a nonchalant manner. He
uses his language and writing style to mask the inner turmoil that is evident,
giving the piece a greater effect.
The simplistic dialogue also helps
readers to unveil the mother’s true feelings. Her enthusiastic comments are
contrary to the tone of the rest of the poem and the events at hand, as she demands
Henry to, “smile!” allow readers to see through her enthusiasm, reinforcing her
feeling of being trapped.
The
same fishbowl concept can be applied to Freddy in Muriel Spark’s The Mandelbaum Gate. Between Freddy’s
constant routine of Israel, Jordan with the Cartwrights, letters to his mother
and Arabic lessons with Abdul, he leads a dreary and safe life, especially
brought down by ties to his family. With no real passion for anything in his
life, the beginning of the book takes on a formal and removed tone similar to
“A Smile to Remember” as the boy describes his mother as a “poor fish,”
indicating helplessness and detachment. Like the false front of the mother in
the poem, Freddy simply “functioned” and because of the constant burden of his
own mother, “he had done for thirty years of his natural history, a letter a
week” (Spark 50). He too swam “around
and around” (Bukowski 1) wasting his life by filling pages with “a trail of
familiar patterns” (Spark 50).
There is a sense of freedom in “A Smile
to Remember” when the fish die and the “mother smiled” hinting she will no
longer surrender and has come to grips with reality. She rids herself of the
symbol reminding her of the prison in which she lives her life, resembling a
new beginning. Freddy experiences this same courage when he disposes the
letters to his mother, Benny and the doctor down the toilet, “dropping the
charred remains one by one” (Spark 144). He slowly relieves himself of this
weight and allows himself to begin an adventure. Freddy symbolically frees
himself as does the mother, but goes further to start an adventure without
burden, steering clear of the “heavy drapes” as depicted in the poem. The previous denial and entrapment is clearly
evident in both pieces, along with the eventual refusal to surrender and
beginning of passion, showing the importance in “disposing of some tiresome
correspondence” (Spark 145).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with your indication of a conceit (extended metaphor) throughout Charles Bukowski's "A Smile to Remember," I see smiling as a coping mechanism employed by the mother to conceal her emotions and the failure of a marriage. Although the father "threw [the goldfish] to the cat" the mother is responsible for killing the fish, which could serve as foreshadowing to the death of the father without change(20). And yes, "it's better to be happy if you can," but this is juxtaposed with the deplorable actions of the husband, who physically abuses his wife on a regular basis(6). The speaker's "mother, poor fish" is indicative of helplessness, the incapacity to achieve change in life(10). Undeterred, the mother acknowledges the physical abuse that she has endures, electing to kill the fish to send a message to the husband. While Bukowski leaves the conclusion of the poem open to interpretation the "mother smil[ing]" (20) serves as the first step and the path toward changing the present. The past is unalterable, but through killing the fish, the mother reveals her own power and perseverance as an unappreciated woman.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your analysis of dialogue. When I read poetry, it’s not always something I think to focus on, but when you brought it up, I understood what it brought to the poem through its sparse syntax and contrasting content. I also like your analysis of the goldfish and their significance. When you first read it in class, I didn't realize that the mother had been the one to kill the fish, so that idea opened up a new viewpoint for me. After considering that viewpoint, I would, however, like to add on a little by expanding upon the father’s role in the fish's death.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, he is the one who "threw them to the cat" (Bukowski 20). The mother kills the fish, proving her determination to release herself from the cycle, but the father is the one to truly end it all, by throwing away the carcasses, the remnants. This could suggest two scenarios. The end of the beatings could either conclude with the father solving his inner problems and no longer beating the family of his own volition, or with the father making a mistake/action that ends in his own demise, where he sets the events in motion for the end of the abuse. Burkowski's ambiguity here elevates the poem and adds another layer to be examined.
While I agree with your indication of a conceit (extended metaphor) throughout Charles Bukowski's "A Smile to Remember," I see smiling as a coping mechanism employed by the mother to conceal her emotions and the failure of a marriage. Although the father "threw [the goldfish] to the cat" the mother is responsible for killing the fish, which could serve as foreshadowing to the death of the father without change (Bukowski 20). And yes, "it's better to be happy if you can," but this is juxtaposed with the deplorable actions of the husband, who physically abuses his wife on a regular basis (Bukowski 6). The speaker's "mother, poor fish" is indicative of helplessness, the incapacity to achieve change in life (Bukowski 10). Undeterred, the mother acknowledges the physical abuse that she has endures, electing to kill the fish to send a message to the husband. While Bukowski leaves the conclusion of the poem open to interpretation the "mother smil[ing]" (Bukowski 20) serves as the first step and the path toward changing the present. The past is unalterable, but through killing the fish, the mother reveals her own power and perseverance as an unappreciated woman. Now, she preserves her identity through showing her only child the uses of an unbridled optimism.
ReplyDeleteAfter exploring your blog, “A Smile to Remember” really caught my eye. You did a great job explaining the poem; your explication definitely helped me pick on things I would not have originally found. I did have a couple of arguments on your explication, though. First, in the death of the goldfish, I do follow your analysis but I think that instead of inserting dead fish to symbolize the mother rising up, I believe it means that perhaps, for the mother, death was the only solution- the only freedom in a sense.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you mentioned the boys detached tone and how the “simplistic diction create denotation that parallels the mother’s casual attitude when there is so much turmoil within.” I don’t think that his mother is casual. I think that she is more brave and courageous than anything else. She is trying to smile for the boy so he doesn’t have to feel and see her pain, even if her attempt doesn’t actually work. Also, I don’t believe the boy has so much a detached tone as he does a tone of inner anguish and confusion. He is just a child and I don’t believe he is detached. Instead, I believe he is suffering just as much as his mother due to their fear of his father. I know I disagreed with you on some of the following but if you disagree, I would definitely like to hear why you disagree with my points.