Noble acts do not always reach the goals we desire. Daisy's failures are proof of this. In Teenage Wasteland, all attempts to set her son straight fall flat. Why is this so? Daisy obviously has good intentions, so why is she subverted? The simple answer is that the ethical or moral consequences are not correlated with an action effecting them. For example, that someone wishes to solve world hunger does not necessitate the success of their charitable acts; if it did, we would live in a perfect world!
Now it must be asked: why does Daisy fail? What flaws of character or action led Donny to his eventual escape? First in Daisy's list of failings is her inability to be honest with her son; it is clearly no help to Donny to see his parents assert their trust in him and at the same time demonstrate the opposite (38). Clearly Donny hasn't earned their trust, and if they had been clear about this from the outset, the issues would have been much more easily dealt with. In addition, this dancing around the real problems allows Donny to feign innocence in several matters when he is obviously at fault; when Donny is expelled for having beer in his locker and tries to cover for himself, he pulls the trust card as soon as his mother begins questioning the veracity of his tale (41).
The second of Daisy's failings is her trust in a man who is clearly not to be trusted. By allowing Cal's authority to override her own, she is subverting the normal hierarchy of the family, allowing Donny's will to be placed on an equal, if not greater, level compared to her own; this is because Cal's will coincides with Donny's will and so by any reasonable viewpoint Donny's authority can be seen above his mother's. Cal's total lack of knowledge regarding his charge is evident; rather than the psychologist's assessment that Donny is emotionally stable (37), Cal asserts that he was “emotionally distrubed” (42). If Cal is so inept at improving Donny's situation, why is it that Daisy allows this to go on? As was suggested in class last week, the most likely reason is for her own good; because giving Cal responsibility will lessen hers, Daisy's actions appeal to her indecisive nature.
One must remember, however, that these numerous faults on Daisy's part in no way remove Donny's faults. Daisy is guilty “only” of giving Donny completely free reign in his life and accountability towards no one but the school (which he doesn't give a damn about anyway). It is Donny, however, who actually makes those choices and acts in such a way. No one can absolve him by claiming that all his actions were a result of his environment; while they may have provided an opportunity for some of these habits to arise, they were in no way the cause of it. To assert otherwise dehumanizes Donny by depriving him of his free will and reducing him to a large set of reactions against the environment around him. Either way, it doesn't look too good for Donny;is he will-less or a delinquent? (528)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Alex, I think your point about the lack of connection between intention and consequence is well taken. Also, I see what you mean about Daisy: she isn't strong enough, confident enough, honest enough, or even trusting enough of her own maternal instincts, and that combination proves to be a damaging one indeed. Whether Donny lacks will or is the proverbial bad seed is harder to say, but you raise some good questions.
ReplyDelete