Bad Boys?

Elliot Ginsburg
AP English Royal
Paper ID #
Word count 821

Tom Boyle's story Greasy Lake tells of three confused 19 year old boys whose "bad boy" statuses were tested, and subsequently revoked. The narrator and his two friends are glaring examples of the dilemma faced by countless young adults as they strive to find their identities, while at the same time fearing society’s opinion. This desire to fit in will eventually prove to become a driving and blinding force behind the action of the story. As a result, the narrator, Jeff, and Digby find themselves conforming to the clothing and lifestyles of the stereotypical “bad boy” of the 1960’s from “torn up leather jackets” to “cocaine”(1), while maintaining a comical hint of their true selves; good guys who are noticeably well educated.
The narrator and his two companions, Digby and Jeff, possess descriptions that are far from that of what most would consider a "bad boy". Digby, a Cornell attendee who in a true bad boy manner, "allowed his father to pay his tuition", sports a gold star earring to show his true rebellion against, well they don't really know. Both Jeff and Digby are given an air of superiority with regards to coolness in the narrator’s eyes especially because of their “mirror shades” which they are described as wearing, “at breakfast and dinner, in the shower, in closets and in caves”(3). The narrator considers these shades the root of their badness. In fact these “mirrors” are an analogy for the way the two boys shield their true selves from the world instead only reflecting and imitating what they are led to believe is cool. The narrator’s references to Westmoreland’s decision, Anne Frank, and Sabine women, demonstrate his above average education while far less hidden clues such as Digby’s enrollment at Cornell clearly show that these boys are at the very least extremely well educated “bad boys”.
After explaining to the reader what it means to be a “bad boy” in the 1960’s, Boyle emphasizes the boys’ immaturity by beginning the story with the boys cruising around in the narrator’s mother’s Bel Air, as Jeff is vomiting out the window. This scene immediately allows the reader to understand the immaturity and youth of the boys. This immaturity goes hand and hand with lack of definite identity which later proves to be an almost fatal combination. Eventually, after exhausting all other options, the boys drunkenly arrive at Greasy Lake filled with confidence, and strained of common sense and bashfulness. The boys wrongfully mistake the only other car by the lake to be that of their friend Tony and proceed to flash their lights at the car and swarm around it. This mistake proves costly as a real “bad greasy character”(9) emerges from the car after having his romance interrupted. The bad greasy character in accordance with his status as a real “bad” guy reacts immediately to defend his status as bad in front of his lover. His action is to kick an unsuspecting narrator in the face before similarly dispatching Digby and his martial arts approach and Jeff with his Mike Tyson approach. As his friends are easily dealt with, the narrator is blind sided by reality, filled with fear and, and commandeered by rage and revenge. The narrator reached for the tire iron he kept under his seat because “bad characters always keep tire irons under the driver’s seat.”(11) Thus, the narrator charging, “like a kamikaze, mindless, raging, and stung with humiliation” delivered an almost life taking blow to the “bad greasy character.” Jeff and Digby, witnessing this act of “badness”, and consumed by the same rage and embarrassment that drove the narrator, fell easy victim to the empowering comfort provided to members of a mob. Thus, the three boys saw themselves defined as real “bad boys” feeling the entitlement of their decided identities. This transformation and emotional overload drove the boys together into a pack, defined and controlled by hormones and irrational thought. The boys were effectively reduced to dogs with, “eyes masked with lust” (17) and turned their attention to the “fox” (15) and began like wolves to attack their prey. The boys were eventually brought back to reality by a spotlight, and just as suddenly as they became animals they were once again humanized and their strength nullified. The boys eventually escaped unharmed physically.
Emotionally the boys were stranded, lost inside of themselves as the story comes to an end. The clothes, such as Jeff’s leather jacket were gone, signifying the departure of their bad boy status for good. The narrator’s discovery of the dead biker, who represents the top of the hierarchal chain of the stereotypical “bad ass” solidified the eventual reality of a real bad boy. This realization coupled with the offers from the two attractive girls, drugs and sex (implied); affirms the sincerity of the boys decision to let their bad boy lives die at Lake Greasy.
(821)

"Dope"

“Then I asked if he wanted to smoke some dope with me.” (57) It might just be me ( I'd doubt it though) but when I read this line my head jerked back from the semi daze of monotony that I was fixated in while reading Raymond Carver's story. These few words suddenly changed the setting and overall vibe of the story (or at least as long as it took me to read them a second time and confirm that I was in fact reading the same story). With the injection of “dope”, instantly the story changed from one about the boring monotonous life of a forty something year old man and his wife, living in a suburb and possibly experiencing tension in their marriage because of a “blind man”, to one of personal adventures, risks and stretching of one’s comfort zone.

This shift in the story, catalyzed by the husband’s offer of dope is impossible to miss. Yet, it is the reason that Carver chose to insert it into the story that is so puzzling. I subscribe to a belief that in a short story, everything has a purpose. Even those who do not fully take this to heart must admit that the injection of marijuana into the story is in no way a small detail. I wonder why Carver found a need to put cannabis into his story: it seems as if it could have flown perfectly smoothly without. One explanation is that “dope” was simply used as a wow factor or “did I just read that line?” Though it is possible this was the case, I would hope that the reader’s attention and focus would not be wasted on a red herring. With this optimism, I venture to say that Carver used “dope” as a tool in two ways. First, it was a connection that Robert and the husband were able to share, the first such connection without the wife acting as a bridge. This connection allowed the husband to see Robert by himself, as a man, without having to see Robert in the context of Robert’s relationship with the husband’s wife. Once the husband’s jealousy was temporarily displaced, it paved the way for the two men to bond further in their forced attention to “The Cathedral”. Also Carver’s use of cannabis furthered the two men’s relationship because for the first time it was an experience/ activity that the narrator (husband) felt more experienced and knowledgeable about than Robert. Before the introduction of “dope”, the reader got the feeling that Robert was jealous because he felt inferior in the eyes of his wife to the blind man. Since it was Robert’s first time, the narrator instantly took on a more confident tone with his discovery of something that he did better than Robert. This confidence allowed the husband to put down his guard just long enough to truly befriend Robert.

Word count (486)

A&P without tunnel vision

In our class discussion of Updike's story, A and P, I believe we allowed ourselves to "PCDS" our analysis of the story. What I mean by this is that we are guilty of human nature: we analyze and interpret literature from the perspective of our own lives and events we have experienced. As a result of this human tendency our relatively economically, educationally age nondiverse class, susceptible to reaching an agreed opinion of something in a novel while never seeing the other side.Such an incident of tunnel vision occurred in our class discussion of A and P. When we looked at Sammy’s position as a 19 year old store clerk, we unanimously concluded that it was simply a summer job. This finalized our perception of; Sammy, the right or wrongness of his decision and the magnitude of its impact, was greatly influenced by this unquestioned conclusion. Based on the pretense that it was a mere summer job, we characterized Sammy as a very emotional teenage boy who made a bad decision when caught in the moment, but in no measure a life altering one. However, this conclusion does not perfectly fit with the story. As we read on, Sammy’s boss, Lengel, is quoted as saying, “you don’t want to do this to your mom and dad” and he proceeds to say, “You’ll feel this for the rest of your life.” Legel’s quote referring to the feelings of Sammy’s parents abut Sammy’s decision could fit with his job being a summer job, though it also opens the door to the idea that this was an important job for Sammy. Perhaps his family needs the money which would, in the 60’s, suggest that Sammy might not be financially able to attend college. Legel’s second quote sends the reader into the door opened by his first lines. Deciding to quit a summer job may be a big, bad and brash decision, but it is not a decision that would be considered one to be regretted for the rest of Sammy’s life. Losing a summer job after all, leaves more time for sleeping in, hanging out with friends, and in Sammy’s case maybe even going to the beach a little bit more. No, Sammy’s decision to quit was a regrettable one because it was his immediate, and possibly long term, future. He walked out on his career over some girls in bathing suits. This is reaffirmed by Sammy’s final words, “I felt how hard the world was going to be to me hereafter.” Once again one would not have this pessimistic tone after simply losing a summer job. These are the words and thoughts of an adult fired from his or her job after several years.
(460)