In Flying Leap, Judy Budnitz writes in such a way that individuals can interpret and relate to her stories indifferently. The stories are rooted enough in the real world to provide concrete value and relevance for the reader who perhaps thinks in a slightly more concrete and realistic manner, but abstract enough that each reader can make it personal, take it to mean something different, or draw his or her own conclusion. Her stories range from very realistic, “What Happened,” to “Skin Care,” a story with some slightly more absurd elements, without losing relevance. A commonality amongst this grouping of short stories is each story deals with very trivial issues, ones most people have either faced or can parallel. Perhaps reader A reads “What Happened”,a story about two sisters, one sister who runs from home after having a biracial child, the other, who narrates the story from her own perspective, revealing her feelings toward her sister and her sadness after her sister runs away, and he/she relates to the underlying racial tension in the story, but reader B may read the story with relation to the other sister, the bystander, the one dealing with so much on the inside while trying to pretend that everything is ‘okay’ externally, or reader C may read “What Happened” as a metaphor for something else. Budnitz’s writing is transitional in the way that so many different points-of-view can derive significance from the same story. Her stories also transcend time and culture. People 100 years ago, or in China could grasp the concepts of her stories and apply them with just as much relevance as today’s reader and tomorrow’s reader. Everyone understands the concept of ‘an elephant in the room’ even if at different times or in different settings a different phase is used to refer to it.
Judy Budnitz’s collection of short stories in Flying Leap displays a more realistic view of tough situations that take place in people’s lives such as divorce, teenage pregnancy, racism, and death. Those are just a few circumstances that are evident in a few of the stories. But as we look deeper into the work of Judy Budnitz, we find that the theme throughout is not about those circumstances that arise during a person’s life, but it is how a person reacts to those “tough” situations during their life. In her book, we find that the people react in different ways depending on the circumstance. I will only touch on two of the circumstances and the character’s reaction.
Why not your Heart?"Guilt" is about a son, Arnie, whose mother is dying from a heart attack. The two aunts of Arnie want him to give up his heart to his mother so that she may live. He is burdened with the decision to give his mom his heart and die, or not to give his heart to his mom and let her die. While this is happening the two aunts are pressuring Arnie into giving his heart to his mom. They guilt trip him by saying, “Your mother worked herself to the bone for you, so you could go to college. She nearly killed herself so you could go and study and make something of yourself.” (Flying Leap, p. 17,18)
Later in the story, we find out that he has decided to give his mother his heart. In this specific circumstance, her son has chosen to give up his life in order to save the life of his mother. As the story continues though, we find out that his mother’s body rejects the heart and dies anyway. Arnie is continuously blamed for his mother’s death. The two aunts deal with their sister dying by putting blame on others. They blame Arnie for not wanting to give his heart away and yet he still gets blamed after his mom dies for giving her a ‘bad heart”. In our realistic world, I believe we tend to put blame on others when death comes into our lives. In this story, it was the two aunts who put blame on Arnie, the son, even when he donated his heart to his mother. Therefore, the common theme in this story is when dealing with death, blame is often put onto another individual. Keep Quiet!"What Happened" is based out of the south, which is an important concept to grasp when reading this short story. Leah, the main individual, works at a diner. The cook at the diner is an African American man named Raymond. A little bit into the story it is revealed that Leah is pregnant. Corey, her boyfriend, at the time admits that it is his baby and they get married. So, Leah has the baby. But as the baby is growing it is looking less and less like the “father”. The baby is named Stan and is dark complected, which is totally opposite of the “father’s” characteristics. Eventually, Corey notices that the baby does not look a thing like him and confronts Leah about it. She explains it by saying, “…he’s mine, not yours.” (Flying Leap, p.152) Immediately after, we find out that Leah has taken the baby and ran away. Some time after Leah’s disappearance, we find that Ellie, her sister, has gone to the diner to talk to Raymond. She asks Raymond some questions and then a few days later Raymond disappears. As a reader we are not told straight answers to whom the father of the baby is, but only clues to assume. On page 143, the story begins by saying, “Things happen sometimes in a way you don’t expect”. (Flying Leap) Leah reacts towards the situation by running away, while her family and others react by pretending the incident never happened.
The Helpfulness of Titles
Budnitz’s use of titles in her short stories is definitely interesting. Her first short story in the collection is titled, “Dog Days.” At first by simply reading the title, readers may think the story may be about lazy days, people acting like dogs, relaxing and enjoying themselves. We find out through reading the stories that in fact, it does have to do with laying around lazily with lack of things to do, but we find out that there is an actual dog in the story that gives the title a whole new meaning. There are actual “Dog Days” where a homeless man dressed as a dog comes around to this family’s home in search for scraps of food. Readers can then apply the two meanings (surface, and deeper level) to this specific title.
Her other stories such as “Scenes from the Fall Fashion Catalog” may give readers a wrong message as well. They may be anticipating something about a model, a fashion magazine, or something along those lines, only to find out that this isn’t exactly true when we find out that each fashion statement has a story behind it that really has little to do with the actual choice of clothing. We find out that “Got Spirit” is about the stereotypical cheerleaders, and “Average Joe” is about an average male named Joe, but in each of these stories, even the ones that do have a relative significance due to immediate assumption of the title, many of her stories’ titles have a deeper meaning. This makes it interesting in reading her later stories, because the reader’s anticipation of a future story may change due to their views on past stories.
Relating to the Theorists:
Henri Bergson argues that laughter has a social function, and that comedy is purely human. He also says that laughter is the laughter of a group. Bergson says that we get humor out of humiliating others. This can be seen in “Got Spirit.” This story is about a group of stereotypical cheerleaders that find the need to be skinny, date the football players, be close knit, and fulfill the expectations of their peers as to what a cheerleader is and does. They take this position seriously, and humiliate one another in order to stick to their standards. We as readers find this humiliation funny. When there is a conflict between Staci and Bunny on the cheer squad, Bunny notices that Staci is gaining some weight. Bunny says “Do you think you need to throw up?” (Flying Leap P. 65) Stacy replies “No,” (65) and Bunny says, “Well, I think you do” (65). She then goes on saying how she is “doing this for [the squad].” We as readers may find this funny, because Bunny is humiliating Staci in front of everyone else, telling her what she finds necessary, even though Staci doesn’t clearly agree. This instance we find sheer ridiculous, yet the cheerleaders find it a very serious matter.
This instance between the cheerleaders can be analyzed on another level by Hobbes. He says that humor is a social process, and that people feel the need to be superior to one another, and search for power. In this particular part of “Got Spirit” Bunny obviously is the leader of the squad and feels that she has the power to tell the teammates to do what she believes is right of them, even though she may be acting out of her own selfish needs. Hobbes agrees that it is human nature to be selfish. He says that humor arises when we feel we have gained superiority over someone else. So Bunny receives humor out of gaining power over Staci. When Bunny states that she is doing this out of appreciation for the whole squad she is attempting to cover up her selfishness, and that she is really doing it for her own benefit and superiority.
The style an author chooses to use in his or her writing is extremely important; it determines the effectiveness of a literary piece’s impact on a people. Judy Budnitz does an incredible job captivating her audience in Flying Leap. Not only does she use literary pieces to impact her readers, but she uses situations that people can relate to in their own lives to captivate the reader.
Works Cited:
Bergson, Henri. "Laughter": An Essay on the Meaning of Comic.
Budnitz, Judy. Flying Leap. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.
"Cure for Stinky Dog." YouTube. April 10, 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnuBP2McXjQ
Jennifer Hasselbach, Rachel Kohler, and Erika Edwards
1 comment:
Thanks for this posting your review of Flying Leap. You begin by writing, “When reading her collection of short stories in Flying Leap the reader may be slightly confused at first when they don’t find many “laugh out loud” moments in her stories.” Just to play devil’s advocate, I challenge you to hop over to your classmates clip of Budnitz reading from her work. Note the audible laughter. As we’ve discussed in class, humor falls on a continuum, and it’s important to think less about our volume of laughter than it is about the situations that undergird the “humorous” moment.
You write, “A commonality amongst this grouping of short stories is each story deals with very trivial issues, ones most people have either faced or can parallel.” I wonder here if you mean that the work of Budnitz draws on experiences that everyone can relate to—death, loss, loneliness, pregnancies, etc. She certainly covers a range of thematic issues, which is interesting. You did well to point out the underlying racial tension in the story “What Happened.” In some stories it seems that the “deeper” issue she addresses is in the background. Consider, too, the idea of war in “Dog Days.”
You write, “Her stories also transcend time and culture. People 100 years ago, or in China could grasp the concepts of her stories and apply them with just as much relevance as today’s reader and tomorrow’s reader. Everyone understands the concept of ‘an elephant in the room’ even if at different times or in different settings a different phase is used to refer to it.” I wonder if you might explain yourself a bit further here. For instance, how might you explain Bergson’s idea that laughter is always rooted in a particular community? Do you think comedy ever dates itself?
You’ve linked two stories—“What Happened” and “Guilt” by the general theme of “individual’s reactions.” You may have been even more successful to offer less summary and more critical analysis. Why do you think Budnitz conceals racial tension, death, guilt, war, etc., under the guise of humor? Do you think this adds to or takes away from her investigation of said themes? Thanks for bringing in the ideas of the theorists, though I’d have been interested in an even closer reading of “Got Spirit.” In this particular story, the humor seems to come from playing on and resisting stereotype.
Since this is a review of her work, how was her work received or reviewed in newspapers and online? Might be interesting to note weather this kind of writing is critically or popularly praised.
Make sure you make a connection between the media you use and your essay. How does the dog clip fit into the arguments you’re making? Are you implying there is a deeper meaning to this clip? Also, be sure you are proofreading your posts before you publish them. Perhaps it’s a good idea to name one individual the Final Editor.
Post a Comment