Review of AWS - "The Monkey’s Paw" (Part 7)
Oh, yes, the title is not deceiving. This is a retelling of "The Monkey’s Paw."
Which is not a fairytale. It’s a horror story.
So, apparently the Anonymous Narrator (A.N.) has such scorn for fairytales that he can’t even tell them apart from other genres.
For those who don’t know, "The Monkey’s Paw" is a classic 1902 short story by W.W. Jacobs. In it, Mr. and Mrs. White and their son, Herbert, are introduced to a mummified monkey’s paw by a friend. The friend tells them that the monkey’s paw will grant three wishes, but that it’s better for it to be destroyed, as it brings nothing but misery to those who use it. The family disregards his advice and tragedy inevitably befalls them.
So, this is a horror story and, as such, it does not have a happy ending. So, what is the point of retelling it and including it in this anthology? Especially when it is not a fairytale?
Remember how in the prologue, A.N. claimed that he was only doing this because of a perverse need to ruin those more beautiful and fortunate? Let’s look at his track record so far.
"Wild Swan." Okay, I guess that we can assume that the prince and his brothers were handsome, so I suppose that a swan wing (which was from the original story) and failed marriages are their punishment for that?
"Crooked Old Lady." The unhappy ending happens to the witch. Who is neither beautiful nor virtuous and is the villain of the fairytale. And yet Hansel and Gretel, the heroic children from the original story, get away with killing her.
"Jacked." True, Jack and his mother undergo character assassination, as did Hansel and Gretel, and wind up in an unfulfilling life, but the giant and his wife - who, again, are the villains of their fairytale and who are not depicted as beautiful - die at the end, just like they do in the original fairytale.
And now we come to this. A horror story with characters who will already have their lives destroyed. What could A.N. possibly do to make it worse?
Why, give insulting depictions of the characters, of course!
"If he’s cross about supporting his parents; if he chafes at his sexless nights or wonders about a youth devoid of carousing and petty criminality; if he’s upset about certain premature afflictions brought on by his labors (that tricky knee…) he never brings it up."
That sentence is describing Herbert, by the way. This is a common pattern that A.N. uses throughout this book. He describes a character’s outer thoughts and then reveals their sordid and nasty inner thoughts, but closes it off with "Well, obviously they don’t really think that or realize that they want that" with the implication that, yes, they actually do.
Oh, poor Herbert and his sexless nights. Why can’t he be like Jack, whom A.N. criticized for banging random people and being a feckless, troublemaking brat? Oh, no, sex is always of the upmost importance. Which is why it must be brought up at every opportunity. Didn’t you wonder about Herbert’s sex life or lack thereof when reading the original story, fair readers? Because A.N. sure did.
Despite living in a hovel, the Whites are content. Or…are they?
"There is no hint among them of Why did I let you bring me here? Or When will you die, so I can escape?"
This is the same thing that A.N. did with Herbert: bring up what he thinks a normal person would think and claim that the characters are oblivious to their true desires. It doesn’t seem to occur to him how amazingly nasty and narcissistic the second question is. Or if it does, he doesn’t care, because it is his life's work to make everybody as horrid and hateful as him.
As in the original story, a friend of Mr. White’s comes over. A.N. mentions that he’s in the army and has gone to India for "the Empire", so this is supposed to be taking place in the same time period as the original story. The tale goes on as usual, except for one interjection from A.N. about Mr. and Mrs. White. Where Mrs. White wonders "why she married a man who’d convey her, after their modest village wedding, to a place like this" and Mr. White "does not inquire inwardly…about his choice for a wife so lacking in ambition and faith"
Show of hands, who’s surprised by this?
So, Mr. White saves the monkey’s paw from being thrown into the fire, despite the warnings of his friend, and his wife impulsively wishes for 200 pounds (while in the original tale, it was Mr. White who made the wish). The next day, their son leaves to work at the factory and the Whites eventually receive the news that their son has been killed and that they are due 200 pounds as compensation.
Of course, A.N. refuses to leave scenes to the imagination, so instead of simply saying that the son died, as the original story did, he provides a graphic description of how the son must have been killed by the machine.
And then, of course, comes the famous scene. Mrs. White is overwhelmed with grief and tells her husband to wish for their son to return. He does so. On the way home, they sense that someone or something is following them. They enter their house. They hear a knock on their door. And then…
"The mauled corpse, the creature made now of shattered bone and crushed mask of face…"
A.N. ruins it.
Wow.
*claps* Well done, A.N. Not only have you amply demonstrated that you don’t understand fairytales, you have just clearly shown how you don’t understand horror.
Yes, a lot of horror films and books do show you the monster. But a lot of others don’t, because their creators understand that what’s unseen can be imagined and that imagination can sometimes be more terrifying than the reality.
The reason why this scene is so frightening and memorable is because the reader never sees what’s behind the door. It’s entirely left to the reader’s imagination. Is it a mutilated corpse? Is it Herbert, alive and well? Does it look like Herbert, but act differently? We don’t know. And that is the point.
And A.N. just killed it. There’s no more suspense, no more dread. No fear of the unknown. He just came right out and told the reader what the creature looked like. No surprises here. No imagination.
But again, why should I be surprised? Imagination is a key part of those stupid fairytales, after all. It's just for kids.
And keep in mind that when A.N. gives this description, the Whites haven’t seen their son yet. They don’t know what he looks like yet. The fear that the scene inspires in the reader is the same fear that Mr. White feels, because like the reader, he doesn’t know what’s behind that door. But A.N. decided to play omniscient narrator and now the reader can’t share Mr. White’s reaction.
And, in fact, there is no reaction described. Even though Mr. White does not wish his son away in this version. Why? Because "he’s not sure he could survive the sorrow and fury she’d aim at him when she turned back from the empty threshold".
And before the story cuts to a scene break, that is the last line.
No reaction from Mr. and Mrs. White upon seeing the remnant of their son. Nope, A.N. made sure to end on what this story is really about: the disintegration of the White’s marriage.
So, Mr. White didn’t use his third wish. Now what?
This could have been an interesting what-if exercise and maybe it was. Heck, if this was supposed to be a dark comedy, it could have been bleakly funny, if that had been the tone of this story. But it’s not.
Their son continues to live with them. He just sits down and no longer needs to eat. The Whites cover the walls with all of his photos, and burn incense and fill the house with flowers to cover the smell.
They have a corpse living in their home. They have an animated corpse living in their house. And yet what do the Whites think about?
Mrs. White nostalgically remembers her ex-boyfriend that she used to date when she was a teenager and thinks that her life would be easier if her husband just dropped dead, while Mr. White admits that he doesn’t like her whistling habit and wishes that she’d go off with her ex-boyfriend (you know, just like how the giant let his wife lie to him in "Jacked" because a lying and deceitful wife is more exciting than a boring old drudge who’s 'tediously' faithful to you).
YOUR REANIMATED SON IS LIVING IN YOUR HOUSE. WHY THE HECK ARE YOU WHINING ABOUT THINGS LIKE EX-BOYFRIENDS AND WHISTLING?!
Again, this is not supposed to be a dark comedy. We are supposed to feel all sad and depressed that the Whites are too obsessed with pretending that everything’s fine to realize how unhappy they are.
Or, you know, notice the deteriorating zombie in their living room. Who’s also tragically sad because he needs to move on - oh, why can’t you let me go?
I’m sorry, this is a story for grown-ups? This is the ‘mature’ version of the story, where the Whites are so stupid and self-centered that they care more about their midlife crisis than the fact that there’s a zombie in their house?
But of course, they wouldn’t care. Because A.N. doesn’t care. A zombie, after all, is a fantastical creature and it has no place in A.N.’s masterpiece of literary realism about an unhappily married couple - oh, wait, what was the story that this was based on again? Something about a cursed monkey’s paw that could grant wishes? With the obvious moral lessons of 1) don’t play around with supernatural forces and 2) be careful what you wish for? Lessons that a ten-year-old could figure out from reading the story?
No, no, forget about that. What’s more important is A.N.’s frankly embarrassing, neverending rants against marriage and aging. That’s clearly what "The Monkey's Paw" was all about!
I’m sure that W.W. Jacobs is totally not rolling over in his grave.