Prac Crit on "The Getting of Wisdom"

This analysis of a prose passage for SL English was sent in by "Suzumiya Haruhi"; the passage is an extract taken from a text called "The Getting of Wisdom". Thanks for submitting!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The passage describes the incidents in a classroom after the discovery of a theft from the point of view of the protagonist, Laura. Through her eyes we are presented with a rather innocent, unadulterated view of the happenings around her which are in contrast to the views of the adult figure, the principal. This brings forth the idea of how children, in their innocence, may sometimes see situations with more clarity.

The passage begins by introducing the setting – a rather old classroom, as seen from the “blackened, ink-scored, dusty desks, with eternally dry ink-wells.” The humble setting makes the theft, which occurs later, all the more poignant since the girl appears to be comparatively poor, even to others who are not likely to be that well off themselves.

The fact that the passage is seen through Laura’s eyes again is significant as Laura does not appear to be that similar to the other children, being on the “tiptoe of expectation” whereas the rest “only whispered and wondered”. She appears to be full of childlike curiosity even as she “[thrusts] her fingers, in and out” in expectation. Her behavior is in contrast to the principal’s, who perhaps personifies the idea of adulthood, as he carries himself to impress others, as shown through the “low impressive tone” and vivid “oratory” on the girl’s crime. However, while this is so, he does not appear to possess the childlike sense of empathy that Laura is able to have for the thief in this case, perhaps revealing a gap between childhood and adulthood, in terms of being “human”.

Indeed, his main purpose in reprimanding the child appears to be to condemn her, not to help her. This is shown through the description of the “unhappy culprit [rising], then to be cast down and [remain] glued to the floor”. There is an obvious contrast between the image of rising up and the idea of being “cast down” and this emphasizes the perhaps overzealous view of justice the principal appears to take. The fact that the culprit is prepared to remain “glued to the ground” shows the immense lack of sympathy from the principal.

The culprit, on the other hand, is given a highly unflattering description from the author, and from Laura. She is not only “pale and silly-looking”, but is also a “very ugly girl”. This description, probably reflecting the mindset of Laura, emphasizes that Laura’s empathy for the culprit is genuine, not bases on any physical redeeming qualities the culprit may have. In this ugly girl the reader is presented with an almost stereotypical situation, one in which the ugliest is also the one with the “worst” character, in this case being a thief. Normally, this would lead us to immediate condemnation and disgust but Laura’s insights allow us as the readers to empathize and perhaps see things as they really are.

From the passage however, we can see that Laura appears to appreciate the principal a lot. She appears to “[hang] on to his lips, [appreciate] his points and the skillful way he worked up his climaxes”. The author reveals to us that the principal is likely to be a rather educated person with notable oratorical skills. He appears to be the symbol of perfection in adulthood that even Laura appears to appreciate. However, his speech reflects the fact that he perceives the situation to be a “textbook” situation. He begins with “introductory remarks”, moves on from “general” discussion to details, and generally works his points as if giving a grand speech. However, impressive this may be, the author makes it feel rather mechanical, without feeling, by giving perhaps and ideal speech on crime and punishment. This could be an attempt by the author to use the principal as a figure of “perfection” that should not be achieved. His condescending remarks about the “motor impulse of thefts” being because a “lolly shop had stretched out its octopus arms to you” reflects a general disdain for childishness. However, the principal fails to realize that every situation does have external factors, all of which serve to complicate the situation. Through him the author suggests that perhaps the wisdom, as reflected by the title, is not going by the book, but in fact understanding each situation for what it is.

Laura understands the difference between the “needs” of “tram-fare on a rainy morning” and “wants” of lollipops from a “lolly shop”. Through this, the author appears to give a social commentary regarding the theme of general prosperity as compared to the austere situation faced by Annie Johns. Laura’s thoughts reveal the difference between theft out of need and theft because “a lolly shop had stretched out its arms to you”. This rather comical statement used by the principal not only dehumanizes the situation but also reveals the social divide between the privileged class who have all they need, and possibly want, and the proletariats who have nothing, and, in Annie John’s case, not even looks.

The author uses the main characters Laura and the principal to bring across the theme of innocence versus experience; only in this case, it is the younger one, who would otherwise be perceived to be more innocent, that is the more experienced one. Laura knows “what it is to be poor”. This is her experience, and, can be contrasted to the principal’s, whose perception of being poor is simply not having enough money to buy a “lolly”. Through this the author presents the idea that age is not a barrier when it comes to being more experienced. That it is the experiences which make one more experienced. This is shown particularly through her realization that Annie Johns stole little not to “avoid detection”, as Mr. Strachey had supposed, but rather because she felt that “a few odd coins could not matter”. This statement led myself as a reader to sympathize with Annie Johns and strengthened my view of her character.

Laura’s views throughout the passage represent feelings we all had but perhaps did not express, such as how she is “thrilled” by Miss Zielinski’s tears, even as seeing one spectator at a play moved to tears “intensifies his neighbors’ enjoyment”. Her myriad of feelings are in contrast to the general feelings of the adults who have mostly “stolid” faces, thus expressing their lack of feeling. This is interesting when we compare it to Annie John who is also hiding behind a stony mask of a face. The lack of explicit emotions expressed on either side could perhaps represent a lack of feeling to which Annie Johns is also being driven to due to her being reprimanded.

In the passage we may note that other than Mr. Strachey and Miss Annie Johns, most of the characters given names are those with dissenting viewpoints, who are not perhaps as unfeeling. These characters include Bertha and Miss Zielinski, the latter who sympathizes strongly enough to be moved to “tears”. Interestingly, her tears are not likely to be the product of Mr. Strachey’s speech but instead of her realization of the true circumstances. By glorifying the deviant voices such as Laura’s in the passage, the author appears to appeal to us as readers to judge situations, and people, not by our “adult” viewpoints but from a childlike “human” perspective whereby we are able to sympathize with others.