Mansfield & Sargeson
Norris Frank Davey was born into a, at that time, moderately comfortable family whose fortunes changed when Norris’s father studied accountancy and became the Hamilton Town Clerk. In the early 1920’s Norris studied Law, qualifying in 1926. He then traveled to the United Kingdom, returning to New Zealand in 1928. Norris, a homosexual, was arrested in 1929 on moral charges which were later acquitted. King (1995) believed this caused Norris to abandon his legal profession. and adopt a pen name, Frank Sargeson ,( his Mother’s maiden name).
A Great Day was published in 1940. His style differed from both British or American modes of writing. He used colloquial New Zealand language, spare and compressed. He avoids any overt moralizing and leaves the story to speak for itself, inserting subtle clues into the text. leaving the reader to decide what their interpretation of the morality of the story is.
My Thoughts:
Sargeson portrayed himself as Fred. That Ken was a potential sexual interest, complicated by Fred’s long- time friend, Mary who is now living in the same house as Ken and Fred feels he has lost that friendship and that he has been supplanted in Mary’s affections.
Ken has attributes; fine physic, education, money – all attributes Fred lacks so this promotes envy, possibly hatred. One could suggest a sexual jealousy which all combine to provide a motive for murder.
Fred, despite his limited education, demonstrates a high intellect, using ironic wording in his conversations with Ken who is unaware of the malice in Fred’s questions.
I believe Sargeson has taken a momentary thought or situation and created a wonderful self (sub-conscious) portrayal of that thought or moment.
Mansfield
Kathleen Mansfield Beauchamp was born 1988 into a middle to upper class family. Her father Hal rose to financial prominence in Wellington when he purchased WM Bannatyne & Co. Her mother is portrayed as emotionally distanced from her 5 children, leaving their upbringing in the hands of her mother, Mrs Dyer.
Kathleen adopted a writing pseudonym, K.Mansfield, around the age of eighteen, which also saw the start of her turbulent, tempestuous short life.
The Garden Party was written in 1922, a year before she haemorrhaged to death.
My thoughts:
Katherine spent her younger days rebelling against her father and her “comfortable” life. She fought the conventional roles and methods of middle class New Zealand.
The Garden Party is evocative of her childhood demonstrating class distinction, a hesitant emergence of maturity, a tragedy that needs to be addressed.
Katherine has captured all the above with vividness and shows her immense ability to view other peoples’ lives and circumstances and present them in miniscule detail.
I found the black hat to be the central theme of this short story. The story builds to, being given the hat, to feeling mature in the hat, to apologising for the hat in the face of poverty. And at the end of the story,I believe, is her awareness of how superficial the whole garden party had been.
Much has been written about both authors by gifted, educated people. My interest in their writing lies more in “from whence they came”. Both had difficult lives. They came from different decades and differing socio-economic backgrounds. They told their stories in different ways, both of which still have relevance, historical importance and raise discomforting questions about identity, belonging and desire. 2018