Gina-Marie An’s Response to Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird: The “Different” Characters

The text starts out by introducing Scout’s family and how they fit in their Southern town, Maycomb. Right away, Scout’s brother is a character that is visually different than others – Jem broke his arm and his arm is described as being “somewhat short than his right” (3) But, despite becoming slightly different in this way, he is described by Scout as not caring at all as long as he can pass and punt around (3). I think Dill’s wittiness matches this carefree attitude Jem has. When Jem teases him about his height, Dill says, “I’m little but I’m old.” (7) It’s very characteristic of how he feels about being noticeably small at seven years of age. That is not the only way he is described as different, though. Scout portrays him as “a curiosity,” (8) with “snow white hair.” (8) It seems like Dill might have albinism, but it isn’t obvious in the text because Scout and Jem’s don’t have out-loud reactions to that specific part of his appearance. I think children are not born to be prejudice – they learn prejudice through adults. They are, however, born with curiosity and it was clear that Scout did think a lot about Dill’s appearance. It didn’t impact their friendship though. It’s brushed off and soon enough, the couplet becomes a trio. 

I think this is important to think about – how the text is in the young child’s perspective. I know there may be arguments about how kids bully or how kids are inherently scared if a person is drastically different from them. But that is rooted in our parenting and culture, to be afraid of what is different. And that is seen all of the time in people with disabilities.

The man in the house is possibly a misunderstood character who can be looked at from a disabled perspective – and I think this character will be built onto more as the story goes on – the Radleys from “The Radley Place.” There are a lot of negative connotations and rumors going around about this “peculiar home,” stories of attempted murders and creepy faces staring at you through the window. Calpurnia also seemed to dislike him and spat at the sight of him – but he is sick. He is literally dying. From a disability perspective – I thought, perhaps he might be mute, as he never spoke to anybody… and he is further isolated as the townfolk don’t take the time to know how sick he is and to what extent. When his older brother takes his place, the children make a game out of touching this “haunted” house, but nobody really knows who this Mr. Nathan is all about. 

I’m also interested in chapters 2 and 3, as we are introduced to characters that the narrator does have definite prejudice against. It is very straightforwardly described by Scout: these characters deserve less because they already have less. I’d like to start with Walter Cunningham, the farm child whose family was economically shot. Lee writes them out to be sympathized with: they don’t accept anything they can’t pay back, they’re very righteous. Yet, because this is made normal in Maycomb town, the young girl Scout thinks that is what he deserves because he is already made out to deserve less in their town. 

Then when you think there can be no one less well off than Walter, the author introduces us to Burns Ewell who is even less fortunate than Walter. Scout’s conceptually thinking the same thing here- that he deserves what he is – a filthy, mean boy… and the reader may wonder how or what it feels like to be him; poor and unwanted by everyone around him… may even pity him. Yet, all of the first graders don’t pity or care at all – they all console the hurt teacher and give her their sympathies for how awful the child was, not even giving a second chance to sympathize over his situation. And it’s not a surprise – this is his third year in first grade and it’s obvious the system and the town have made this the boy’s reality. And Lee beautifully frames the idea of societal constructed prejudice when talking through Atticus… “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view-until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” (33)

Word count: 730

I pledge. Gina-Marie An.

Richard’s Response to John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men and Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird.

Word Count: 67.6

Disabilities, both physical and developmental, have lasting effects on both the individual with one or more disabilities, along with those who help care for the individual. Yet unfortunately, society can be negative with projecting a lack of empathy and understanding for the individual and the challenges they face on a daily basis. In both Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird, we are presented with two stories which incorporate disabilities, and how others treat the disability as something to fear or discriminate, instead of people putting themselves in the shoes of that individual to try and see things from their perspective. And sadly, we continue to see such fear and discrimination even to this day.

In the novella Of Mice and Men, we meet the character of Lennie; a tall, somewhat muscular individual who is intellectually challenged with not knowing his own physical strength, and who’s unable to adequately process the consequences of his actions before having carried them out.

Lennie’s caretaker George throughout the story, defends Lennie and tries to get Lennie to act as close to a normal person as Lennie is capable. When George tests Lennie on what he is going to do upon arriving at the ranch, Lennie thinks for a moment before replying back that “[he] ain’t gonna say nothin’” (p. 6), signaling that George didn’t trust Lennie to stay out of trouble, especially as people could openly discriminate against intellectual disabilities back during the depression era.

While George cared for Lennie at times throughout the story, his attitude and actions at times were clearly challenged I feel, in seeing Lennie as a liability of sorts. For example, he didn’t want Lennie to talk when they first arrived at the ranch, he was iffy about trusting Lennie with a puppy, and at the end of the story when the small gathering of ranch workers set out to track Lennie down following the death of Curley’s wife, George takes it upon himself to kill Lennie by his own hands before the mob could reach them. Whether George saw the killing of Lennie as an act of mercy to avoid being hanged by the mob who were hunting for him, or if it was for a more personal reason such as allowing George to be free of what had been holding him back for such a long time, we may never know. Yet, George struggled to put himself in Lennie’s shoes, often electing to talk down to Lennie as a child who would never amount to anything on his own.

In the beginning of Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, we then see how young children can be affected and made to fear someone based on rumors alone, particularly if the target of the rumors has a disability. When the children hear stories about the Radley house and of how when Arthur (Boo) Radley was purportedly trying to kill his parents in a calm, psychotic manner, his father insisted afterwards that Arthur not be locked up in any asylum (p. 12). But the neighborhood began spreading rumors which reached the impressionable minds of children, instilling a sense of fear about the house. Children feared the house, and when Dill challenged Jem to try and lure either Boo, or his elder brother Nathan Radley out of the house, Jem was clearly scared to go near the house, until the terms of Dill’s dare were altered to just touching the side of the house. But kids would vividly imagine the pecan nuts from the Radley yard to be poisoned (p. 10). That jumping to conclusions and fear which had been instilled in the minds of local children, meant that along with most adults in the region, no one wanted to even associate with the Radley family because of the misunderstanding over Boo’s (as of yet unknown) intellectual disability. That fear leads the children to pull stunts of ridicule against the family, such as the dare given to Jem.

I found both stories interesting as someone who has been bullied for intellectual disabilities in the past (notably as a young child when classmates and teachers would ridicule me for daydreaming in class and not finishing homework on time/scoring poorly on tests). Indeed, it wasn’t until I was 14 that I was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder without Hyperactivity, and I’d had it engrained into me by peers and a few teachers prior to that point, that I was stupid and would never amount to anything. So having re-read Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, as well as being introduced to Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird was certainly able to in one sense, remind me of my past and the work we as individuals and society in general have, to help bridge the gap of fear, prejudice, and misunderstandings.

I hereby pledge upon my word of honor, that I have neither given, nor received, any unauthorized aid in this assignment.

-Richard Yeomans.

Meg’s Response to Toni Morrison’s Sula and Chris Bell’s “Introducing White Disability Studiesː A Modest Proposal”

In “Introducing White Disability Studiesː A Modest Proposal”, Bell lays out the ways in which Disability Studies have, “a tendency to whitewash disability history, ontology and phenomenology,” and that they would be more aptly namedː White Disability Studies (Bell 275). While the entire piece was thought provoking and well written, one point stood out more than any other for me – Bell points out that disability studies often focus on the disability without discussing the intersection of that disability and the subjects of race and ethnicity. This point made me pause and re-read Sula through a different lens. Within the community of Medallion, Ohio there are several characters who are disabled in one way or another, and each of their experiences both within, and outside of, their community is further shaped by their race and ethnicity. Shadrack’s treatment within the military hospital, and his treatment in the white town show not only the blatant racism of the time, but also a disparity in the treatment of African Americans with disabilities of the time, and through that disparity an entirely different experience of disability.

            Obviously, racism is rampant in Sula, and when reading a story of a segregated mid-western American town around the first World War, this is not shocking.But this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t point out the obvious, and make it a conversation – we should heed Bell’s advice and talk about what isn’t being talked about, even when it does seem obvious. And when reading of Shadrack’s experience in a wartime hospital, it is impossible to not question if his race played a part in his treatment by his attending doctor. Would the doctor have told a white man with the same actions “Nobody is going to feed you forever,” or “pick it up, I said. There’s no point to this…” (Morrison 9)? While doctors certainly saw an unprecented number of young men experiencing shell-shock during World War One, and were undoubtedly at a loss for how to help them, one must wonder if there would be more preferential treatment towards a white male over an African American male with the same symptoms. Would a white man have at least been shown a mirror, or told his name or maybe some basic directions home?

            Another obvious example of a difference in experience and treatment is in the vaguely named “Midwestern town” which he comes to after leaving the hospital. As Shadrack breaks down, eyes closed, simultaneously untying and knotting his shoelaces, no one stops to help. No one asks if he’s alright. Instead the police arrive and arrest him for “vagrancy and intoxication” and lock him up in jail (Morrison 13). Had a white man been having the same non-violent break down while sitting on the curb, we have to ask ourselves – would he have had the same experience? Likely not. The charge of vagrancy has roots in the Civil War, and was aimed specifically at African Americans who appeared to be homeless (or even sometimes just appeared at all) within white communities (Tarter).

            Shadrack’s examples represent just one character’s experiences within the intersectionality of race, ethnicity and disability in Sula, a book which is ripe with characters who each have their own unique experiences of the same intersectionality. His treatment within the military hospital, and his experience in the white town are evidence of the obvious racism of the time and place of the story, but are also evidence of a disparity in the treatment and experiences of African Americans with disabilities and their white neighbors.

Additional Work Cited:

Tarter, Brent. “Vagrancy Act of 1866.” Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Humanities, 25 Aug. 2015. Web. 5 Feb. 2020

Word Count: 608

I hereby declare upon my word of honor that I have neither given nor received unauthorized help on this work.

Emily Saunders’s Response to “Until” by Ayisha Knight and “Introducing White Disability Studies: A Modest Proposal” by Chris Bell

            Last semester in my Queer Literature Studies course taught by Professor Haffey, we spent one class period talking about the different ways to construct identity. One of the main takeaways from that discussion was that no two people can experience something in exactly the same way. While two people may share many labels in common, there will still be things that each individual is a member of that the other is not. In many ways this has informed how I look at identity as it is represented or spoken about in discourse around me, and it was especially prominent to me in the readings for today—namely, “Until” by Ayisha Knight and “Introducing White Disability Studies: A Modest Proposal” by Chris Bell.

            Right off the bat in her poem, Knight confronts the problematic, exclusionary discourse around several groups with whom she identifies: Things like her blackness, queerness, religion, and deafness are often called into question as not being authentic enough for x, y, and z reasons. By pointing these things out, she calls attention to the idea that only one kind of experience can be representative of an entire group of people. This is, unfortunately, a widespread ideology enforced by the lack of discussion and consideration for intersectionality within any one group’s discourse.

            Similarly, Bell challenges this position in his essay by suggesting the term “Disability Studies” be changed to “White Disability Studies” to more accurately name those who are included in the discourse (275). Instead of providing a list of ways in which scholars of White Disability Studies can be more inclusive (a conversation that has been had time and time again) he cleverly crafts one that would help the movement remain as whitewashed and singular as it is currently. The irony of his approach is that it not only makes the whiteness of the field glaringly obvious, but by listing what they shouldn’t do, he’s telling them what they need to. The fact of the matter is, only providing one form of authentic representation is one way to create and maintain power, over both the public sphere of influence and the individual. In this way, even bodies that are “different” can be regimented and managed, which only reinforces the power hierarchy that defines an individual person’s identity and its worth to society: a man is more valued than a woman, a white woman is more valued than a black woman, an able-bodied individual is more valued than a disabled individual. Everything can be compared against increasingly complicated and unfair standards.

            This is where I can connect Ayisha Knight’s poem to Bell’s essay the best, because what he calls for—authentic, varied representation in the Disability Studies field—is what Knight proudly champions. She navigates the different parts of her identity, brings the listener along on a journey to self-love and appreciation, part of which came through in the form of recognition from an equal. A lover. She brings to the stage an honest voice that represents many different groups simultaneously, all wrapped up in one body—her own.

I pledge. Emily Saunders

Word Count: 510

Crooks, Isolation, and the Intersection between Race and Disability

In John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, the primary disabled figure is Lennie, a physically strong character with an intellectual disability. However, the secondary character of Crooks offers the perspective of a character marginalized not only by physical disability, but racial prejudice. Crooks’ response to isolation is to reclaim the site of his isolation as his own space, free from invasion by those who cast him out.

Crooks has a small shed off of the barn where he keeps his things and spends much of his time, avoiding the rest of the workers. He stays here alone, and the narrator describes him as a “proud, aloof man” who “kept his distance and demanded that others keep theirs” (Steinbeck 66). However, the narrative implies that his pride in his loner status is a response to the ableist and racist exile forced on him by the other workers. When Lennie, Slim, and Candy all end up visiting him, Crooks tries “to conceal his pleasure with anger,” implying that his pride, anger, and protectiveness of his own space are a defense mechanism (Steinbeck 73). Crooks explains on multiple occasions that the other workers won’t let him in the bunk house because he’s black. Even though both Candy and Crooks have lived on the farm for years due to their disabilities, racial prejudice keeps them apart, as Crooks cannot come into the bunk house and “guys don’t come into a colored man’s room very much” (Steinbeck 73). Isolated from the white community of the bunk house, Crooks tries to occupy himself with the solitary pursuits of horseshoes and reading, but even he admits to Lennie that the lack of companionship is bad for his mental health.

Crooks’ isolation from any support network is damaging to his mental health, a fact he acknowledges himself. When talking to Lennie, he says that “a guy goes nuts if he ain’t got nobody…don’t make no difference who the guy is, long’s he’s with you,” drawing a direct comparison to George’s assertion that he and Lennie are going to be okay because they have each other (Steinbeck 71). Crooks even goes so far as to describe himself as “sick,” describing how he sees things and isn’t sure if they were real or not without another person to verify it for him (Steinbeck 71). Despite his reluctance to invite people in or talk to the people who exclude him, Crooks pours his heart out to Lennie once he realizes that the combination of Lennie’s poor memory and his own marginalized status as a disabled black man means what he says will likely never get out (Steinbeck 69). Crooks claims that the specific companion doesn’t matter, since all he needs is someone to make sure he isn’t hallucinating, but his resistance when Lennie innocently invades his space and his delight when he realizes that Lennie isn’t a reliable witness (thus meaning he couldn’t check whether Crooks is hallucinating, the reason Crooks claims to want a companion) belies that sentiment.

Crooks’ relationship to others is complicated, shaped by years of prejudice and isolation. As a disabled man denied a support system due to racism, even the companionship of a fellow disabled man who lives and works on the same farm, Crooks turns to pride and self-reliance for survival. When speaking to Lennie and believing he can be vulnerable without Lennie repeating it back to anyone, he reveals that he knows the psychological toll his isolation causes, but his pride won’t allow him to tell anyone else. After all, his loneliness is not self-imposed, and abandoning these coping mechanisms won’t bring him a friend or companion. Crooks is bitter, proud, and aloof, but these aspects of his character are informed if not created by his status as a man at the intersection of two marginalized identities.

Jessica Longhi’s Response to Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men”

Of Mice and Men: Looking at George Milton as a Caregiver 

In John Steinbeck’s novel, Of Mice and Men, character George Milton exemplifies the difficulties that caretakers of special populations face in his interactions with Lennie Smalls. George and Lennie travel together as they work on farms. It quickly becomes clear that Lennie has some form of a behavioral and/or cognitive disability. Lennie and George are both adults, but their exact age is unclear. Despite having entered adulthood, Lennie displays childlike behavior; “his huge companion [Lennie] . . . flung himself down and drank from the surface of the green pool . .  . ‘Lennie, for God’s sake don’t drink so much . . . Lennie. You gonna be sick like you was last night” (Steinbeck 2-3). While traveling to a new farm to work for, Lennie and George stop by a semi-stagnant pond. Without thinking of the safety of the water, Lennie focuses on the need to satisfy his thirst. George, acting as Lennie’s guardian, prevents Lennie from drinking too much to avoid sickness. This is just one of many instances when Lennie needs the help of George in order to survive. 

As the pair of men travel to a new farm to work at, the reason why they left their previous town is revealed. “You get in trouble, you do bad things and I got to get you out” George tells Lennie (Steinbeck 10). Prior to leaving, Lennie wanted to feel the cloth of a dress a girl in town happened to wear. Lennie approached the girl with no ill-intent, but she screamed. In response to the girl’s scream, Lennie himself became frightened and did not release his grip. The girl then claimed that Lennie raped her, resulting in the need for Lennie and George to run out of town. Throughout the novel, George points out that his life would be easier without having to take care of Lennie; “If I was alone I could live so easy” (Steinbeck 10). Lennie lacks the general understanding of the world that George possesses. Although George has his own faults, such as the language he uses to address Lennie, he acts as Lennie’s guardian with the best intentions by shielding Lennie from a world that does not understand him. 

When George and Lennie arrive at the new farm in California, George instructs Lennie to not speak to anyone. George fears that if their new boss learns of Lennie’s disability, that the boss will remove them from the farm. George creates a story about Lennie that the other men on the farm will understand; “He got kicked in the head by a horse when he was a kid. He’s awright. Just ain’t bright. But he can do anything you tell him” (Steinbeck 21). The other men working the farm are able to understand Lennie’s behavior when there is a physical reason for it – such as the lie of Lennie receiving a kick to the head from a horse. George understands the worldview that faces people with disabilities, and does his best to protect Lennie from the brunt of it all. Ultimately, everything that George does for Lennie is to protect Lennie from the misunderstandings of others.  

Disability In Steinbeck’s novel, “Of Mice and Men” by Samantha Rogers

In John Steinbeck’s novel “Of Mice and Men,” we are introduced to the two main characters, George and Lennie. Throughout Steinbeck’s novel, George and Lennie travel in search of work, with hopes that they will eventually own property of their own. With big dreams in mind, the two boys travel to work on a Ranch. Disability is displayed within Steinbeck’s novel and is mainly depicted within the character, Lennie. George, the leader of the two, has promised Lennie’s aunt that he will take care of Lennie. Although we are unsure what Lennie’s disability is, it is obvious that his IQ and maturity level are low. This can be seen with Lennie’s obsession with soft things. When he finds something with qualities that are soft, whether it be fabric, a woman’s skirt, or a dead mouse, Lennie strokes the item and becomes attached.

Having a tendency of saying and doing things that George deems he shouldn’t, Lennie is continuously quizzed by George on the way to the ranch. George tells Lennie that he is not allowed to speak when they arrive at the ranch, as he is worried, they will not get the job if he does so. Throughout their travels, we notice George’s level of frustration and irritation with Lennie and his disabilities. Feeling ashamed and not wanted, Lennie tells George that he will leave and find a cave to live in so that he is no longer an irritant to George. Guilty for his actions and harsh words towards Lennie, George insists that Lennie stay with him. The conversation and mood between the boys are lightened as they begin talking about their big goals. Throughout the novel, it becomes evident that Lennie’s main goal is to own and tend to rabbits, but in order for him to do so he must follow directions given by George.

When the boys finally arrive at the ranch, George speaks for both himself and Lennie. Lennie’s disability is further seen when Curley attempts to beat Lennie. Without a mean bone in his body, Lennie is unsure how to defend himself. When George tells him to fight back, initially Lennie struggles to do so. However, as he is encouraged further, he ends up severely hurting Curley. As we dive deeper into the novel, it becomes clear that the fight scene between Lennie and Curley was not beneficial for Lennie due to his disability. Although Lennie is not mean and would never hurt anyone or anything intentionally his strength leads to the death of both animals and people.  

In the novel, John Steinbeck also displays disability through a man, known as Crooks. Crooks, an older, African American man, has a limp and is isolated due to his race. Due to being isolated, Crooks has a temper and becomes irritated when Lennie comes into his room. Our first impression of Crooks, as a mean, angry man, quickly shifts and it becomes evident that Crooks mood is based on the fact that he is lonely. Although Crooks has a physical disability, his disability lies deeper than what is seen, as he struggles internally with isolationism and loneliness. Steinbeck’s portrayal of disability is relatable to Mary Shelley’s novel, “Frankenstein.” Crooks character reminds me of the Creature in Mary Shelley’s novel and much like Crooks, the Creature is isolated due to his size and outward appearance. After being isolated and lonely for a long period of time, the two characters become angry and take their frustration out on others to make their point known.

I pledge: Samantha Rogers

Word Count: 585

Oscar Wilde Fun

I really liked The Star Child – I have actually never read Oscar Wilde’s short stories (I know, I’m terrible) but there is a real beauty in the way that he articulates meaningful messages, like in this one, to not “judge a book by its cover,” or, “you won’t appreciate what you have until it’s gone.” I thought of this in a general sense as the moral story of appreciating parent to child relationships. For example, when children grow up to be adults, some lose appreciation for their parents. Then, as they grow older, they realize they too are becoming old. They begin to wish for the relationship they had before with their parents.

Now, to talk about what interested me from a disability perspective. The mother. This is something I’ve seen in a lot of older adults in their life – that their age in itself is disabling them. Especially if they are financially unwell off or are in circumstances you cannot control in life. You can see this in jobs, in relationships, and even in families. People give up on older people. There are fewer opportunities and credibility given to older people because they… should already have their life together, undesirable, easily drifting into the background. I think this representation could especially be seen in the boy. I thought of it as his age was, in a fantasized way, accelerated. Then he, too, was ugly.

A critique I would say is that, just because he can “relate” to his mother in the end, it doesn’t mean that he should just all of a sudden be handsome again. Yes, it could be a lesson of, “if you were in my shoes,” but oftentimes for people with disabilities, their disabilities are invisible and it is harder for people to get a perspective of their experience. As we talked about in previous classes, disabled persons may not be represented medically or in “first person.” Or, their disabilities are visible and people look away in fear, disgust.

Kaitlin’s Response to Oscar Wilde’s The Selfish Giant

            In Oscar Wilde’s short story, The Selfish Giant, Wilde shares the story of a Giant who returns to his beautiful garden after a seven-year hiatus. Upon his return, he sees children playing in his beautiful garden home and becomes enraged. He then builds a barricade and places a noticeboard on the wall which forbids any trespassers. The Giant then experiences an endless and isolated winter inside his garden where there he remains alone without any children or visitors. He eventually becomes tired of being alone and wishes for the end of winter and the beginning of spring. The Giant then lets the children back into his garden and the barricade is broken down. 

            In my interpretation of the story, I found that Oscar Wilde portrays disability through the Giant and the character’s various highs and lows throughout his life in a similar pattern to those who are diagnosed with Bipolar disorder. The prolonged winter is a symbol for the Giant’s depressive episode. The winter is described as a “cloak” that covers the garden which can be portrayed as a symbol of hiding and isolation. He separates himself from all of the outside world and remains alone without explanation. In contrast to his depressive episode, the springtime in the garden is a high for the character. The springtime breaks down the barricade guarding his garden and allows the children back into the Giants life. I interpreted the children and sunshine to represent his happiness and how he is removing himself from isolation, or a depressive episode. I found parallels between Oscar Wilde’s Giant and Mary Shelley’s character Victor in Frankenstein. Victor exhibited similar drastic highs and lows throughout his story. He was content and happy during his time creating his creature, and isolated while he was avoiding the monster and his peers when spending time alone laying in his bed. 

            The language used to surround the Giant also aligns with the societal stereotype of using negative descriptive language to describe those with disabilities even when it is unintentional. He is the “selfish” Giant for remaining in isolation and not sharing his home with the children in town. There are often negative terminologies used to display those struggling with mental illness because it is not a physically shown disable. Similarly in Simi Linton’s “Reassigning Meaning” article, she discusses the way that language is used to describe those with disabilities that was created from the outside community and how it makes those who are disabled seem like a “burden or a problem” and “devalued” (Linton 22). Linton also discusses how it forced an “us and them division of the population” which is found in Wilde’s story as the Giant is separated from the townspeople and not considered to be the same (Linton 23). This language is counterproductive to society and Wilde shows the divide in the community between the Giant and the rest of the community. 

            Wilde represents disability in The Selfish Giant similarly to Mary Shelley in Frankenstein because they both illustrate characters that portray disabilities that are not mentioned, and their characters are looked at negatively by their communities and seen as abnormal. 

I pledge. 

Word count: 522

Taylor’s Response to Oscar Wilde’s “The Star Child”

In Oscar Wilde’s fairy tale “The Star Child,” we are introduced to a story about a young boy who is seen as beautiful, which causes him to be proud, cruel, and selfish.  Due to all of these negative qualities he refuses to believe that an unseemly beggar woman is his mother.  He later loses his beauty and devotes his time exploring the beggar woman’s whereabouts in hopes that she will somehow restore his beauty.  Disability, like all common themes, is displayed across Wilde’s literature.  For example, “The Birthday of the Infanta,” “The Selfish Giant,” and “Frankenstein,” which will be discussed in relation to the below characters.  Disability awareness is portrayed through the two main characters, The Star Child and the old beggar lady.   

            The boy knew he was desirable, which made him narcissistic.  Due to his believed superiority, as the son of a star, he believed that he is of higher- caliber than that of everyone else.  The star child could be seen as having an internal disability, which is demonstrated when he becomes hideous and everyone turns their backs on him.  He may still be beautiful, but his inward disability revealed and others saw what he really is, disabled.   The boy reminds me a little of Victor Frankenstein, only because we see them both showing a lack of empathy, but also feeling love and kindness towards those without “disabilities.  In-class discussion, my group brought up the possibility of Frankenstein having split personality disorder, I think this could also be said for that of The Star Boy.  The boy responds to his “mother” wanting a kiss by displaying disgust and correlating a toad to be a better option than she, which demonstrates how people react towards those with disabilities.  Another minor role that could be seen as disabled is the leper that the boy discovers along his journey.  Lepers were seen as hideous scaly creatures, not humans, they were different which deemed them less than human.  The old beggar lady was seen in the same manner.

            The old beggar lady can be seen as disabled in the same way we see Frankenstein’s creation as disabled or the same way we see the dwarf in “The Birthday of Infanta” as disabled.  All of the above characters represent disability in some way or another.   Frankenstein’s creation is seen as hideous and is therefore isolated and treated like that of someone with a disability.  The dwarf in “The Birthday of Infanta” is looked upon similarly.  Although he is hideous and viewed as less than and is dehumanized, the princess keeps him around for her amusement.  The old beggar lady’s situation is no different.  The boy among others looks down upon this “disabled” woman and dehumanizes her by throwing stones at her and taunting her.

            In Oscar Wilde’s fairy tale “The Star Child,” he displays disability through the lens of the old beggar lady as well as the star child.     The common mistake with a disability is that it can be seen, the characters that are spoken about could have hidden disabilities that cannot be seen by another’s eyes, which is demonstrated by The Star Child.  Disability is prominent in the old beggar lady more so than the boy.  The old beggar lady’s “disability” is based upon her looks whereas the boy’s “disability” is hidden underneath his facade.  There are so many different ways of looking at how authors and Wilde himself incorporated disability within their characters.

            I pledge: Taylor Butler

Word Count: 573

css.php