Although the essay on Gary Soto's piece might not be included in this week's discussions, the rewrite was this week. I came across an underlying irony in revising my essay: Soto must retain the moral that stealing is wrong in order to experience the guilt he craves. After stealing, he still asks the rhetorical question regarding the howling in his plumbing, "Was it God?" (Soto 80). Despite defying God, he still feels like it could be Him that is speaking to him through the pipes under his house in the "cool shadows" (Soto 79). This provides a contrast of the darkness under the house versus the light associated with the potential divinity that exists there. Even in the darkness of Soto's refuge from blame, a shred of holiness exists fighting to get through to him. Also, Soto retains the religious feelings like the gaze of God that makes up the "glare of the pie tin" (Soto 86). The glare is what convinces him to take refuge then greets him as he emerges. This before and after appearance of God's gaze serves to exemplify how Soto will keep some religious influences before his sin and after regardless of what occurs in between because of the nature of his guilty pleasure. He must embrace part of the rules of Christianity in order to gain pleasure through breaking them. Otherwise, he would have no guilt and no exhilaration.
No comments:
Post a Comment