ENG1400 essay. compare and contrast essay between 2 stories, the question attached below. NO EXTERNAL SOURCES please. CITATION FROM THE BOOKS IS NECESSARY. Attached below are the stories as well. PLAG

Observations on “The Canterville Ghost”: The most important thing to keep in mind is that Oscar Wilde is always tricking you, even when you don’t realize that he is.

The story begins with Wilde over-exaggerating the differences between the Brits and the Americans. He basically gives the characters stereotypical attributes, with Lord Canterville holding the most English-y of English characteristics, and Mr. Otis holding the most American-y ones. This means there is a clash of tradition and old fashioned ways (British) with modern progressive capitalism (American). But, more importantly, there is a theme that Wilde establishes right from the start: that of emphasizing our most typical expectations only to then upend them entirely.

This occurs again when the Otis family heads in their carriage towards the Canterville mansion. Here we see a clear transition to the mood of a “haunted house.” On page 61 we see the family pass through the cheerful English countryside, complete with cute rabbits, the sounds of friendly birdsong, and curious, happy squirrels. As soon as they come to the drive of the mansion, however, the sky suddenly darkens, the air grows heavy and oppressive, rooks, a kind of crow-like bird, fly overhead, and the rain begins to fall. Wilde is drawing our attention to the contrast between the countryside and the house in order to emphasize the very conventional nature of the mansion. It’s like he’s saying, “You want a haunted house? Ok! I’ll give you the most haunted-y of all haunted houses!” After all, you can’t have a haunted mansion with bunnies and squirrels running around, can you? But what occurs is that the Otis family is unfazed by the spooky nature of the house, and of the bloodstain on the carpet where Lady Canterville was murdered 300 years ago. The thunder and the storm, which cause the housekeeper to faint from fright, do nothing to frighten the Otis family. The expectation we as readers may have had of a haunted house are turned upside down because the characters in the story aren’t scared at all.

Then we meet the ghost, and you guessed it, he is the most ghost-y ghost you can imagine: red eyes, rattling chains, long grey hair, and tattered clothes (64). Mr. Otis, however, is absolutely unfazed by the ghost’s presence. In breathtaking American fashion he simply offers the ghost a new American product (“Tammany’s Rising Sun Lubricator”) for the ghost’s rattling chains, and then closes his bedroom door, and goes back to sleep. The next thing we see is the ghost by himself in his room, sad and baffled by his inability to frighten the American family. The pattern has continued: a stereotypical scene, and an uncharacteristic response which is the opposite of our expected one. Pay attention: Wilde constantly makes us think the story will go in an expected manner, but then into something quite different – usually something silly.

Sir Simon, the Canterville ghost, then goes over his history of haunting, and it turns out that everything he’s done has been a performance. He literally plays theatrical roles, and that gives him purpose to his life (or rather to his death). The performative nature of Sir Simon’s character is important, as we will soon discover.

Sir Simon continually tries to frighten the Otis family, with no luck. He is, in fact, constantly getting harassed by them, especially by the twins. The ghost plans to take out his revenge and scare the whole family one night, and he dresses himself up accordingly, but instead of frightening them he becomes scared when he encounters a “ghost” in the hallway. Sir Simon runs away in fear, but as the morning sun comes up, he decides to go back and talk to the new apparition haunting the house. It turns out that it wasn’t a ghost at all, but rather a turnip, a broom, and a curtain. The Otis twins had tricked him. The sign hanging from the turnip’s neck his important.

YE OTIS GHOSTE.

Ye Onlie True and Originale Spook.

Beware of Ye Imitationes.

All others are Counterfeite.

What this sign suggests is that the fake ghost (the turnip) is real, and the real ghost (Sir Simon) is a fake. It’s a trick played by the twins on the ghost.

We know, of course, that the opposite is true, that a turnip is not a real ghost and that a Sir Simon is a real one. So the sign that the turnip wears is opposite to reality. But the catch is that in reality the ghost is scared of the turnip, and no one is scared of the real ghost. So we could say that what matters isn’t what is *real* but what has an effect on the world. No one cares about the real ghost, Sir Simon, but Sir Simon runs away in fright from the turnip. What is real, then? What matters? To be real or to have a real effect on the world around you?

The same issue occurs again with the bloodstain: the real blood on the library floor bothers the Otis family, so young Washington removes it with his “Pinkerton’s Champion Stain Remover.” After he does this, night after night the blood stain returns, but in different colours, even green! We realize, though, that this isn’t blood, it’s young Virginia’s paints. The ghost is repainting the blood night after night, in an effort to preserve his legacy, and it is the paint, this artwork, that makes a deep impression on the Otis family. Once again, the fake is so much more interesting than the real.

After Sir Simon realizes that he’s been tricked by the twins using a turnip, he gives an ancient oath to murder the whole family in their sleep: “when Chanticleer had sounded twice his merry horn, deeds of blood would be wrought” (71). This means that when the rooster crows a second time, he will unleash hell. As soon as the ghost says this, the rooster from the neighbour’s farm crows, and the ghost eagerly awaits the second crow. …for hours and hours he waits… but the rooster doesn’t crow again. Why? Why didn’t the rooster crow twice, allowing the ghost to kill the entire Otis family? The ghost goes downstairs to his chambers, pulls a bunch of ancient books off his shelf, and looks up this oath, just to make certain he said it correctly. Sure enough, there it is: TWICE. The rooster has always crowed twice. Why did this rooster on this particular morning crow only once? WHY??

The answer is simple: who knows. It’s a rooster. Try asking it how many times it crows, and why. See what kind of response you’ll get. Go ahead. I’ll wait. Yeah, that’s right, you’ll never know why it only crowed once and you’ll never get an answer from the rooster because – don’t overthink it – it’s a damn rooster, a bird with a brain the size of a pea. Who knows why it does any of the things it does. It just is.

The thing is, the ghost thought the books held the truth and the real rooster was wrong. He is basing his understanding of reality on stories about roosters, and thus thinks the real rooster on the farm is somehow deficient, wrong. This is the same pattern again: the real is seen as lacking while the fake (fictional stories about roosters) are seen to hold real truth.

Blood – paint

Ghost – turnip

Rooster – story

Curious.

Totally defeated by the traps of the twins and by the indifference of the Otis family, the ghost becomes a shell of his former self, walking the corridors alone at night, silently after having caved-in and used the Rising Sun Lubricator. “It was his solemn duty to appear in the corridor once a week, and to gibber from the large oriel window on the first and third Wednesdays in every month, and he did not see how he could honourably escape from his obligations” (72). But why? WHY? Why is the Canterville ghost, former an actor, a performer, someone who deliberately and carefully took on the job of playing roles, and who measured his success based off of the outrageous responses of his audience (see page 65), why would he now perform for no one? Why is it his “obligation” to traverse the corridors? Why must he go to the window? Who is watching? Why is he doing this? For himself, and no one else. There is no purpose, no audience, no meaning. He has told himself a story about the “duty” of his life, but he is putting on a show for no one.

It’s when the ghost is depressed by his new circumstances that he and young Virginia Otis meet, and have their strange little talk. I want you to read this section of the story very carefully, and tell me if you notice any difference in tone. (I am sure that you will.) When Sir Simon and Virginia start talking about death, it feels as though… well, as though now we’re finally at the serious part of the text. Here is where “shit gets real,” and where Wilde finally lets us know the “moral of the story”: that death means that one will be at peace, resting after the toils of life, and finally be free and forgiven for the hardships and sins of life.

Please read this sections carefully, on pages 78-79.

More notes to come!