USLH Close Reading: Say Yes

© Colleen Davis, 2009

Close Reading of Say Yes by Tobias Wolff The first thing I notice on a close reading is that there are a lot of personal pronouns used. The man/husband in the story is never given a name, and the woman/wife has her name, Ann, mentioned three times in the story. At the beginning of the story, including the first line, she is referred to as “his wife” three times. I notice that Jesus or some variation of his name appears twice when her name is used in the story. The continual use of pronouns and the lack of personal names indicate a lack of identity for the characters. In the paragraph that begins “’Ann, don’t move,’ he said,’ there are 23 personal pronouns used. Ann’s name is mentioned three times, giving her a little bit more of an identity than the husband. Ironically, the man continues to insist that he knows his wife well. I wonder if the vagueness of identity in the story is connected to his inability to see people as individuals. Does it suggest that he really doesn’t know his wife well? He categorizes people based on race, and his racism is apparent when he says, “’They don’t come from the same culture as we do. Listen to them sometime—they even have their own language….a person from their culture and a person from our culture could never really know each other.’” The tone implied through the use of the pronouns they and them and their clearly implies an otherness, and the use of the pronouns suggests a lack of individual identity. The word know is italicized, suggesting an emphasis; the idea that people who are different can never really know each other. To know has multiple definitions; two that might apply in this situation are: “to have a thorough understanding of something through experience or study” or the archaic definition “to engage in sexual intercourse with somebody.”i If we use the first definition, the man implies that people who are from a different race could never truly understand each other. This suggests that the racial differences are so vast that they overshadow the sense humanity shared by all people. The second definition suggests strong racist undertones, but the would could in the sentence, and the line . “’How can you understand someone who comes from a completely different background?’” confirms the use of the first definition as the better choice. The word know is repeated in the next two lines of the story: “’Like you know me?’ the wife asked.” The tone of the wife’s question is benign at first glance, but there is a subtle suggestion of challenge in the simplicity of the question. It seems as if she doesn’t think that he really knows her. At this point, I’m beginning to wonder if there is something more to her identity. Is there something about her that he doesn’t know? His simple response, “‘Yes. Like I know you.’” asserts his confidence that he knows her very well, but her next comment is intriguing: “’But if they love each other,’ she said. She was washing faster now, not looking at him.” The word but at the beginning of the sentence suggests that there should/could be an exception to his way of thinking, and that exception is love. Although this is a statement indicating she believes love is a common denominator, the sentence also sounds like it is a question directed at him. “Washing faster” suggests that she is agitated or disturbed, and the fact that she does not look at him implies that she is either hiding something or not wanting to see his response, or both. Many lines in the text suggest that the wife doesn’t think they know each other as well as the husband thinks, that perhaps there are differences he is unaware of. I would assert that the same challenge implied in “Like you know me” is the subtext of the line: “”Different,’ said his wife. Not the same, like us.’” She seems to be suggesting that they are not the same, and the repeated use of the hypothetical situation that she is black, “So,’ she said, ‘you wouldn’t have married me if I’d been

USLH Close Reading: Say Yes

© Colleen Davis, 2009

black,’” and “’Let’s say I am black and unattached and we meet and fall in love,’” makes me suspicious that she has passed as white and wants him to realize that it is possible for black and white people to fall in love and that they should be married. It is interesting that amidst all the words know and knew, the word strange and stranger appear in the last few paragraphs The word knew is repeated three more times in the story, but the husband is caught off guard after his apology to her when he hears “a level and definite note that was strange to him.” Although surprised by her response, “he knew he had to come up with the right answer” and because he knows her so well, he’s confident he’ll know the right answer.. The definition of strange: “not known or experienced previously”ii negates the idea of knowing, and the fact that she is referred to as a stranger in the last line confirms that the husband does not know his wife at all. The word dark and darkness both appear in the final paragraph further emphasizing the husband’s lack of clarity regarding his wife and her identity.His thoughts on “how well they knew each other” are ironic when he realizes “he couldn’t see a thing.” Literally and metaphorically, he can’t see his wife. “If you were black, you wouldn’t be you. As he said this, he realized it was absolutely true. There was no possible way of arguing with the fact that she would not be herself is she were black. So he said it again: ‘If you were black, you wouldn’t be you.’” The repetition of the pronoun you three times in the first sentence emphasizes the woman’s identity; he is certain he knows who this you is, and his focus on “absolutely true,” and “no possible way to argue,” and “the fact” are proof that what he knows is accurate. What if she is black and he doesn’t know? She would still be who she is, ironically, making his absolutes and facts less absolute. i Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. ii Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.