Discussion on the short story "The Way Up To Heaven"

Hi everyone.
This new topic here is to comment on the short story "The Way Up To Heaven" by Roal Dahl. There is some information about the writer in our flickr as well as his photo. Check that out at http://www.flickr.com/photos/bridgeovercam

The first topic I'd like to discuss with you is about the Forsters' marriage.

Is their marriage happy and trouble-free?

Well, it goes without saying that the answer is no. However, I'd like to hear from you why is that so?

The end justifies the means.

Huelber escreveu:

The end justifies the means.

What do you mean?

Mrs Forster has always been a faithful and devoted wife. Do you agree?

I believe that she used to be very caring and dreamt of having the perfect family. This dream was partially broken when her daughter started her own family.....abroad! And finally she became disappointed at her husband's refusal to leave New York. Because of this she had been prevented from being together with her grandchildren and daughter. On top of that Mr Foster made her notice that he had been teasing her whenever he would wait till the last minute possible to be ready and leave their house for an appointment.
On his side of the story, he might have become lazy as his enterprises had finished and a bit frustrated to have nothing to do but to stay at home with his wife and the grandchildren's photos. So he started playing games with her, not knowing how serious she was taking them. Their marriage failed to be successful in the end, in my view.

Good Ana Paula. I agree with you. However, I 'd like to point out that in the story we do not find any evidence that he was indeed teasing her.

Yes, I agree. Yet she believed it somehow. Don't you think so?

Yes, she did! Because she always thought that he wanted to torture her.

"They always seemed to be meeting in the hall nowadays."
This sentence tells us a lot about what their marriage has become.

Another point to think about:
"Does Mr Forster show any affection towards his wife?"

Ricardo Goiatá escreveu:

Huelber escreveu:

The end justifies the means.

What do you mean?

Mrs Forster has always been a faithful and devoted wife. Do you agree?

The way Mr Foster treated Mrs Foster. He had what he deserved.

Another question to discuss:

Do you think Mr Forster deserved to die like that?

Ricardo Goiatá escreveu:

Another point to think about:
"Does Mr Forster show any affection towards his wife?"

I have looked at it once more but haven't found any evidence that he showed anyy affection towards her....The fact that he would like to see her off at the airport does not seem to be an evidence of affection to me. I feel that he would like to be sure she took off rather than saying goodbye. Moreover, he refuses to send her a letter, saying " I don't hold with letter-writing unless there's something specific to say." Wouldn't there be anything to say to his wife during the time she was spending in Paris with THEIR daughter?????

My attention was grabbed by two other sentences that I believe describe the way Mr Forster treated his wife and I see no sign of affection whatsoever....

" .....until her husband, who must have been well aware of her state, finally emerged from his privacy and suggested in a cool dry voice that perhaps they had better be going now, had they not?"

"..., but he could have had no excuse for increasing her misery by keeping her waiting unnecessarily. Mind you, it is by no means certain that this is what he did,...."

When Mrs Foster went to the house to tell her husband she had found the comb, she stopped at the door. What was she listening?

She decided to go to the airport and leave her husband behind. Do you sympathise with her decision?

I agree with you, Ana Paula. It's a long time since they showed any kind of affection to each other. Mr and Mrs Forster shoud have gone their separate ways a long time ago.

I do not agree with the way Mrs Forster let her husband die. I see her point. However, nobody deserves to die like that. She should have dealt with the situation years before when they could have split up. By the time she went to the house to tell her husband she had found the comb, she heard the lift stopping between floors and, needless to say, she knew he would be stuck inside the lift as the servants were no longer at their house or would not come back soon. Furthermore, she knew the servants would only be back after they had been called in by Walker to whom she was supposed to address a letter informing the date of her arrival what she actually did not do. She had eventually killed her husband. Do you think we can say that?

Well, according to the laws, I don't know if we can say she murdered her husband. She is to blame because she didn't help him.

However, she didn't know for sure he had died. This is why she didn't overstay in Paris. She wrote him letters. When she arrived she wanted to make sure that there was nobody witing for her at the airport. When she got home, she opened the door, got in and felt the terrible odour. She walked inside as if she wanted to confirm a suspicion.

She's a very clever woman. She took advantage of an accident to get rid of her husband and I myself do not sympathise with her.

Neither do I sympathise with her at all!

Ricardo Goiatá escreveu:

Another question to discuss:

Do you think Mr Forster deserved to die like that?

I don't think so. If he was really teasing her and didn't show any kind of affection to his wife, we should say that he might have deserved some kind of punishment, for example, she could let him live alone while she stayed abroad with her daughter, but let him stuck inside the lift with little chances to survive was a terrible end for an unhappy marriage. As Ana Paula said, she could have tried a more reasonable solution years before, when she noticed that she wasn't happy anymore.