The Lamp At Noon Ross
Ross infuses irony into the last page of "The Lamp At Noon" to convey the fatality of the single-minded. Set in the era of the Great Depression, Ross's short story emphasizes one couple's conflicting attitudes regarding the best interests of their child. Paul, a proud and obstinate farmer raised on family soil, is convinced that his son should grow up feeling the same pride which comes from owning the land. His obsession with ownership and independence so completely dominates his thoughts that he cannot perceive the hopelessness of remaining in the perpetual dust storm that ravages his farm. Ignorant to the damage that the dust inflicts upon his family's physical and emotional health, Paul metaphorically chains his wife and son to an existence
…show more content…
Their consuming determination to provide a better lifestyle for their child made them ignorant to his fundamental requirements. As a result of the couple's neglect, their son's potential was destroyed: "The child was quite cold. It had been her arms, perhaps, too frantic to protect him, or the smother of dust upon his throat and lungs.... He knelt transfixed... touching fearfully with his fingertips the dust-grimed cheeks and eyelids of the child." In contrast to the rosy cheeks of a baby who receives kisses and love, their child's face is lifeless and grey with grime. Ironically, it was Paul and Ellen's overwhelming concern for their baby and his future that prevented the couple from giving him care and love. Obscured by his prideful aspirations, Paul insisted that his son remain on their drought-ravaged farm in order to enjoy a prosperous life. In doing so, however, he only "smothered dust upon [his son's] throat and lungs". At the same time, Ellen's devotion to her child's future blinded her to his present needs. Her "frantic" impulse to run away from her husband's dead-end goals and into the storm only allowed the layer of "grime [upon] his cheeks and eyelids" to thicken. Ellen and Paul both believed that they were working for their baby's best interests; yet both of them were so focused on attaining their own goals that they inadvertently left their child uncared for. The couple's single-minded concern for their son's future deprived him of the attention and warmth that a rosy baby requires. In the heat of Ellen and Paul's senseless battles over the best interests of their son, he died "quite cold" and
Their consuming determination to provide a better lifestyle for their child made them ignorant to his fundamental requirements. As a result of the couple's neglect, their son's potential was destroyed: "The child was quite cold. It had been her arms, perhaps, too frantic to protect him, or the smother of dust upon his throat and lungs.... He knelt transfixed... touching fearfully with his fingertips the dust-grimed cheeks and eyelids of the child." In contrast to the rosy cheeks of a baby who receives kisses and love, their child's face is lifeless and grey with grime. Ironically, it was Paul and Ellen's overwhelming concern for their baby and his future that prevented the couple from giving him care and love. Obscured by his prideful aspirations, Paul insisted that his son remain on their drought-ravaged farm in order to enjoy a prosperous life. In doing so, however, he only "smothered dust upon [his son's] throat and lungs". At the same time, Ellen's devotion to her child's future blinded her to his present needs. Her "frantic" impulse to run away from her husband's dead-end goals and into the storm only allowed the layer of "grime [upon] his cheeks and eyelids" to thicken. Ellen and Paul both believed that they were working for their baby's best interests; yet both of them were so focused on attaining their own goals that they inadvertently left their child uncared for. The couple's single-minded concern for their son's future deprived him of the attention and warmth that a rosy baby requires. In the heat of Ellen and Paul's senseless battles over the best interests of their son, he died "quite cold" and