“Mundane pointless stuff” indeed: anyway – I’ve lately been looking into some family history. A lot of it is contained in copies of letters / essays composed by now-deceased relatives of mine, mostly when they were some way into their old age: sometimes they express things rather baldly, and not always with the happiest possible use of words.
There is a very sad story concerning a great-uncle of mine, whom I never met – he died long before I was born. A little over a century ago, he went out from the UK to Canada, having signed up (in defiance of his very domineering and controlling mother) for a project involving land grants and farm-development. It would seem that this whole scheme was somewhat shady; it all went horribly wrong for my relative, and he found himself in the wilds of western Canada, completely broke, and desperate for any kind of work – which was hard to find, and usually not matched to his abilities. He ended up working in the laundry of a railway construction camp. Tuberculosis – to which he may already have been predisposed – was rife among his clients, and he rapidly contracted the disease. Basically – terminally ill, he managed to make his way back to the UK and home, to die shortly after.
Written recounting of this guy’s ultimate end, by a relative of mine, runs: “He returned home and his mother was delighted until she learned of his failing health. There being no known treatment for T.B. and no hospital places for such he stayed at home and was soon bed-ridden and didn’t last long.”
Does anyone besides me, feel that the above two sentences could be read in a way which makes the mother’s attitude and reaction seem at least a bit “off”? Or is the wording unexceptionable, and am I a sicko for feeling as I do, about it?
“My son is home but he is dying” is a pretty clear example of mixed emotions. Although I understand how it might read “I’d rather you didn’t come home if you are just going to be a burden to me”. Especially after “I told you so”.
So you wouldn’t be horrified if you found out your son had a fatal illness? I mean, she loves him and wants him home, but now she knows he only has a very short time to live? Of course she’s not going to be “delighted” by that.
As for being back home and being a “burden” or “infecting others”, hate to say it, but having sick family to care for was the norm back then. Where else did she expect him to go?
It was a different attitude back then. You didn’t have the resources we do now.
I think the relative recounting the story may have been removed enough from it not to convey much more. Some people are storytellers and some people are fact givers.
Thanks all, for thoughts. Posts so far, seem to confirm what I suspect – that I’m a heartless cynic with a rather sick “take” on life. Sensible interpretations are those by Zsofia and Guinastasia: initially, delight that the prodigal son is back home (and hopefully, cured of his Canada / farming nonsense) – followed by not delight, but distress and unhappiness, that he’s mortally and incurably ill, and soon to die.
Shodan “gets” my nasty (very probably wrong) interpretation. Wanting to avoid info-dumps, I tried to keep background to a minimum: but, picture got from family lore, is that the “tragic hero” 's mother seems not to have been a very nice person. She appears to have been a harsh parent, dealing in “tough love” if any love at all: if, as her offspring, you abased yourself to her every command and whim, you might get approval, even if not love – if otherwise in any way, then heaven help you. With that angle on things – I saw an interpretation of “delighted until”, as, “now, I find that you’re mortally ill – so you’re useless, and just going to be a burden until you die. When you knew the sickness was terminal, you should have stayed over there until you snuffed it, and been buried in an unmarked mass grave, and good riddance.”
“Background” stuff which (as above) I didn’t go into: tuberculosis was widely, actually or potentially, present in this family – a brother of the luckless Canada guy, ultimately died of it. TB in itself, would not in this family have been a cause for great anxiety.
Becky2844: yes, in this instance anyway my relative was a “bald fact giver”.
Family lore has it my great Grandmother was a bitch nobody liked. Great Grandpa moved out and they lived apart for 40 some years. Very unusual for turn of the last century.
My Grandfather was a big man, think Babe Ruth looking. He was offered a bonus and a tryout for the St. Louis Cardinals. His mom said no, no and no. Get a job. I know they were paid peanuts, but at least let the kid try? How cool that Grandpa could have been a ballplayer. (Never mind the he would be in St. Louis and not Buffalo and not meeting Grandma and I never existed part.)
My great-grandfather would, I think, not have dared to leave his wife – less because of that being “not done” 100+ years ago, than because he was, I gather, totally under her thumb. She was the harsh and implacable despot of that family. And he predeceased her by some ten years (she was much younger than him).
I shudder to think what great-grandmother would have thought of a son of hers wanting to try for a professional-sport career – not that in fact, any of them were that way inclined.