That's why the grandmother cannot destroy the dress.Ģ. To destroy the dress is to destroy the mother. The dress is a part of the mother, her monster, evil side. But I was a little girl still I think I mean outside.ġ. "I think I heard some one call dont let her say that! I couldnt hold to the dress. "And she says I should burn it up but I loved her so. Later in the scene, she talked about her grandma: The beginning where the girl was locked in her room: Some clues that the dress has evil power: I actually think it's pretty evocative as is, asking questions just pulls an effective but flimsy structure apart. Obviously the "little girl" is normal enough to have a friend that visits, so she's no obvious monster, but that the mother herself probably appeared somewhat monstrous at her death (buck teeth = fangs, funny hands = claws), her shroud is the "dress of white silk" and donning it either causes the daughter to be possessed by the mother or perhaps come into her inheritance of monstrous desire and power (the story hints that it has happened before). Matheson says in his post-notes that he wrote it because "Born of Man and Woman" had worked so well and he wanted to see if he could do the "children's voice trick" again.Īs to what's going on - well, it's ambiguous on purpose, not just for the pay-off but also to forestall questions that might arise if too many details are given. Funny, I just re-read this as part of my upcoming review of Richard Matheson: Collected Stories, Vol.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |