Critical Reading Post Three for American Born Chinese
The story of starts with an old Chinese parable told by his mother. The parable talks about a mother and son who live in different places. First they live near a market and the son imitates the merchants he sees. Next they live near a cemetery and the son prayed and burned incense for the dead ancestors. Finally they moved to near a university and the son studied and read books. The mother decided to stay there for a long time. This story was told right as Jin and his family arrive to their new house in San Francisco. Now the moral of the story could be seen as your surroundings shape you. Fit yourself into good surroundings and become a good person. However that moral, while its a good one, does not really fit with the rest of the story. So it does not make sense to start the story of Jin off with this little parable. Unless instead the meaning of the story is something else.
In this parable it is interesting to notice that the boy is called son throughout the whole parable. It starts with “a mother and her young son”, then “when the son played”, then “the son now spent”, and finally “son stayed there for a long time” (pg 23-24). Not only that but the sons appearance in these panels has no change no matter where they live or what he does. Whether its being a merchant, praying, or studying, the boy is still “the son”. This parable is more about how no matter where life takes you and what you do during your life never lose yourself. He will still be the Mother’s Son, and Jin will still have his Chinese heritage whether he lives in Chinatown, Mayflower, or any of the three high schools he went too.
So I think your focus on the details of the consistent image and the repeated calling the boy “the son” is important. I think you are trying to do a kind of archaeological dig of the elements in the passage, which is good. I do think that your argument would have been stronger if you hadn’t have set your reading up as a completely alternative and more accurate reading of the parable as being about how environments shape you. You set that up now kind of only to dismiss it. However I don’t think that reading is invalid, nor does your reading seem mutually exclusive of the other reading. It seems like what you’re noting doesn’t disagree but rather complicates and deepens the way we might have been reading the parable.
A question to consider: How much of calling him “the son” is merely the conventions of the parable? Also could you say more about his appearance not changing? Are you interested in the fact that he keeps the same clothes or that he doesn’t seem to get any older? Also are you saying then that he might be an ideal of Chinese (American) behavior moving around and adopting different cultures but not changing his appearance or his name?? It seems like you want to suggest as much but some of the way you go about your argument doesn’t allow you to really make a holistic claim.