Edith Wharton questions the notion of knowledge and understanding, even of her own personal experience, in her short story “Roman Fever.” The application of Jackie Royster's stage analysis to Wharton's "Roman Fever" perpetuates the idea that no individual ever comes to understand the reality of human life and existence due to the nature of speech human and its tendency to assume. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay To employ Royster's tactic, one must begin with a representation of the story or scene in question. “Roman Fever” takes place in a restaurant with a balcony in the heart of Rome. Two women, Grace Ansley and Alida Slade, met years ago in Rome as young women transitioning from adolescence to adulthood. Since then, their lives have continued to intertwine. For years, they lived across the street from each other in New York. Their daughters are friends and both of their husbands are deceased. The women watch the sunset over Rome and begin to immerse themselves in their shared life over the years. They chat among themselves and reflect privately on Roman experiences, love, social status, family, and even mutual perceptions. During the scene, it is revealed that Ansley had an affair with Slade's fiancé, and eventual widower, a long time ago. Through a series of deceptive events, the women dealt with this event in different ways and each only knew half the story; neither woman was completely aware of the full context of the affair. As this event unfolds, the women share a series of assumptions they make about each other, most of which are based on pure observation or appearance. The origin of Wharton's suggestion that life is never as it seems to the individual manifests itself in the rhetorical problem the story presents to the reader. The rhetorical question describes a narrative in which individual perspectives and motivations, both Ansley's and Slade's, prevent the two from having a true dialogue in which the members listen to and understand each other. The words shared are carefully selected to reveal only certain aspects of the truth of their character. Even then, the woman who listens and watches her companion react to her own speech fails to reflect on the life, experience, and words of the opposing woman. Both are entirely wrapped up in their own perspectives, so much so that active listening as a key element of rhetoric is completely lacking. Women, despite their long shared history, are not open to each other's perspectives and, therefore, do not know or understand the truth of their human experiences. Consequently, the lack of listening and the invasion of personal and egocentric thinking prohibit individuals from true dialogue and knowledge of a global reality. Royster emphasizes the importance of personal feedback as part of the process of developing suggestions, such as those Wharton makes about human experience. After reading the novella a second time, over a year after the first reading, I found it impossible to ignore the commonality of Ansley and Slade's relationship. Too often, people grow up, work, go to class, and even live with people they know very little. We may believe that they understand or connect personally with each other, but in reality, their version of reality is extremely skewed. Personal goals and emphasisIndividuality or independence, especially in young women, causes the individual to focus solely on their own strengths, weaknesses, and goals. The other people surrounding these individual characters' lives act as false companions and a means to selfish ends. I think it is clear that Alida Slade is so absorbed in this driven way of thinking that she cannot and will never really listen and engage with Grace Ansley. Furthermore, a key principle for revealing life to- Beyond the surface of appearance is the ability to set aside personal agendas that refute active listening. Slade cannot grasp this concept in the story, but instead embraces his selfishness and fails to dispel his longing for Ansley. The root of her envy lies in the realization that Ansley was in love with Slade's fiancé. She says: “I found out – and I hated you, I hated you. I knew you were in love with Delphin...I wanted you out of the way..." (Wharton 17). This longing, or hatred, is a major factor in these two women's relationship as their life unfolds. Slade, never able to truly forget the jealousy and hatred she had for Ansley after this realization, fosters hardened feelings for her long-time companion. The initial jealousy motivated Slade to become selfish and. do everything in her power to get rid of her competition result or consequences that Ansley may have to suffer due to her selfishness She forges a letter to Ansley, hoping that she will go to the Colosseum at night and be humiliated when. Delphin will not meet him there as promised in the letter as this humiliation and failure would cause Ansley to abandon Delphin and no longer be an obstacle to Slade Selfishly, she considers these benefits for herself, but does not think about it. twice at the pain she causes Ansley. She even says: “I remember laughing. myself all evening thinking that you were waiting out there in the dark..." (Wharton 19). While Ansley is shaken by the silence, shock, and words saddened by the truth, Slade shows no remorse or regret for her childish and self-centered actions in the past, but reflects carelessly without sparing Ansley's feelings. The lack of shame attributed to this behavior further proves that the selfishness emitted by Slade prohibits any real relationship between her and her. Ansley, again, lack of active listening prevents the women from revealing the reality of their situation as they briefly discuss their daughters, Barbara and Jenny Ansley does not like her own daughter Jenny because in her opinion. , Barbara is a much more interesting person. Slade admits that she would rather be Barbara's mother. She speaks of her daughter as if she had been cheated, stating: "I always wanted a brilliant daughter... I never have. really understood why I had an angel instead” (Wharton 12). Slade wants what she can't and doesn't have. Barbara is exciting, fresh and vivacious, while Jenny is dedicated, simple and boring. The only person Slade considers in this thought process is herself and her own source of pride. Ansley dismisses the conversation by claiming that Slade "overestimates Babs" (Wharton 12). Ansley thinks her mate is brilliant, but in retrospect she describes Slade's life as full of disappointment. She pities the woman but never makes an effort to reveal the root of Ansley's unhappiness in the midst of his privileged life. If Ansley had, then upon hearing Slade's desire for Babs, she might have realized sooner that Slade was not unhappy with the way his life had turned out, but rather consumed by jealousy of the way Ansley had been blessed. Of course, it follows that thisJealousy is rooted in the realization that Ansley held the heart of Slade's husband. My immediate reaction to this is that if Ansley realized the truth in Slade's words and his companion's hatred of him, she would be less likely to sympathize with Ansley's constant disappointment. Additionally, the assumptions Slade makes about Ansley prohibit him from knowing the truth about Barbara's lineage. Slade assumes that Ansley is boring, plain and predictable. She sees no reason to suggest dishonor or scandal in her companion's life, but she finds Barbara's liveliness exciting when contrasted with her mother's supposed respect for social conventions. This assumption leads him to believe that his deceptive tactics to eliminate Ansley as competition for his lover were successful. In his view, is Barbara the result of Ansley's passionate affair with Slade's fiancé? never crosses his mind. If that were the case, the assumptions she makes about Ansley would be shattered and her daughter's innate fun-loving spirit would be better understood. Ansley ignores her companion's words and actions of years because she assumes she won the prize by marrying Delphin. Following the examination of Ansley and Slade's personal reactions to the effects of the rhetorical question in question and, subsequently, my personal reaction to the rhetoric, Royster prompts us to consider the cultural lessons extrapolated by the text. It is clear that the two women have never managed to see life from the other's point of view. This is a result of their equally motivated goals and actions and their inability to engage in active listening. Culturally, this suggests that people motivated by self-centered values ​​and backgrounds are not likely to understand life holistically. Instead, the failure of the human condition manifests itself in an inability to truly empathize, rather than empathize, with others. Empathy allows humans to feel and know what another feels and knows. According to Wharton, the structure of dialogue in which self-motivated influence blurs the revelations of truth prevents complete understanding and instead leads to an incomplete view of reality. Therefore, no matter what a person experiences or knows, the life they lead is not truly defined solely by what it seems to them. A complete definition of the events and reasons of a given life is not fully rendered until all perspectives have been considered. The cultural lessons suggested by “Roman Fever” describe a structure of human interaction that favors individualistic assumptions, limits real speech, and leaves plenty of room for questions. The idea that one cannot fully understand one's own life is intimidating. Even at the end of the story, when the truth of the matter is revealed to both parties, do Ansley and Slade come to understand each other or know the truth about their lives? This argument suggests that this is not the case, because it is a single event and it is still not an exhaustive study of perspectives. Furthermore, by accepting the suggestion made in this text, a solution to the problem posed is missing. Knowing that life is never what it seems, can we live life well or fully or connect with another human being? Is it impossible to avoid the assumptions that humans perpetuate in a need for independence and individual success? Finally, if it is possible to overcome these assumptions, will life no longer be hidden under a false reality, or will lack of listening remain the forbidden force in human communication? These questions will emerge in the minds of readers of, 1964.