In Sui Sin Far’s In the Land of the Free we read the
tragic story of two Chinese American parents who reluctantly leave their new
born child to American missionaries. The reason for this is because the child
was born in China and he had no official papers indicating he belonged to the
parents, Lae Choo and Hom Hing. After going through legal battles and loss of
fortune, Lae Choo, the mother, is finally reunited with her son. For those who
have read the short story, you know what happens, but for those who haven’t read
it I will avoid spoiling the story.
I wanted to discuss the role of
James Clancy, the lawyer. He is the person who was able to reunite Lae Choo
with her son after going to Washington DC to testify her case. As a reader I
thought Clancy was a good person who fought for the rights of the parents. But after
examining the text I was confused as to whether he was actually a good person. In
the story, he first showed Hom Hing the letters from the government stating
where the son as being kept. But as Hom Hing remarked to lawyer as to whether
he had anything to say, “Nothing. They have sent me the same letter fifteen
times now.” The letters didn’t help the situation, so Clancy offers his
services to go to DC himself and testify. However, he asks for a great deal of
money and my answer to his good will was clearer. When Lae Choo calls Clancy a “common
white man”, referring to him as just a typical greedy American, he responds
with, “Yes, ma’am” and a bow. The text describes his response as “ironic”. I took
this as he bowed to her in a caustic and disrespectful. Like he got caught for
his true intentions and proudly admitted to them.
As I read the short story, I thought
to myself that every story no matter the length has a protagonist and
antagonist. At first read I saw the United States as the villain, but I realized
that Clancy and his greed were the true antagonist of the narrative.
I also think James Clancy is an interesting character to look at after reading the text. At first I did think Clancy was a good person because he was trying to help the couple get their son in their country. Regarding the letter situation where the letters did absolutely nothing fifteen times, I believe by Clancy offering to go to D.C. he is being genuine. Of course the trip to D.C. will cost money and his services will not be cheap because he is a lawyer. I don’t think it is because he is a bad person, but as a person giving his services for a price. The price might be too much, but in the end it is Clancy’s job to set the price for his services. Clancy even said, “You can’t get fellows to hurry the Government for you without gold in your pocket.” Clancy is willing to try to persuade the government to help get their son in the country. Clancy is telling Hom Hing and Lae Choo that he is able to do it, but it will cost time and money. This why Clancy also says “It won’t harm the boy to stay where he is, and your wife may get over it all right.” Clancy is trying to explain to Lae Choo that it doesn’t hurt for their son to wait awhile because he doesn’t need to be in America this instant. Also Clancy is trying to comfort Lae Choo that his wife will get over it. James Clancy also shows a good side when he hesitates to accept the jewelry as payment. In the end Clancy does accept the jewelry and is able to get papers for their son to come to America. I think this proves Clancy is a good man in the end.
ReplyDelete