Alternative title: “Who’s to know”
The original title “Barbie-Q” is probably a play on the word “barbeque”, since at the end of the story the narrator mentions that the dolls come from a factory that burned down the night before. I really like this title because the fun wordplay actually describes a pretty disturbing image of a human-like doll being burned and slowly melted. Freaky. This contrast shows in the story as well. The narrator takes an unwavering fun and excited tone throughout the entire story, even during the mention of the factory fire. When she hears the news, she is really excited because the fire means she gets to buy some toys on the cheap. However, if you think just a little harder, her excitement completely overlooks the disturbing reality that a whole factory burned down and probably some people with it. I don’t know if this signifies some other deeper meaning to the story, but I just found the connection between the tone of the title and this scene very interesting and fitting.
The last words of Cisneros’s short story “Barbie-Q” are “who’s to know.” I think this would also be a fitting title as well. The narrator rhetorically asks regarding who would know about the Barbie doll’s physical defects after it’s covered in glamorous dress. I took that line and the rest of the story to be a criticism of the superficiality of Barbie dolls—throughout the story the narrator obsessed over specifically the clothing of the dolls, so much so that the narrator becomes enamored by it and completely overlooks the physical flaws of the doll. The theme of superficial beauty in the clothing persists throughout the story as the narrator attributes traits like sophistication, elegance, and beauty to the dolls. However, the narrator mentions traits in combination with a detailed description of the clothing of the dolls, which makes it seem like the narrator associates those traits with the clothing rather than the doll itself. Cisneros uses this device often to bring attention to how Barbie dolls give impressionable children a warped perception of beauty, exemplified by the narrator's question, "who's to know".
I share your admiration for Cisneros’s wordplay in the original title, which I’ve always found quite memorable. I appreciate your observation of the disjunction between the story’s light tone (expressed through its child narrator) and its dark subtext (both the factory burning down, but also the narrator’s poverty); you’re totally correct in pointing out that this disjunction extends to the story’s title. I also like your suggestion of re-titling the story “who’s to know,” which is a great concluding line for the story. I’m persuaded by your discussion of the dolls’ superficial beauty, but could we also see a kind of freedom in the ability of the dolls’ clothes to change their circumstances (ie, beauty or social class are performative and malleable because clothes can be changed)? -Ms. O'Brien
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think titling the story "Who's to Know" would be a good idea, and it's cool that it's also the last words of the story, so it provides a bigger impact on the reader. The main idea of the story revolves around the fact that the girls don't care about the physical deformities of the doll, because no one will know about them when they're covered in a pretty dress - hence the line "who's to know". This line as a title would definitely work well as it relates to this main idea.
ReplyDelete