The Nature of Personal Freedom Is the True Subject of Brooklyn. Discuss.

639 Words3 Pages
Colm Tóibín elucidates the concerns of his novel ‘Brooklyn’ (2009) as they pertain to the notion of self-determination. Though he extrapolates ideas of relationships, social identity and duty, and self-actualization he underscores these with broader commentary on the nature of personal freedom; both its limitations and how it is achieved. True to a bildungsroman, Tóibín charts protagonist Eilis’ maturation, however through her story he demonstrates the inherent links between independence and the ability to discover one’s true sense of self. Tóibín’s naturalist and journalistic depiction of relationships; in both Ireland and Brooklyn, eschews an idealised portrait of love but rather underlines its ability to superimpose expectations and obligations, inhibiting independence. The relationships of the Lacey household throughout Part One are characterised by strict adherence to social mores, in spite of their closeness, Rose, Eilis and Mrs Lacey are unable “to say out loud what it was they were thinking.” Indeed, such are their routines that even aged twenty Mrs Lacey dictates to Eilis when they “are going to have…tea.” Tóibín’s characterisation of Mrs Lacey as a quintessential exemplar of the attitudes of the 1950s Irish society, critiques the insular nature of the familial relationships- a trait which ultimately binds Eilis and Rose in obligations and strict behavioural codes. Rose, as the eldest daughter, is expected to pay “for most of their needs” and in return her mother continues to run the household “carefully tidy[ing] and clean[ing] [her room] each morning.” Thereby, as Eilis comes to realise, in neither becoming Mrs Lacey’s carer “Rose would not be able to marry” nor “leave [the Lacey] house herself.” In what Tóibín depicts to be a sad reality for Rose, imbued in the minutia of the Lacey’s life together is the expectation that Rose will confine herself to
Open Document