Partly agree. But actually I think both the wife and the husband were ridiculous.They were in their 50s and talk about this topic and broke up in the end.If i were the wife, i would enjoy the life with my husband , such as traveling. Anyway, it was the husband's choice to choose whether he want to marry a black or not. We can't rush to the end that consider that the husband was a racist.In a nutshell , a marrige always depends on emotions.
教学团队
课程特色
视频(50)
练习(41)
作业(8)
考试(1)
最新学员
Unit 2 Read the Passage
In Tobias Wolff’s Say Yes, a central strain between the husband and wife is illuminated and never settled by the end of the story. The tension revolves around racism and the meaning of true love. In this story plot, point of view and irony reveal a married couple that becomes strangers.
The story is ironic. The husband says interracial couples should not marry because they have no hope of understanding each other. He ironically fails to see that he and Ann are having a hopeless failure to understand each other at the very same moment.
The husband is also left nameless by the author, emphasizing his lack of self-knowledge, and Ann’s inability to understand or truly know him.
Just as his views on interracial marriage reduce complex humans to simple colors that can never know each other, his failure to connect with his own wife in the end reduces her to a simple color moving through the dark. With the final words of the story, she becomes “a stranger” to him.
The ending suggests that both Ann and her husband are correct. The husband is correct that interracial couples can never truly know one another, but only because no one in any marriage can ever truly know their spouse. Ann, by this logic, is also correct that interracial couples should of course be allowed to marry, as their marriages are no more hopeless than those of any other couple.
What do you think of the ideas presented in the above passage? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
78 回复
-
-
I think the ideas presented in the above passage is great, but not entirely. I agree partly ideas. Ann and her husband just experienced something that every couples would do. Almost all couples will argue due to disagreements. But her husband is hypocritical, on the hand claim that he accepts black people and got along well with them, but on the other hand uses the guise of cultural differences to cover up the fact of he is a racist.
-
I agree with this view. I believe that a good marriage is not based on whether the race is the same, but on the personality and habits of the husband and wife. If the two are very compatible, whether they are of different races or not, their marriage will be happy.Similarly, if two people are not compatible, even if they are of the same race or even the same region, the marriage will not necessarily be happy.
-
I agree with this idea. From the husband's point of view, there are great cultural differences in interracial marriage, which can lead to differences of views and opinions between couples after their marriage. At the same time, interracial marriage should be prepared to be disapproved of by the outside world.
-
I agree with the ideas.The husband thinks things in his own way,doesn't understand his wife.He thinks different races can't understand each other.It is a narrow thought.He is too reasonable to consider things in other aspects.Ann faces this problem,she thinks though living togethrt for 30 years still is like strangers and doesn't understood each other.It makes her sad.
-
I think this view is correct. Because in real life, regardless of whether the races are the same or not, it is very difficult for couples to fully understand each other.Moreover, there are no two identical people in the world. Everyone is unique, and there will be more or less differences in everyone's inner thoughts, backgrounds, life experiences, and ways of thinking. These can also be the reasons for communication barriers. For interracial couples, culture and background do have a certain impact. But on the other hand, people change over time. In a marriage, it's difficult for spouses to fully know every side of each other. Just like the couple in the story, they gradually became strangers. However, I believe that in a marriage, mutual tolerance and understanding between husband and wife are the best ways to solve various contradictions and conflicts.
-
I don't fully agree with this view. The husband's opposition to interracial marriage with black people is not because interracial couples can't fully understand each other. It's just his excuse. In reality, it's still because he has some reservations about the racial identity of black people and can't fully recognize each other's cultures, nor recognize or understand them. Of course, this view is very accurate in analyzing the breakdown of the relationship between the husband and Ann.
-
I agree with this view. I believe that a good marriage is not based on whether the race is the same, but on the personality and habits of the husband and wife. If the two are very compatible, whether they are of different races or not, their marriage will be happy.Similarly, if two people are not compatible, even if they are of the same race or even the same region, the marriage will not necessarily be happy.
-
The passage offers a thought-provoking interpretation of Say Yes, and I agree with its analysis with some nuanced additions. Here’s why the ideas resonate and how they deepen the story’s themes
The passage correctly highlights the husband’s ironic blindness: he condemns interracial couples for “inability to understand each other” while failing to connect with his own wife. This irony isn’t just a plot device but a critique of how prejudice distorts self-awareness. For example, when he insists “people should marry their own kind,” he’s projecting his own fear of difference onto a broader social norm—yet the real barrier to understanding isn’t race, but his refusal to examine his wife’s perspective. The story’s ending, where Ann becomes a “stranger” in their home, visually embodies this irony: his prejudice against “otherness” ultimately creates alienation within his own marriage. Wolff’s choice to leave the husband unnamed is indeed crucial. By denying him a personal identity, the author transforms him into a stand-in for societal biases rather than an individual villain. The passage notes this reflects his “lack of self-knowledge,” but it also emphasizes that his prejudice is not unique—he’s a product of a culture that normalizes racial division. Ann’s failure to “truly know him” isn’t just about their marriage; it’s a comment on how prejudice itself creates emotional distance, even between people who believe they’re connected.
The passage’s argument that “no one in any marriage can ever truly know their spouse” is bold but compelling. The husband is “correct” in his cynicism only because he’s stumbled upon a universal truth through a flawed lens. His mistake is blaming race for this inherent human gap, when the real challenge of marriage (and any relationship) is bridging differences—whether of race, class, or personal history. Ann’s counterargument—that interracial couples should marry anyway—echoes the story’s deeper message: relationships thrive not on perfect understanding, but on the willingness to try. The irony is that the husband, by fixating on race, misses the fact that his own marriage is a test of that willingness. The passage effectively links the couple’s domestic tension to broader social issues. The husband’s reduction of people to “colors” mirrors how systemic racism simplifies human complexity, and his failure to connect with Ann shows how such thinking poisons intimate relationships. The final image of Ann as a “stranger in the dark” isn’t just a marital metaphor; it’s a warning about how prejudice blinds us to the humanity in those closest to us.
-
The husband claims to get along with Black people but refuses to accept intermarriage, revealing his hypocrisy—a trait conflicting with his "considerate" facade, which is ironic. The author's choice to leave him unnamed highlights his lack of self-awareness. Both he and Ann hold views shaped by culture, warranting critical reflection.
-
The husband's viewpoint has some merit. There are indeed limitations to understanding in marriage. People are complex, and complete empathy is almost impossible. This is a profound philosophical proposition about the essence of intimate relationships. However, the husband severely distorted and misused this viewpoint. He specifically turned it into the "inevitable destiny" of interracial marriages. This transformed a widespread life predicament into a tool that obstructs the union of specific groups and rationalizes their biases. He ignored that the depth of understanding is relative and gradual. Although it may not be "fully" understood, couples can achieve very deep understanding and connection through effort, communication, and empathy. Racial differences may bring unique perspectives and experiences that require extra effort to understand, but this does not mean "not understanding" or "not worth trying". The wife deeply felt the communication barriers between her and her husband. This barrier did not stem from race itself, but from the husband's attitude of refusing to confront his own biases.
-
I agree. I believe that love knows no bounds, whether in terms of age, gender, or—needless to say—race. Race should never be a label to define true love. While racial differences may underlie ideological and cultural disparities between couples, the foundation of love requires both parties to communicate and resolve issues rather than discriminate against each other or evade problems.
-
I agree with the notion that marriage shouldn’t be limited by skin color. Her husband doesn’t hold racial prejudice against Black people. Still, I find it reasonable that choosing a life partner involves weighing multiple factors – not just mutual understanding, but also personal capabilities, family backgrounds, and cultural differences. Take Ann’s situation: even though she and her husband share household chores and he’s considerate, there’s an irony in how little he truly knows her at a deeper level.
-
I agree with the passage. The story uses irony to show the husband’s contradiction: he opposes interracial marriage, saying couples can’t understand each other, yet ignores the distance in his own marriage. People can hardly fully understand their partners, and prejudice makes lovers become strangers faster.
-
I agree with the ideas in the passage. The story uses irony to show that the husband’s claim—people from different backgrounds can’t understand each other—is flawed, because he can’t even understand his own wife. This suggests that all relationships, not just interracial ones, face this mystery. Love isn’t about sameness, but about the effort to connect despite difference.
-
I agree the ideas.The husband said that he got along with the black but he could not accept be married with the black.So he is hypocritical but this character trait is different from his considerate.That is ironic.The author decides not to give the husband a name, which effectively emphasizes the husband's lack of self-awareness.Both the husband and Ann are right.Because they have a deep influence on culture,so we need look at their views critically.
-
添加回复
您确定给 “0” 位老师发送协议吗？
UMOOCS用户服务协议
问题分类：
--
4008987008