“Fame’s First Wooing”
Thomas Wolfe affirms that one can autonomously stimulate his/ her destiny: “There can be no doubt about that. He exulted in the fact. The old madness had gone out of him, and for long stretches at a time he was now buoyed up by the glorious belief — not by any means a new one with him, though it was much stronger now than it had ever been before — that he was at last in triumphant control of his destiny.” George makes every effort to acquire his idyllic destiny. Instead of lounging idly and antedating a phenomenal destiny, George embarks on constituting a manuscript then endeavours to have it published so that he can warrantee his definitive destiny. Thomas Wolfe’s ideology is : Destiny is neither static nor encoded for diligence can categorically modify one’s prospects. Destiny is reliant on the mind-set and the strategy one employs in making the destiny an actuality. Had George not endeavored to excel, he would have ended up an underprivileged, solitary and unaccomplished orphan. George categorically rises above his state of affairs through enthusiasm and positivity.
Otto is an idyllic Looking Glass Self: “This was Otto Hauser as George came to know him. In the confidence of friendship Otto held up a mirror to his own soul, affording a clear, unposed reflection of his quiet, unassuming, and baffling integrity; but in the same mirror he also revealed, without quite being aware of it, the stronger and more shining image of Fox Edwards.” Otto Hauser is an unqualified dual Looking Glass self. George longs for the standing that Otto Hauser adopts. The attachment emboldens George to approve and emulate his friend. Additionally, Otto Hauser acts as unqualified the Looking Glass Self of Fox Edwards. Based on Thomas Wolfe’s explanations, Otto Hauser mirrors Fox Edwards personality which may be accredited to their long-term familiarity and association. The interrelationship between Otto Hauser, Fox Edwards and George exemplifies the constructive, relational ripple effects of the Looking-Glass self whereby Fox Edwards in the principal mirror.
Although George’s association commences as writer-editor connection, Fox turns out to be George’s paramount Object petit a: “George knew how fortunate he was to have as his editor a man like Fox. And as time went on, and his respect and admiration for the older man warmed to deep affection, he realized that Fox had become for him much more than editor and friend. Little by little it seemed to George that he had found in Fox the father he had lost and had long been looking for. And so it was that Fox became a second father to him — the father of his spirit.” In the exposition, Thomas Wolfe explicates that George is a forlorn orphan but does not hint at his quest for a father figure. Thomas Wolfe omits the issue of father figure because it is George’s unconscious aspiration which he wants the reader to recognize in the resolution. Fox’s fatherly approach towards George in both writing and non-writing matters makes him an epitome Objet Petit a that seals in the gap of George’s deceased father. Clearly, fortune works in George’s favor by bestowing him with his unconscious (father figure) and conscious desires (‘fortune & fame’).
“The Drunken Beggar on a Horseback”
Why is it unmanageable for George Webber to dodge his concentrated affection for Ester Jack? Thomas Wolfe elucidates, “he memory of her rosy, jolly face, her essential goodness, her sure and certain talent, and all the hours that they had spent together returned to torture him with new desire and longing for her. Thus, fleeing from a love that still pursued him, he had become a wanderer in strange countries.” George’s unconscious stockpiles all the reminiscences of Esther Jack. Therefore, being bodily distant from her does not distress the unconscious stowage. George’s quandary parades the incorrigible forte of Love Instinct. The instinct is so preternatural that it cannot be curtailed by expansive topographical delimitations.
The resolution: "There’s for ever,” he said. “There’s your for ever” suggests that George is resolute to endorse pragmatic anticipations in their liaison. George proclaims the relativity of forever to conjecture that he may not be “The Drunken Beggar on a Horseback” in his all-inclusive existence. George insinuates that he may not live up to Esther’s superficial ‘forever’ because he is intent of cataloguing his private and professional aspects. Guaranteeing Esther that he will unconditionally adore her incessantly is a fallacy that may crumble in the event that their ultimate split-up becomes inexorable.
