Literature

Each person is unique in one way or another and this uniqueness can be perceived by different people in different ways.  David Sedaris story Go Carolina is not really a story about being gay, rather, it is a story about being different and unique and how society puts much pressure on people who are different to blend in with existing social norms.

Reading the story, one would initially notice that instead of focusing more on the protagonists being gay, the author dwells more on the verbal lisp of the protagonist which dominates more than half of the entire storyline.  (Sedaris)   Knowing that all literature is intentional, it is therefore easy to conclude that the author did this for a purpose that being the intention to focus more on how the protagonist is different from the rest of society instead of zooming into the homosexuality of the protagonist and making this the main issue in the story.  We know this because while the story is apparently about a young boy who is treated differently because of his lisp it cannot be denied that this particular lisp of the boy plays an important role in setting him apart from the rest of the population so, the knowledge thus exists that using the lisp to achieve this in the story is an effective means of making the distinction of the young boy obvious, not only to the reader but to all the other characters in the story.

Therefore, aside from the lisp being an actual physical characteristic of the protagonist it is used in the story as a metaphor to represent how he is different from the rest of society.  This purposive skewing of the focus achieves for the reader a deeper sense of understanding for the plight of the protagonist instead of encouraging judgment because instead of making the audience focus on the superficiality of the distinctive trait of the boy the author is able to use this distinction to represent the intangible elements of the boys personality.  The only clue to the protagonists sexuality in the earlier part of the story comes in two lines, first, when the protagonist describes the fashion get up of the speech therapist in detail, as follows, wearing a dung-colored blazer over a red knit turtleneck, her heels sensibly low (Sedaris)  and second, when during a conversation about state athletics and the protagonist associates the teams with the color of clothes of those who supported these teams, thus saying, Those who cared about these things tended to express their allegiance by wearing Tar Heel powder blue, or wolf pack red.  (Sedaris)  These two initial lines suggest that the protagonist spends more time minding fashion and the colors of clothes, something a straight male would rarely do.  Making keen observations of fashion instead of dismissing these elements as insignificant is something that only two kinds of males would do  metrosexuals and gays.  In addition to this foreshadowing, the protagonist also hints on how society treats people who are different by saying,but there were names for boys who didnt like sports (Sedaris) euphemistically referring to judgments passed by society on people who did not fit the stereotype or did not subscribe to the social norm.  Nowhere in the story is homosexuality directly mentioned except towards the end when the reader realizes that the list of the protagonist is actually taken to be synonymous with homosexuality.  The rest of the story focuses on the verbal lisp of the protagonist and how he takes extra effort by attending his speech therapy sessions to attempt to fit into society and trick society into thinking that he was just like any other person.  What defines the story, however, is the fact that with something as minute as verbal lisp, society can pass judgment, which is better illustrated by how the teacher regularly announces to the class that the protagonist had to go to speech therapy sessions. (Sedaris)  This, as well, is an indication of how society will set a person apart or ostracize that person because of hisher differences.

Another point of interest in the story is the line, at least at home, where my lazy tongue fell upon equally lazy ears. (Sedaris)  Although seemingly insignificant, this line delivered by the protagonist, and coming from someone who had gone through so much just to fit into the mold society, suggests that at the protagonists home he is accepted for what he is.  At home, his family did not really mind if he had an s lisp, or wanted decoupage over athletics, or preferred to men over women  all that mattered to his family was that he was the person that he wanted to be.

In a different light, we see how a person cannot be changed by external forces when the person has already grown into or was born into a particular individual mold.  Hence, from this point of view, we find the protagonist struggling not to correct his lisp but rather to conceal that lisp good enough to make society believe that he was not really different.  However, in a final statement by the protagonist at the end of the story, he says, none of my speech classes ever made a difference. (Sedaris)  This final statement suggests that the protagonist was aware that no matter what he did, and whatever external changes occurred, he would still be gay thus, allowing the conclusion that society cannot change how a person is unique and different in some aspects and similar in some.  This final statement implies the truth that no amount of professional, therapeutic, or psychological intervention can change a person or force a person into the prescribed stereotype of society.  In the end, like the protagonist having to avoid words with s, the individual will have to cope with society, in one way or another, and exist as society would have it, but always drawing a line between superficiality and depth of personality.  It is on this level that I feel for the author of the text  because in one way or another, I am different from the rest of society, no two persons are exactly the same and as such, I agree with the author of the story that one should prioritize the intangible aspects of personality over the superficiality of judgment.

I made the opening statement clearer to indicate that in fact the piece was not about homosexuality but about differences in society. (revision 1)
I explained how it is possible and accurate to assume the writers purposive intention of using the lisp as a means of symbolizing the isolation and discrimination that the protagonist is experiencing. (revision 2)
I explained how the reader is able to achieve a deeper sense of understanding for the piece. (revision 3)
I explained how keen observations of fashion can often be construed as feminine instead of masculine. (revision 4)