Monkey. Bird. In a cage.

An ugly monkey in a zoo.
After reading "Respectability" today in class, I fell in love with this story. My reading felt rushed, hurried, anxious as I scurried to finish my test, and I feel I did Anderson an injustice. After all, he dedicated his writing to his mother, who "awoke in him the hunger to see beneath the surface of lives," and what better way to look beneath the surface than to reflect on the thoughts swimming in one's head.
I guess I should start with the monkey. Ah, the monkey. Trapped in a cage in a zoo, being stared at by disapproving faces, intrigued by the hideousness and yet repulsed by the same hideousness that attracts them to the poor thing. In contemplating why Anderson chose Wash to be represented by the monkey, I can only say this: the whole metaphor is ironic. Although Wash is being characterized as the monkey, primitive and ugly, in fact, it is society that is primitive and ugly, while Wash--although not exactly refined or cultured--is the more sophisticated of the two. In trapping an innocent but ugly monkey in a cage and proceeding to stare at it for enjoyment, the people of Winesburg exhibit a hypocritical cruelty. I think that is what Anderson was trying to point out in writing "Respectability." The monkey is grotesque, and knows a truth. It is probably grotesque because it knows the truth, but the people of Winesburg simply call it off as an ugly monster. So are they indirectly saying the truth is ugly?
I can't help but feel sorry for Wash. He had given that tall blonde girl his everything, and she had given him nothing in return. What was most interesting to me was that she was tall and blonde, with yellow hair. Most of the other women portrayed in other stories are tall and dark, and are imparted with a truth. However, Wash's wife is different from the other women not only in appearance but also in action. No other wife cheats on her husband, at least not with more than one man (if you count Elizabeth's "relationship" with Dr. Reefy "cheating"). While men are shown to have lust throughout the stories, the women usually do not manifest it as defiantly, as clearly.
What intrigues me is why Wash feels sorry for men while hating women. His hatred for women is understandable, as a woman put out the fire ablaze in his soul. But his sympathy for men is curious. I wonder if he really does believe that women control men into doing certain actions or he feels sorry for men because he too is one and knows the pain of woman.
In ways, Wash is like Wing. And yet, he is also the exact opposite. While Wing is nervous, fluttery, like a bird, scared of the rest of society, like a hurt animal who is afraid to trust, Wash is defiant, angry, spiteful, like a hurt animal who lashes out at whoever comes near. They are both animals. And yet, they are so different. Wing is gazed upon. Wash is laughed at. Yet they both know a truth. And they both use their hands. I didn't understand what the seeds that Wash planted symbolized. His love for his wife? The sorrows and anguish that would spring up later that she handed him and he willingly and happily planted? As with all of Anderson's stories, something remains a mystery. Will the monkey and bird ever escape the cage?
I wonder...