Skip to main content

Is Charley an Escapist?

Illustration by Copilot Designer


Charley wants to go back in time and live in the Galesburg of 1894. He belongs to mid-20th century in Jack Finney’s short story, The Third Level. What triggered his longing for Galesburg of 1894 is his accidental arrival at the third level of New York Grand Central Railway station. Grand Central has only two levels. But Charley lands on a different platform which belongs to the older period. The people’s dress, the ticket counters, the gaslights, the newspaper stand, and the Currier & Ives locomotive all convince Charley that he is standing in the year of 1894.

Charley’s grandfather lived in Galesburg. So Charley knows that it is a “wonderful town still, with big old frame houses, huge lawns, and tremendous trees whose branches meet overhead and roof the streets. And in 1894, summer evenings were twice as long, and people sat out on their lawn, the men smoking cigars and talking quietly, the women waving palm-leaf fans, with the fireflies all around, in a peaceful world” [emphasis added]. Charley would love to live that world “with the First World War still twenty years off, and World War II over torty years in the future.”

Charley wants to book two tickets at the counter, one for his wife Louisa. But since the currency he possesses doesn’t work there, he has to return. Later, however, he can’t find the third level in spite of repeated searches. All people who know him, including his psychiatrist-friend Sam Weiner and his wife Louisa, think he is an escapist chasing a delusion.

Is Charley an escapist? This is a question that I have faced year after year from students when I teach this story in grade 12.

Charley is more a romantic than an escapist. That’s my answer. But all the guide books and online material describe him as an escapist, my students tell me. I tell them to analyse Charley’s character with the details given in the story.

First of all, an escapist is a person who wants to run away from his present reality because it is unacceptable for whatever reason. Is Charley running away from anything? He has no complaints about his workplace. In fact, he doesn’t abandon his work in order to look for the third level; he goes during lunch break. He loves his wife very much. If he has no issues with both, his work and his home, then what is he escaping from?

“The stress of modern life,” his psychiatrist-friend Sam suggests. “The insecurities, fear, war, worry and the rest of it.” Charley is amused, “Well, who doesn’t want to escape all those?”

Now, wanting to live without insecurity, fear, war, worry… is that escapism? I ask my students. If you are running away from the reality, you may be an escapist. But if you merely find an alternative and wish to go there and live in that other world, how can you be labelled an escapist?

Have you heard of the Romantic poets? I ask my students. They hated cities and their noise and stress. They wanted to live in some peaceful “bower” enjoying a relaxed life that is lived out in intimate connection with nature and its vital forces. “Nature never did betray / The heart that loved her,” Wordsworth would counsel us. Nature was his teacher, healer, God. As beauty was to Keats. As the human spirit was to Shelley. They were all Romantic poets. They were all fascinated with the past and the exotic. With the simple rustic life.

Were they escapists?

Well, that’s a matter of interpretation.

I interpret Charley as a Romantic who wants to connect better with people and nature. That is far from escapism for me. That is a search for deeper meaning. 

Illustration by Copilot Designer 

x

Comments

  1. I think they did a similar story on The Twilight Zone. It sounds like this story is of a similar vintage as that TV show.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have a friend who loves to read from that time period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not unexpected. The old world charm fascinates some.

      Delete
  3. Hari Om
    I might differ on this; romanticism equates more to idealism. Wishing to be somewhere else that is quieter and safer is escapist - and we are all entitled to that from time to time, particulrly under stress. It might otherwise be termed respitism... YAM xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've given me food for thought. But apart from the idealism part, well... There's nothing in the story to suggest that Charley is trying to shirk responsibilities. If seeking pleasure over pain is escapism, then everyone is an escapist!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Adventures of Toto as a comic strip

  'The Adventures of Toto' is an amusing story by Ruskin Bond. It is prescribed as a lesson in CBSE's English course for class 9. Maggie asked her students to do a project on some of the lessons and Femi George's work is what I would like to present here. Femi converted the story into a beautiful comic strip. Her work will speak for itself and let me present it below.  Femi George Student of Carmel Public School, Vazhakulam, Kerala Similar post: The Little Girl

The Little Girl

The Little Girl is a short story by Katherine Mansfield given in the class 9 English course of NCERT. Maggie gave an assignment to her students based on the story and one of her students, Athena Baby Sabu, presented a brilliant job. She converted the story into a delightful comic strip. Mansfield tells the story of Kezia who is the eponymous little girl. Kezia is scared of her father who wields a lot of control on the entire family. She is punished severely for an unwitting mistake which makes her even more scared of her father. Her grandmother is fond of her and is her emotional succour. The grandmother is away from home one day with Kezia's mother who is hospitalised. Kezia gets her usual nightmare and is terrified. There is no one at home to console her except her father from whom she does not expect any consolation. But the father rises to the occasion and lets the little girl sleep beside him that night. She rests her head on her father's chest and can feel his heart...

Two Women and Their Frustrations

Illustration by Gemini AI Nora and Millie are two unforgettable women in literature. Both are frustrated with their married life, though Nora’s frustration is a late experience. How they deal with their personal situations is worth a deep study. One redeems herself while the other destroys herself as well as her husband. Nora is the protagonist of Henrik Ibsen’s play, A Doll’s House , and Millie is her counterpart in Terence Rattigan’s play, The Browning Version . [The links take you to the respective text.] Personal frustration leads one to growth into an enlightened selfhood while it embitters the other. Nora’s story is emancipatory and Millie’s is destructive. Nora questions patriarchal oppression and liberates herself from it with equanimity, while Millie is trapped in a meaningless relationship. Since I have summarised these plays in earlier posts, now I’m moving on to a discussion on the enlightening contrasts between these two characters. If you’re interested in the plot ...

Hindutva’s Contradictions

The book I’m reading now is Whose Rama? [in Malayalam] by Sanskrit scholar and professor T S Syamkumar. I had mentioned this book in an earlier post . The basic premise of the book, as I understand from the initial pages, is that Hindutva is a Brahminical ideology that keeps the lower caste people outside its terrain. Non-Aryans are portrayed as monsters in ancient Hindu literature. The Shudras, the lowest caste, and the casteless others, are not even granted the status of humans.  Whose Rama? The August issue of The Caravan carries an article related to the inhuman treatment that the Brahmins of Etawah in Uttar Pradesh meted out to a Yadav “preacher” in the last week of June 2025. “Yadavs are traditionally ranked as a Shudra community,” says the article. They are not supposed to recite the holy texts. Mukut Mani Singh Yadav was reciting verses from the Bhagavad Gita. That was his crime. The Brahmins of the locality got the man’s head tonsured, forced him to rub his nose at t...

The Real Enemies of India

People in general are inclined to pass the blame on to others whatever the fault.  For example, we Indians love to blame the British for their alleged ‘divide-and-rule’ policy.  Did the British really divide India into Hindus and Muslims or did the Indians do it themselves?  Was there any unified entity called India in the first place before the British unified it? Having raised those questions, I’m going to commit a further sacrilege of quoting a British journalist-cum-historian.  In his magnum opus, India: a History , John Keay says that the “stock accusations of a wider Machiavellian intent to ‘divide and rule’ and to ‘stir up Hindu-Muslim animosity’” levelled against the British Raj made little sense when the freedom struggle was going on in India because there really was no unified India until the British unified it politically.  Communal divisions existed in India despite the political unification.  In fact, they existed even before the Briti...