Dependency Needs in Literature

The measure of a family’s success has served as an agent of reflection among novelists and readers alike. A family’s ability to nurture its members’ emotions and foster effective dialogue closely mirrors its members’ satisfaction throughout adult life. Negative coping mechanisms and a denial of emotional dependency often underlie an early rejection of these needs. The novels Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant, by Anne Tyler, and Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha, by Roddy Doyle, follow the lives of two such dysfunctional families. Two characters in particular, Pearl Tull from Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant, and Patrick Clarke from Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha, demonstrate strong coping mechanisms that shield a denial of emotional fulfillment from their familial past. Although Pearl Tull and Patrick Clarke present an image of autonomy and self-reliance, this external façade in actuality masks insecurities arising from strong yet neglected dependency needs. This is demonstrated by the characters’ autonomy from external influences to mask their fear of losing control, their display of independence and authority to gain the approval of others, and their display of indifference to disguise a fear of emotional connection and passion. All of these insecurities arise from a neglected dependency relationship with their family or immediate community.

It is Pearl’s fear of losing control of her children that dominates her desire to operate her family independently of any meaningful connection to outsiders or her immediate community. Her family’s autonomy from the community assures her that connections with outsiders will not supersede familial bonds. It also resolves her fear that her children will leave her, as did her husband Beck; hence, she sees outside forces as destructive to her family’s well-being. Here, Pearl speaks of her loss of connection with Beck, attributing it to his preference for an outside woman:

“There was not a hope of Beck’s return. He’d found someone younger, someone glamorous and merry, still capable of bearing children. They were laughing at her – at how she’d always been an old maid, really, always an old maid at heart.” (Tyler 13)

This fear and distrust of outsiders is further confirmed when Pearl is enraged over Ezra’s

acceptance of a partnership in Mrs. Scarlatti’s restaurant. She implies a fear of disconnection from her children and the dissolution of familial bonds if her children form dependencies with outsiders. She furiously remarks:

“… It’s a favour; partnerships don’t cost a dollar; you’ll be beholden all your life. Ezra, we Tulls depend on ourselves, only on each other. We don’t look to the rest of the world for any help whatsoever. How could you lend yourself to this? … You only want to see us break up, dissolve in the outside world” (Tyler 94)

However, Pearl surprisingly exhibits a real but neglected dependence on her community when she revisits important events in her diary. Upon her deathbed, she searches her diary for a satisfying moment of happiness. However, the reader finds that the majority of the recorded events involve public dealings that date before her marriage, and Pearl essentially searches for glimpses of happiness in her social life. When reading her entries out loud to her, Ezra remarks in awe:

“Why, that perky young girl was this old woman! This blind old woman sitting next to him! She had once been a whole different person, had a whole different life separate from his, had spent her time swinging clubs with the Junior Amazons and cutting up with the Neal boys something dreadful and taking first prize at the Autumn Recital Contest” (Tyler 264).

This is highly suggestive that Pearl’s failed relationship with Beck initiated her distrust of and autonomy from outsiders. This erected a desire to control her familial bonds with her children by shutting out the family’s need for external dependencies.

Patrick Clarke shares Pearl’s fear of losing control and mimics Pearl’s reaction by striving for autonomy from the neighbourhood boys and their violent antics. At the same time, he feels a strong need to depend on his brother and share a genuine connection with his classmates. However, whereas Pearl attempts to physically isolate and control her children to protect her insecurity, Patrick desires to emotionally control his relationships, especially with his brother.

Violence plays a central role in Patrick’s life; his affairs with schoolboys are dominated by violent and cruel images, his father and teacher hit him when their moods delegate them to, and Patrick mirrors this violent behaviour towards his younger brother, Francis. However, when Patrick witnesses his mother and father fighting in a similar fashion, he realizes the consequences of violence. He then attempts to maintain his emotional connections with his parents and brother by freeing himself from the violent games of the neighbourhood boys. The following quote demonstrates Patrick’s attempt to rebuild his relationship with his brother by shunning his mistreatment of Francis:

“I thought about giving him a dead leg – he deserved it – but I didn’t bother; I just kicked him. Bang on the shin. My foot bounced back. He caught the noise; I saw his mouth bulge. I went to get him again, but I didn’t. … I touched the top of his head, brushed his hair with my fingers. He didn’t feel anything. – I’m sorry for kicking you” (Doyle 240).

Pearl and Patrick both fear a loss of control and a need for emotional connection with their families. However, Patrick’s autonomy from his classmates’ violent behaviour is a more positive reaction to this vulnerable dependency need, as compared to Pearl’s isolation from her community.

Pearl and Patrick also exhibit a strong dependency on the need for approval, which is masked beneath a presentation of authority and independence.

For the first half of the novel, Patrick grounds his interpersonal affairs on the philosophy that might makes right. He strives for authority and physical strength to establish his power as an individual. However, the reader realizes that this display of independence is merely a cry for approval, especially that of his best friend Kevin. Patrick demonstrates this when he is playing a game with some of the neighbourhood boys, in which Kevin hits one member with a rod, obligating him to shout a bad word. When Liam is hit and hurt, he stands up against Kevin and walks out of the game. Although there is a brief silence afterwards, the game continues and Patrick ends up shouting the best word. At that instant, Patrick thinks:

“It was all over now; we could all get up from the fire; till next week. I straightened my back. It had been worth it. I was the real hero, not Liam … They all remembered that.” (Doyles 132-133)

Here, Patrick attributes his success to his lasting impression on his classmates, and not to the win itself. Near the end of the novel, the reader observes that Liam’s defiance of violent games is mirrored by Patrick. Liam’s absent mother parallels Patrick’s fear of losing his father, which draws both of these characters away from the clutches of violence. Ultimately, Patrick’s dependence on the need for approval from his classmates is guarded by a display of autonomy and individual strength.

Pearl also secretly displays a strong need for approval from others, which she covers beneath an exterior of independence. Pearl exhibits immense pride in raising her children without any additional help. She mentions this pride when she muses of Beck:

“Beck would not have known them, and they, perhaps, would not have known Beck. They never asked about him. Didn’t that show how little importance a father has? The invisible man. The absent presence. Pearl felt a tinge of angry joy” (Tyler 13).

Although Pearl attempts to disassociate herself from Beck, she ensures that Ezra does not forget to invite him to her funeral. She invites Beck to showcase her upbringing and state that neither she nor her children have needed him. Furthermore, Pearl never replies to Beck’s letters and she continually forces herself to falsely believe that the family is independent of him. Hence, both Pearl and Patrick use the display of independence to hide their dependency needs for approval.

However, perhaps the most compelling display of autonomy that the characters exhibit is that of emotional indifference, which stems from a deep-rooted fear of feeling and passion.

Pearl, in particular, shuts herself emotionally from everyone, including her husband and children. She fears a deeper connection will heighten dependence and stunt the strength of the individual. The lack of emotional connection ensures the inability to be influenced by pain and loss. Pearl repeatedly mentions her fear of the house burning down. Her pessimism and continual need to safeguard her home from outside influences suggests an insecurity and fear of feeling and passion. Pearl further demonstrates her fear of emotion when she contemplates about telling her children about Beck:

“It was unthinkable to cry in front of the children. Or in front of anyone. Oh, she had her pride! She was not a tranquil woman; she often lost her temper, snapped, slapped the nearest check, said things she later regretted – but thank the Lord, she didn’t expose her tears. She didn’t allow any tears. She was Pearl Cody Tull, who’d ridden out of Raleigh triumphant with her new husband and never looked back” (Tyler 14).

Pearl’s inability to form a genuine emotional connection with her children and truly understand them literally takes the form of blindness near the last years of her life.

However, although Pearl neglects them, she possesses real dependency needs for feeling and connection, especially with her children. In one part of the novel, Pearl asks:

“ “All my life,” his mother said, “people have been trying to shut me out. Even my children. Especially my children. If I so much as ask that girl how she”s been, she shies away like I’d inquired into the deepest, darkest part of her. Now, why should she be so standoffish?’

Ezra said, “Maybe she cares more about what you think than what outsiders think.”

‘Ha,’ said his mother. She lifted a carton of eggs from the grocery bag” (Tyler 125).

Here, Pearl expresses a genuine need to connect to her daughter and at the same time her regret over the lack of communication with her. Although Ezra serves as her eyes in this matter (for Pearl is blind to the effect of her upbringing on her children), Pearl again rebuffs his suggestion and continues to remain emotionally immune to her children. Hence, Pearl continues to neglect her dependency needs throughout the novel and replaces them with a blinding cover of emotional autonomy.

Patrick mimics Pearl’s reaction of emotional indifference to guard a vulnerable dependency on his parents. Like Pearl, Patrick feels that a display of emotion and feeling would stunt his control over the situation. He mentions his role as a protector for his younger brother Francis, whom he must assist in emotionally preparing for his parents’ arguments and possibly their absence. Furthermore, he trains himself to be devoid of feeling, especially for his parents, should his father or mother leave and emotionally scar him. He admires this quality in a fellow classmate Charles Leavy, who later becomes his role model for coping with his familial situation:

“Charles Leavy didn’t dare anyone; he’d gone further than that: he didn’t know they were there. I wanted to get that far. I wanted to look at my ma and da and not feel anything. I wanted to be ready” (Doyle 250).

However, Patrick does not come to appreciate his genuine need to express emotion and feeling. He demonstrates this strong need when he tries to communicate with his brother:

“I went to thump him and before I had a fist made I was crying. I hung on to his nose for a while longer, just to be holding him. I didn’t know why I was crying; it shocked me. I let go of his nose. I put my arms around him. My hands touched around the back. He stayed hard and closed. I thought my arms would soften him. They’d have to.” (Doyle 241)

As Pearl is unable to understand or emotionally connect to her children, Patrick is unable to gain the trust of his brother and effectively communicate his feelings of pain and loss.

Despite Patrick’s attempts to be emotionally indifferent towards his mother and father, he never completely fulfills this objective. Patrick manages to restrict a public show of emotion, but his feelings towards his father merely undergo a shift in perspective. Patrick demonstrates this change when his father comes to visit on Christmas Eve:

“How are you? he said

He put his hand out for me to shake it.

How are you?

His hand felt cold and big, dry and hard.

Very well, thank you.” (Doyle 282)

Although Patrick attempts not to uphold an emotional association with him, his response to his father’s hand reflects his changing attitudes and feelings towards him. Patrick does not completely rid himself of feeling for his father. Rather, he overrides his old feelings towards him with those of inapproachability and emotional distance.

Although Pearl Tull and Patrick Clarke exhibit strong dependency needs, insecurities arising from these needs are masked by an external facade of autonomy and self-reliance. Their independent image ultimately hides vulnerabilities linked to the fear of losing control, the desire to gain the approval of others, and the fear of feeling and passion. These characters serve as a model of how an early neglect of dependency needs can lead to unhealthy coping mechanisms throughout life. They also suggest that the familial institution is perhaps the most powerful in influencing the human psyche and shaping one’s perspective of the world.