Nakita Mortimer's Response to "The Labrador Fiasco" by Margaret Atwood

Margaret Atwood develops plot in a rather unique way in her collection of short stories together titled Moral Disorder. The reader basically follows a main character, Nell, through various stages of her life, each stage portrayed as a short story. The focus here will be on the penultimate short, “The Labrador Fiasco.”

In “The Labrador Fiasco,” the tale of three explorers on a dangerous expedition is interwoven into the story of Nell’s father’s painful descent into oblivion. Handicapped at the beginning of the story by a stroke, and then again later on in the story by another, the main character’s father becomes a great source of worry for his family. Once a brave and lively explorer, this man is now diminished to a half-blind, forgetful wandering soul who seems to only be able to circle back to his favorite tale (that of the three explorers) in times of trouble. I find it interesting that Atwood chose to use two plots to tell one story, and I am puzzled by the choice of the inner plot. The tale of the three explorers is a rather gloomy one, starting with the hopeful beginning of a journey for two curious whites and their savant Native American guide, but ending with the death of both explorers and a hint at the survival of the guide. Meanwhile, the outer plot goes from a rather quaint portrayal of a somewhat normal Canadian family reading the aforementioned tale aloud for the umpteenth time, to the burdensome event of the father’s second stroke and his struggle to find himself thereafter.

The line in this short story that speaks to me most is the following: “Stories are no good, not even short ones, because by the time you get to the second page he's forgotten the beginning. Where are we without our plots?” (Atwood 228). The main character thinks this as she explains that her father has lost interest in many of his old hobbies after his second stroke, here specifically reading or being read short stories. This part strikes me because it seems to have more than one meaning. Literally, it seems to imply that without remembering events in a story, it is difficult if not impossible to make anything of said story. However, the use of the word ‘our’ in this sentence could instead imply that without the ‘plot’ of our lives, that is to say the events or memories that make up our experiences, we are lost, unable to move forward.

This short has made me realize the possibility of having more than one plot present in a story. I have been more used to the idea of the personal background of each character in a story, which can be seen as a ‘plot’ of each character’s lives, coming together to make one story overall. But using a story inside of a story is an intriguing way of passing on a message. The abrupt ending of “The Labrador Fiasco” makes me wary of having pinpointed the actual message of the short, but I do feel that with the implied survival of the Native American guide, Atwood wishes to impart a sense of hope to the reader.