This is a rationale where I explain the purpose of my two genres and their significance to my audience. I was able to explain how my work reflected the work of Shirley Jackson and my personal perception of her characters.

In the novel We Have Always Lived in the Castle author Shirley Jackson transports readers into the dark and twisted mind of Merricat, formally known as Mary Katherine, Blackwood. Within the novel readers cannot help but notice the close bond between Merricat and her sister Constance. However, it is because of this intimate bond that questions are drawn from readers. The main one being; if Merricat loves Constance so much why did she let Constance take the blame for the murder of their family? Constance was treated poorly and forced into a life of isolation. No one usually wants a loved one to live like this. The best way to understand why both Merricat and Constance allowed Constance to take the fall of the murders is to understand their thoughts the night it took place. A one-sided dialogue between Merricat and her cat Jonas will help reflect  the mind of Merricat the night of the murder. A narrative from the perspective of Constance will provide reasoning for her role in the murder and why she accepted the consequences that came with it. With the use of these two genres I hope to answer the question of why both Merricat and Constance let Constane take blame for the murder.

The purpose of the one-sided dialogue is to explain why Merricat let Constance take the blame for the murder. Jonas is often nearby Merricat and because of this Merricat speaks to Jonas. Merricat would not have shared her emotions with any human. The only one most likely would be Constance however, as mentioned in the novel, they did not once speak of the incident (110). This only leaves the option of Jonas. 

In the dialogue I tried very hard to stay true to the character Shirley Jackson created. The dialogues that Merricat shares with Jonas may be revealing but are short (70) even when explaining herself. I referenced conversations shared between Merricat and Jonas and information shared in the novel surrounding the night of the murder. I allowed myself to show a more emotional side to Merricat because she is sensitive to punishment (94). Merricat in my dialogue was open, however unapologetic, about her actions. This mimics when Merricat revealed she committed the murder (110). I wanted to use the bond between Constance and Merricat as her motivator. Merricat received punishments in which she was sent to bed without dinner, despite this Constance would bring her food (34). It is most likely because of this kindness that Merricat grew attached to Constance. The reason Merricat was okay with Constance taking the blame is because she doesn’t want Constance to be with anyone else. This is supported by her concern for Constance leaving the house (19) and immediate dislike for the arrival of Charles. Merricat once referred to Constance as a fairy princess (19) and often speaks of going to the moon with her, which are things I referenced in the dialogue. The title is ‘To The Moon’ because after the raid of the townspeople on their home and the death of their uncle Merricat says, “We are on the moon at last,” (112).  It seems that the moon Merricat was speaking of is the idea of living alone with Constance. Uncle Julian did not intentionally survive the murder attempt he was just lucky (31). The murder attempts were only the beginning of their journey ’to the moon’. 

The narrative is to explain why would Constance take blame for the murder for her family and accept a life of isolation with Merricat? Towards the end of the novel readers learn that Constance knew it was Merricat who committed the murders, “I knew then, ”(130). This fact set the tone for the narrative. Constance was not concerned, she was amused. I chose this because Constance often refers to Merricat as ‘silly’ throughout the novel. When Merricat goes on about the Amanita phalloides, obviously in an attempt to disturb Charles, Constance just laughs and remarks, “you are silly,”(73). Even when Merricat states that death will occur after eating them Constance just says, “Silly Merricat,”(73). Constance excuses Merricat’s actions and usually by laughing them off. That is what shapes Constance’s perspective, I made it so Constance sees Merricat’s actions as all ‘Fun and Games’, the title of my narrative. 

Despite Constance excusing Merricat’s actions, that does not explain why she would take the blame for them. Constance has in the novel taken fault for something of Merricat’s doing. When Charles finds Merricat’s box of silver dollars he goes to confront Merricat, however she is defended by Constance who takes blame, “It’s my fault, all of it”(92). Yet, why take blame for the murder? Constance not only said she killed her family but that they deserved it (37). There was a moment in the novel where Constance began to question the way that they have all been living, “… letting things go on and on because I wanted to hide”(79). Constance said that she wanted to hide. The reason that Constance would want to hide, the reason why she agreed to this life of isolation, is her love for Merricat. This is proven in the last chapter. Constance feels sorry for Merricat, “I never should have reminded you why they all died”(130) . The only reason she wouldn’t want to remind Merricat of  “why they all died”, not ‘why you murdered them’, is because the reminder of her punishments hurts Merricat. To let Mericat get away with things, to laugh along with her, that is how Constance shows her love. Those are themes I represent in the narrative. Constance deeply loves Merricat and would do anything for her, even take the blame of murder. In We Have Always Lived In the Castle the characters Merricat and Constance have both chosen a life of isolation from the world. They choose this fate to be together.