The Custody of the Pumpkin Reflection

The Custody of the Pumpkin

By: P. G. Wodehouse

   The Custody of the Pumpkin is a story about Lord Emsworth; a Scottish Lord, who resides in Blandings Castle. The story begins on a morning like all others in Blandings Castle, with Lord Emsworth outside in his garden enjoying the atmosphere. Suddenly, he spots Freddie, one of his youngest sons sneaking around with a girl. The Lord's dream had always been that a young, eligible and somewhat wealthy girl would come along and sweep Freddie off his feet so that Freddie would be out of his way. Unfortunately, this girl did not meet his criteria and the Lord therefore took it into his own hands to keep her as far away from his son as possible. Lord Emsworth ended up firing his head gardener; Angus McAllister, because he would not get rid of the girl Freddie had become involved with, the girl who was McAllister's cousin.

   The Lord realized too late that he had fired the one man who was able to produce a pumpkin worthy of the first prize at the Shrewsbury Show, a prize never won by himself or any of his royal ancestors. The Lord's desire to win the first place prize for his pumpkin drove him to seek out McAllister and beg him to return to work as his head gardener. Before the Lord could convince McAllister to come back and work for him, he met the father of Aggie-the girl to whom, by that time, Freddie was already wed. The Lord was absolutely furious with the news of the marriage since he had not been told that a ceremony would be taking place, but he ended up agreeing to it upon finding out that Aggie's father was a rich man who was providing his son a job abroad. The Lord was not looking out for the best interests of his son, he was rather selfishly looking for a way to get rid of the troublesome boy once and for all and this provided the perfect opportunity. Eventually the Lord got all his wishes. His son left with his wife; Aggie, and the Lord managed to win the prize for which he craved.

   The main characters in the story are Lord Emsworth, Freddie and Angus McAllister. Lord Emsworth is a wealthy figure who cares a lot about money and stature; he is a very materialistic person who craves success of any form. Freddie is the son of Lord Emsworth. He is a pitiable character portrayed as neglected and somewhat rebellious. The story made me feel bad for Freddie because it simply disgusted me to read about a father so desperate to rid himself of his own child. Although I felt strongly against Lord Emsworth I felt indifferent towards McAllister which was probably due to the fact that though he lost his job he was eventually re-employed. To me, McAllister is a pretty mysterious character. He's a Scottish man who speaks funny with a real passion for gardening. I liked the way that he was willing to go back to working for Lord Emsworth even after such an abrupt dismissal and that it was because of his love for plants. Though I like things about him I know too little to be able to connect with him.

   I hate how Lord Emsworth cares more about a pumpkin than his own son. The Lord went through so much trouble to make sure that his pumpkin was the best it could be while his non exist relationship with Freddie proved that he did not feel quite as strongly about family. The Lord cared so much about winning the pumpkin prize that he invested in it when he had completely given up on his son and was counting down the days when he would finally be rid of him. "One of his favourite dreams was of some nice, eligible girl, belonging to a good family, and possessing a bit of money of her own, coming along some day and taking Freddie off his hands; but his inner voice, more confident now than ever, told him that this was not she". When I first read that sentence, a thought belonging to Lord Emsworth, there was a spark of hope in me that maybe the father did care for his son after all. It appeared that he was simply a man with high standards who required nothing but the best for his son. I thought that maybe he had some compassionate however I did not agree with his standards as I found them materialistic and patronizing. Unfortunately, my hope was short lived, as soon afterwards, it was made very clear that the Lord only wanted an eligible and wealthy woman for his son, so that he would not have to care for Freddie and possibly so that he wouldn't even have to see him again. His motive was purely out of self interest, nothing like what I had hoped.

   Lord Emsworth's desire to win the prize reminded me of my competitiveness. He was willing to go to socially humiliating lengths to avoid failure and I generally push myself as hard as I possibly can because I can't stand losing especially when it comes to sports. Although I admire the fact that he was so dedicated to getting what he wanted I found it unsatisfying when he finally won the prize. In reality the Lord would never have won the prize without McAllister, which he admitted himself, and therefore I do not see how it was much of an achievement. I also found it too bad that Lord Emsworth would be credited for winning rather then McAllister who was the one who put all the work and care into producing the pumpkin.

   "The Custody of the Pumpkin" reminds me of both "The Son's Veto" and "The Fly in the Ointment". All three stories are about people who care more about money or reputation-in relation to fame or wealth, more than they care about the people in their lives. I didn't find this story particularly interesting because the last story we read was "The Fly in the Ointment" and the idea I picked up from both stories was the same. This short story was more disappointing than the others, in my opinion, because it didn't make me think nearly as much. What I've grown to like about short stories is the element of mystery which they possess. Short stories have less time to fully develop a plot and therefore so much more is left up to interpretation but I find that this story lacked that. "The Custody of the Pumpkin" is the longest short story we've read so far and it wasn't as thought provoking as previous stories have been; it was more direct and it's point seemingly straight forward.

   To be completely honest, I would not recommend this book to anyone because I cannot think of any specific category of people who might enjoy it.