Louise’s grandmother, the Pea, though present for less than ten pages, is an extremely interesting character. One of the most interesting things about her is the way she is introduced. She lives with Louise’s mother, and although she had a steady hand, she liked to spill because “[i]t made work for her daughter” (164). From this description, I assumed the Pea was a jerk. However, we later learn that Louise’s mother is even more of a jerk, which in turn, makes the Pea a lot more likeable. Louise’s mother, I think, can be seen to represent or at least be a product of white, heterosexual, patriarchal, British (even though she’s Australian) society. She is very concerned about appearances and propriety (165) and she knows more about England than her mother (ie. The fact that they do not have a Disinfectant Department [165]). She also talks very formally, calling the Pea “mother”, while the Pea calls her “Kitty” which I assume is a nickname (165).
Because of this, the Pea being a pain in her ass is comparable, I think to taking digs at the patriarchy. This starts even before the Pea has Louise’s mother. The Pea had “over one hundred proposals of marriage in the 1920s” from high society men, like bankers, but she “married a sheep farmer” (167). Which goes against the classism of British society as well as capitalistic society. The Pea moved out to the country with her husband where their “nearest neighbour had been a day’s ride away” (167). In class we talked about “cottage core” and the idyllic nature of being away from society and escaping from patriarchy, which is particularly relevant to people who do not fit society’s idea of “normal”. The Pea also strays from societal norms with her crudeness. While Louise’s mother puts on a polite and proper front when the narrator visits them looking for Louise, the Pea does nothing to hide her personality and try to fit into British society’s idea of “normal”. She uses slang, contradicts Mrs. Fox, has no reserves about bad-mouthing Elgin, and makes a racket “screaming” and “banging her stick” in a way that reminds the narrator of a “knife thrower in the circus” (166).
Associating the Pea with the circus is an interesting choice, because the circus often houses “queer” things for “normal” people to observe and be entertained by. The “queer” people in the circus are an interesting contrast to queer people in society, because in society, few queer people are as open about their queerness, and even fewer invite “normal” people to gawk at them. We established in class that there is something queer about the narrator and their relationship with Louise, and by presenting the Pea as queer too, the narrator creates a sense of community there, which is kind of reassuring; even if the narrator does not have Lousie, they have the Pea.