“Tapka”
Mark and Rita’s attachment to Tapka can be deconstructed using Lacanian psychoanalysis (specifically the concept of objet petit a). For Mark, Tapka is an Objet petit a (desire) for love. Mark recalls, “ Each evening, after I had finished my homework, I went to play with Tapka. My heart soared every time Rita opened the door and Tapka raced to greet me. The dog knew no hierarchy of affection. Her excitement was infectious. In Tapka’s presence I resonated with doglike glee.” Mark loves Tapka and Tapka reciprocates the love. Tapka’s affection for Mark triggers intrinsic stimulus which makes Mark to conscientiously go to Nahumovskys’ apartment so that he can play with him. Mark’s “doglike glee” means the dog apprehends his yearning for love more than his parents.
Additionally, Mark’s mesmerization at the swaying of “ Rita, Misha and the doctor” can be construed to epitomize Mark’s disquiet about the prospect of mislaying his objet petit a. Mark sustains an unconscious conversation with the ‘swaying’, which a rather weird; whereby, he tells the swaying, “This is very good. I love Tapka. I meant her no harm. I want to be forgiven.” For Mark, the death of Tapka would mean the forfeiture an object of unqualified significance in his life, therefore, he would never have purposefully want to put Tapka in vulnerability.
For Rita, Tapka is an Objet petit a for a child. Mark explains, “The Nahumovskys had no children, only a white Lhasa-apso named Tapka.” Even though Mark does not covertly state that Tapka is a proxy for the children that the Nahumovskys never had, the placement of the terms ‘child’ and Tapka in the same sentence, implies that Tapka occupies a distinctive position in the Nahumosky’s lives. When Tapka gets into an accident and the narrator’s father assures Rita that they would help her procure another dog, Rita responds by asking: “A new one? What do you mean a new one? I don’t want a new one. Why don’t you get yourself a new son? A new little liar? How about that?” The series of rhetoric questions, all of which integrate the word ‘new’, substantiates that the dog is an embodiment of Rita’s Objet petit a, that is why she would never contemplate replacing it as it is matchless. For Rita, acquiring a new dog, no matter how astonishing and costly may turn out to be futile as it would not play the role , of objet petit a, that Tapka plays.
Furthermore, even though Rita is lowly, which means she would not meet the expense of the amount demanded by the doctor, she cannot quantify the value of Tapka. Rita says, “Tapka’s life is worth more than fifteen hundred dollars. Because we don’t have the money she should die here? It’s not her fault.” Rita cannot put a figure on Tapka’s worth because Tapka’s symbolic implication transcends the monetary value that is attached to objects that do not have any emotional consequence.
“Roman Berman, Massage Therapist”
“Roman Berman, Massage Therapist” proves that unsystematic risk impedes immigrants’ businesses from blossoming. The narrator recalls, “After the initial excitement subsided, the reality of the situation asserted itself. Aside from the handful of Italians at the Community Center and some of my parents’ Russian friends, nobody else knew that Roman’s Therapeutic Massage existed.” The unsystematic risk is accredited to the deficiency of customers since the would-be customers are not cognizant of the massage services.
Furthermore, competitive stress is a factor in the botch of Roman Berman’s business. The narrator observes, “The Community Center, with the sauna and the familiar camaraderie, exerted its influence.” The community center, which is more dominant, contests for customers with Roman Berman’s business. Roman does not know how to counter the competitive pressure.
Even though the rabbi’s sphere relates to religious matters, he edifies Roman Berman about the quintessence of advertising his business. Advertising is worthwhile strategy, in the case of Roman Bergman’s, as it escalates customers’ responsiveness to the massage services Through advertising, Roman Bergman can mitigate the systematic risk that has laid his business open to a “terminal inertia.”
