“We don’t have any Charles in the kindergarten”

After reading The Lottery from Shirley Jackson’s short story collection (The Lottery and Other stories), and thoroughly enjoying its poignant and thought-provoking themes, I wanted to explore more of her other stories. One of those pieces was Charles—with The Daemon Lover also on my list for a future review. Similarly to The Lottery, Charles showcases Jackson’s mastery in dissecting the human psyche, while offering a subtle critique of parenting, highlighting how easily parents can remain oblivious to the inner truths unfolding right before their very eyes.

Synopsis

The premise of the story begins with the introduction of a young adolescent, Laurie, who is rather cheeky. He is described as speaking “insolently to his father”, and once “spilled his baby sister’s milk..”, but ironically comes home from kindergarten each day with shocking reports of a classmate named “Charles”.  Charles is best described as a menace, who repeatedly causes trouble in the kindergarten, such as hitting the teacher, getting in physical tussles with his classmates and disrupting classes, resulting in punishments such as regular detentions and teacher spankings. Laurie’s parents become almost obsessed with these wild stories, intrigued with amusement, curiosity, and at times concern on the behavioural influence on Laurie. They eagerly anticipate attending Laurie’s PTA meeting—primarily out of intrigue to meet Charles’s parents. However, when Laurie’s mother finally attends the much anticipated PTA meeting, expecting to meet Charles and his parents, she is met with a surprising revelation. There is no Charles.

Parental Naivety & Irony

One of the most striking narratives Shirley Jackson conveys is the naivety and absent parenting of Laurie’s parents, which fuels the irony in their reaction to “Charles”. From the outset, Laurie’s mother reflects, “an era of my life was ended, my sweet-voiced nursery school tot replaced by a long-trousered, swaggering character”, exaggerating his transition as if he’s already entered adulthood. This humorously highlights her naivety—Laurie is still just a young adolescent, yet she already mourns his lost innocence. Instead of guiding him, she blames Laurie for his newfound independence, failing to recognise that he still needs her attention and discipline.  

Their fixation on Charles blinds them to the reality—Laurie is describing his own behavior. They are so entertained by the mystery of Charles that they never question the validity of Laurie’s claims, mistaking their passivity for trust. The line, “With the third week of kindergarten, Charles was an institution in our family”, exemplifies their obsession, which becomes even more evident when Laurie’s mother eagerly anticipates the PTA meeting—not to check on her own son’s progress, but to “find Charles’s mother there”.

Their passive approach to parenting and naivety make them complicit in Laurie’s misbehaviour, as they are too distracted by the idea of Charles to see what’s right in front of them.

Attention-Seeking & Childhood Deception

I think a key narrative that shouldn’t go without discussion is Laurie’s clear indication of deliberate deception, which acts as his coping mechanism for the lack of attention from his parents. When he comes from school, slamming the front door, raucously shouting, and asking “Isn’t anybody here?”, it’s a clear cry for attention and support—something he clearly yearns for. It’s also evident in his cold responses to the passive approaches of his parents when they ask him how his day was. However when he teases the lies of “Charles” early on, he immediately captures their attention—perhaps unintentionally, as he had “thought” before lying. When his parents were further inquisitive, Laurie simply walked away with a cookie, ignoring his father’s attempts. With this act of deception, Laurie knew from that moment he had his parents hooked.

Final Thoughts

Charles was a very poignant and introspective read, despite its relative brevity. It captures the psychological ramifications of neglect and naivety in passive parenting, and its detrimental effect on a child’s behaviour. Children shouldn’t feel the need to go to extreme lengths to gain the attention they desperately crave. Laurie’s evident deceptiveness and calculating nature reiterates this, as he is ultimately a product of his environment. I would hope the discovery of the lie at the end sparks a much-needed catalyst for deeper conversations and reconnection with Laurie,  to help solve the issues that are so clearly present.