In the narrative, the narrator vividly describes his family.

The social status of the wealthy and the less

wealthy is contrasted and compared. There, it is explained how the wealthy treat them differently due
to their different social statuses. The father is highlighted character in this story because of how brave
he is to testify in court without an attorney; the way he responds to questions and presents his case is
outstanding.

The story compares and contrasts the two families' children's health conditions. The children in both
families are healthy at the beginning of the story, but by the middle, there are discrepancies in the state
of their children's health. Even though the poor family frequently goes hungry, they are nevertheless
strong and healthy and are always laughing and being mischievous. In contrast to the poor family, who
had to complete their daily responsibilities on their own, the rich family is depressed and pale despite
eating enough of excellent food every day.

Conflict arises when two parties disagree or engage in conflict, and in this particular story, the wealthy
man accused the poor father of robbing their family of the spirit of their wealth and food. The rich
father, who accused the poor family of taking their food and money, even though the poor family was
merely enjoying their life and being pleased with what they had, is more likely to blame for the conflict
in this story. The jealous, dissatisfied rich guy who accuses the poor family, who are merely enjoying a
happy and comfortable life, is the cause of the conflict in the story.

Maxism, in my opinion, is the most suitable literary context to use when analyzing this story. The Maxist
viewpoint holds that literature depicts class conflict and materialism. Since the story analyzes the social
classes or social status between the two families and illustrates the discrimination between the two
social classes, maxism examines the social classes portrayed in the work, making this the most relevant
literary context.