Miss Minnie Cooper in "Dry September" and Miss Emily Pierson in "A Rose for Miss Emily" are very similar in so many ways. Faulkner nearly recreated Miss Emily in a more youthful manner when presenting Miss Minnie. Both have a nonexistent social life and are bound by social position in their small town. However, they are different because Miss Emily never yearned for a social or romantic life that Miss Minnie longed for. Miss Minnie was not only in need of a social life, but also a romantic life. She wanted attention in all aspects. She vied for the attention of those in her community, especially from men.
Both Miss Minnie and Miss Emily are tragic characters in Faulkner's short stories. Miss Minnie is tragic because she seems to be stuck in her own little fantasy world engulfed in a life of social privilige and image. She's unable to see her wrongful actions in accusing Will Mayes of raping her. Miss Emily is a tragic character become she was left to live a corpse like existence without the company of anyone but her dead husband she slept with every night.
Both characters are two peas in a pod. Even though Miss Emily is a more exaggerated version of Miss Minnie, she both still fit in the same category. Maybe Miss Emily's case was more drastic because she comes from a family of more prestige in her community, therefore she had to adhere to harsher social norms.
Faulkner made me fall in love with his short stories all over again while reading "Dry September" after "A Rose for Emily." He reigns supreme with his short stories.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Poor, Poor Nancy: That Evening Sun Go Down
While reading "That Evening Sun Go Down," I wanted to cry because the character Nancy struck me with so much sadness and sympathy. Nancy reminded me of the old slave mentality that many abused and broken spirited African Americans had. She didn't view herself as being equal to or as important as her white counterparts and employers. Throughout the story I just wanted to give her a hug and let her know that she was worth much more than what she claimed to be.
I could compare Nancy to many other literary characters in novels. For example, Pecola in The Bluest Eye had the same broken spirit and lack of self esteem that Nancy had. When Nancy said, "I'm just a nigger!" it reminded me of the self hatred Pecola had throughout The Bluest Eye as she searched for ways to make her eyes blue like the little white Shirley Temple she admired. Both Nancy and Pecola represent that self hatred many African Americans harbor within themselves because of racial prejudice in society that formed their view of themselves.
Faulkner did a great job with tapping into a woman like Nancy. Even though it would be hard for Faulkner to precisely capture the essence of a black women living in a world of racial prejudice, he did a great job with providing imagery into her situation. I give this one a thumbs up!
I could compare Nancy to many other literary characters in novels. For example, Pecola in The Bluest Eye had the same broken spirit and lack of self esteem that Nancy had. When Nancy said, "I'm just a nigger!" it reminded me of the self hatred Pecola had throughout The Bluest Eye as she searched for ways to make her eyes blue like the little white Shirley Temple she admired. Both Nancy and Pecola represent that self hatred many African Americans harbor within themselves because of racial prejudice in society that formed their view of themselves.
Faulkner did a great job with tapping into a woman like Nancy. Even though it would be hard for Faulkner to precisely capture the essence of a black women living in a world of racial prejudice, he did a great job with providing imagery into her situation. I give this one a thumbs up!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Beauty Unheard by the Audience
The most touching part of Faulkner's Nobel speech, to me, was when he mentioned the "conflicts of the heart" that are the only things worth writing about.
To me, this is not only true to Faulkner's style, but true in general. It may be true when people say that there is "nothing new under the sun" but that's a limited statement, and Faulkner shows us why. Perhaps the only thing worth writing about is something that is perpetuated in each of us over and over and over, but that doesn't mean we're always writing about the same thing. Faulkner definitely stuck true to his general knowledge, and didn't write about things that he wasn't well saturated in, or things he didn't care about. This produced a body of work so vast, and so beautiful. If he would have attempted to solve all the world's problems, essentially, in his works instead of just writing about what HE cared about, it probably wouldn't be as eloquent or mean as much to an audience.
Writers today, I feel, are often trying to overstep their knowledge range in order to produce what they have in mind to be the new "great american novel." However, going about it that way turns it into a false feat. Like I said before, the reason Faulkner created what he created is because he wrote what was inside of him, what he knew, and what he loved. Even though there are a number of made-up characters and situations, Faulkner wrote his truths. Even when he wrote about the slaves and had a very limited view of the slaves he wrote about, his limited knowledge was, in itself, a truth. He didn't pretend to know more than he did. He didn't try to create a false south. The south bled on all of Faulkner's pages with horror and sadness and death—and also beauty and magic and love.
When Faulkner says "until he learns these things, he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man" he means that until a writer starts writing what's in his heart, what he cares about, the whole saying that there's "nothing new under the sun" assumes it's presumed fatalistic meaning, and the world of writing is over. Not to say that experimentation is wrong, we can see clearly Faulkner experimented with style and narration and broke all sorts of grammar rules. Also, just because someone is from a certain region in no way limits them to that certain region like Faulkner only wrote about the south. What he's trying to say, though, is don't tell lies on paper. A writer has to basically strip themselves naked in front of their audience, and Faulkner doesn't want writers who claim that they're naked but still have concealed or changed parts of their body. He could see through them, and in this speech, is urging us all to disrobe entirely.
The Reivers
I have been re-reading As I Lay Dying for my paper, so reading The Reivers at the same time really kind of highlighted how different it is from the his others. It reminded me of this movie I used to watch when I was younger, The Journey of Natty Gann, but I don't really know why. I guess it was the time period.
This book reminded me of Huck Finn, and I think that was the intention. With the characters, the young boy and Ned on adventures. It was so much lighter and even funny, and it's striking that this was his last novel. Of all of the things that could have closed out with, it's a comical, light-hearted adventure book. I would have preferred more on the Compsons or the Bundrens, but this was fine. I don't know how he died, so I don't know if he knew this would be the last. Since he had written about so much heavy, sometimes dark stuff about the human condition, it's almost sweet that this is his last. And to make it about a young boy who is put into some strange situations, some pretty questionable. It was good. I don't want to use the word "cute." But it was kind of cute.
In true Faulkner fashion, though, some of the sentences were long and meandering, and initially, I had a hard time breaking past the first few chapters. I
This is kid of off, but my paper is focusing on animals and so it was interesting how a horse came into this one again, as in As I Lay Dying, and how it was an important figure in the novel.
After reading this, I felt a great sense of accomplishment. All that Faulkner. It's nice to be done, though. I just got Absalom, Absalom! on cd and plan on listening to it and sharing how great it is with my boyfriend on the two week road trip we'll be embarking on in May. I think I will be revisiting a few of his novels, for sure.
This book reminded me of Huck Finn, and I think that was the intention. With the characters, the young boy and Ned on adventures. It was so much lighter and even funny, and it's striking that this was his last novel. Of all of the things that could have closed out with, it's a comical, light-hearted adventure book. I would have preferred more on the Compsons or the Bundrens, but this was fine. I don't know how he died, so I don't know if he knew this would be the last. Since he had written about so much heavy, sometimes dark stuff about the human condition, it's almost sweet that this is his last. And to make it about a young boy who is put into some strange situations, some pretty questionable. It was good. I don't want to use the word "cute." But it was kind of cute.
In true Faulkner fashion, though, some of the sentences were long and meandering, and initially, I had a hard time breaking past the first few chapters. I
This is kid of off, but my paper is focusing on animals and so it was interesting how a horse came into this one again, as in As I Lay Dying, and how it was an important figure in the novel.
After reading this, I felt a great sense of accomplishment. All that Faulkner. It's nice to be done, though. I just got Absalom, Absalom! on cd and plan on listening to it and sharing how great it is with my boyfriend on the two week road trip we'll be embarking on in May. I think I will be revisiting a few of his novels, for sure.
Reminscening on a new Faulkner
I’m not sure what to say about The Reivers. It was Faulkner’s last novel and the winner of a Nobel Prize in literature. For a book that was, in a sense, Faulkner’s coup de grace, it is uncharacteristically Faulkner. The style is off, the tone is too light, and the novel was overall too happy to be the Faulkner I know. This doesn’t mean that I didn’t enjoy the novel. I’m a fan of the picaresque novel and believe that it is the dominant form of epic in modernity, so this may have been Faulkner’s step toward an epic (attempting to tie and tie up characters and story lines from his Yoknapatawpha), but this jaunty, reminiscent, “story” is unlike Faulkner from days gone by.
The Reivers does, in fact, carry the markings of Faulknerian novels. It is plagued with convoluted run-on sentences, long and winding paragraphs, and a not-quite but almost stream of consciousness narrative. But the overall effect of the novel is just not like Faulkner’s other novels, like The Sound and the Fury or Absalom, Absalom! It is the story of two members of the McCaslin/Edmonds family from Go Down Moses—Lucius Priest and the black servant/relative Ned NcCaslin—,along with a family retainer—Boon Hogganbeck, also mentioned in Go Down Moses—who steal a car and head to Memphis. Boon wants to go to the city to woo a prostitute, Luscius, only eleven at the time, goes with Boon, and Ned hides out in the back of the car. Once in Memphis, Boon begins to court Miss Corrie, Luscius comes of age and must grapple with his turmoil over explaining what he see with the way he was raised, and Ned sells the car they stole to buy a horse in the hopes of racing it and earning money. The majority of the plot is somewhat irrelevant to my point, so I’ll skip to the end. Luscius’ grandfather, the owner of the car, finds the boys in Memphis. Ned, slyly playing the old man, bets against his own horse in a second race and purposely loses. The whole story ends on the happy note that Boon and his prostitute Miss Corrie have married and have named their first child after Luscius. This “it all works out in the end” feeling is so unlike Faulkner that it is almost jarring to the avid reader. The Reivers was a best seller, adapted later in a film, and think that attests to that fact that it is somehow different that Faulkner’s other works. It is easier to read and relate to than most of the novels we have read so far.
That being said, I still believe that The Reivers is a great work. Luscius Priest’s monologues on virtue, his idea of women, and his conception of smart animals make him a highly complex and intelligent character. I would like to someday take a more in-depth look at Luscius, as his role of narrator of the story adds a great deal to his character than I believe a lot of people see.
The Reivers does, in fact, carry the markings of Faulknerian novels. It is plagued with convoluted run-on sentences, long and winding paragraphs, and a not-quite but almost stream of consciousness narrative. But the overall effect of the novel is just not like Faulkner’s other novels, like The Sound and the Fury or Absalom, Absalom! It is the story of two members of the McCaslin/Edmonds family from Go Down Moses—Lucius Priest and the black servant/relative Ned NcCaslin—,along with a family retainer—Boon Hogganbeck, also mentioned in Go Down Moses—who steal a car and head to Memphis. Boon wants to go to the city to woo a prostitute, Luscius, only eleven at the time, goes with Boon, and Ned hides out in the back of the car. Once in Memphis, Boon begins to court Miss Corrie, Luscius comes of age and must grapple with his turmoil over explaining what he see with the way he was raised, and Ned sells the car they stole to buy a horse in the hopes of racing it and earning money. The majority of the plot is somewhat irrelevant to my point, so I’ll skip to the end. Luscius’ grandfather, the owner of the car, finds the boys in Memphis. Ned, slyly playing the old man, bets against his own horse in a second race and purposely loses. The whole story ends on the happy note that Boon and his prostitute Miss Corrie have married and have named their first child after Luscius. This “it all works out in the end” feeling is so unlike Faulkner that it is almost jarring to the avid reader. The Reivers was a best seller, adapted later in a film, and think that attests to that fact that it is somehow different that Faulkner’s other works. It is easier to read and relate to than most of the novels we have read so far.
That being said, I still believe that The Reivers is a great work. Luscius Priest’s monologues on virtue, his idea of women, and his conception of smart animals make him a highly complex and intelligent character. I would like to someday take a more in-depth look at Luscius, as his role of narrator of the story adds a great deal to his character than I believe a lot of people see.
Faulkner's View...Noble Speech
Since this blog is entitled “Responses to the writing and the world of William Faulkner”, I am going to dedicate my last post to Faulkner’s Noble Prize Speech. Because this speech is as much part of the world of Faulkner, as this week’s reading The Reivers, and I believe it was Ms. Ethridge, who said at the beginning, this course will be used to interpret the different personalities of Faulkner through his work. The speech is given to Faulkner as a life time achievement award for his work so I thought its relevance is undeniable to understanding Faulkner as well as his work.
His Noble Prize speech brought so many things together for me. It seemed as if many others, whom have read his fiction, took Faulkner’s pessimist to heart. Like some of us, they viewed Faulkner only from the surface. They saw him as an author, who viewed life and man in general, as victims of idiocy by our own making due to us ignoring “the problems of the human heart.” However, this was not who Faulkner was at all; in fact, he was a man, who very much believed in the spirit and compassion of man to carry himself through hard times such as the radical transformation of the south after the Civil War or what the south was to its inhabitants before the war. Faulkner was merely documenting a time and place (Yoknapatawpha County) in history that was relative to him, and to us all since the Civil War deeply affected the U.S.
I believed that doom and gloom were simply themes that Faulkner explored on his path to self discovery that as writer he must not forget about the problems that the human heart endure or that the basis of all things is to be afraid; therefore, to leave no room for anything but the old verities and truth of the heart. Faulkner must have gone through these things himself in order to offer such in depth advice about where one should find inspiration to write. I know that the human heart takes on different identities, thus speaking to us in a voice that is not always familiar, yet we go along and discover another part of ourselves or craft. This is what I believe Faulkner went through when he wrote using the writing technique stream of consciousness. Because he was so trusting to undergo this transformation he got really good at it, and people mistakenly believed this was the real William Faulkner, when really he was just playing part in order to tell that character’s story. Faulkner happily did his duty as wanna-be poet/novelist by prompting man, through his work, to endure and prevail. I never viewed Faulkner as pessimistic. I definitly felt at times that I only captured a glance of what he was doing,but after reading this speech it widen my view, more than any criticism, about what was one of his many aims were.
His Noble Prize speech brought so many things together for me. It seemed as if many others, whom have read his fiction, took Faulkner’s pessimist to heart. Like some of us, they viewed Faulkner only from the surface. They saw him as an author, who viewed life and man in general, as victims of idiocy by our own making due to us ignoring “the problems of the human heart.” However, this was not who Faulkner was at all; in fact, he was a man, who very much believed in the spirit and compassion of man to carry himself through hard times such as the radical transformation of the south after the Civil War or what the south was to its inhabitants before the war. Faulkner was merely documenting a time and place (Yoknapatawpha County) in history that was relative to him, and to us all since the Civil War deeply affected the U.S.
I believed that doom and gloom were simply themes that Faulkner explored on his path to self discovery that as writer he must not forget about the problems that the human heart endure or that the basis of all things is to be afraid; therefore, to leave no room for anything but the old verities and truth of the heart. Faulkner must have gone through these things himself in order to offer such in depth advice about where one should find inspiration to write. I know that the human heart takes on different identities, thus speaking to us in a voice that is not always familiar, yet we go along and discover another part of ourselves or craft. This is what I believe Faulkner went through when he wrote using the writing technique stream of consciousness. Because he was so trusting to undergo this transformation he got really good at it, and people mistakenly believed this was the real William Faulkner, when really he was just playing part in order to tell that character’s story. Faulkner happily did his duty as wanna-be poet/novelist by prompting man, through his work, to endure and prevail. I never viewed Faulkner as pessimistic. I definitly felt at times that I only captured a glance of what he was doing,but after reading this speech it widen my view, more than any criticism, about what was one of his many aims were.
Faulkner's reminiscence
This book, The Reivers: A Reminiscence, is the starkest shift in Faulkner's style that I have noticed since that occurring between Soldiers' Pay and Mosquitoes and the Sound & the Fury. It seems that the reason behind this may be the fact that it is a first-person account, narrated as a story. Of course, The Sound & the Fury was primarily in first-person, and As I Lay Dying was completely first-person. But each of these were lacking the light-hearted, story-telling quality seen in The Reivers.
The fact that this novel is told as a story perfectly complements its status as a "Reminiscence." The main character is spanning his coming-of-age years, while also, at times, giving the reader (or, in this case, listener would perhaps be a better designation) an explanation of years prior and beyond. I was rather touched by the fact that Faulkner referred to this novel as a reminiscence. So many of our old Yoknapatawpha friends and acquaintances were mentioned, especially those mentioned in Go Down, Moses. It seems that not only was the main character, Lucius Priest, reminiscing, but Faulker himself was revisiting those old friends and histories, while musing on potentialities of the future, of Yoknapatawpha County.
Of course, this book was also the most technologically aware of Faulkner's, at least as far as I can tell. Not only do Faulkner's characters venture to the city for a large portion of the novel, but there is a long explanation of the first automobile in Jefferson. Henry Ford is even mentioned, giving the first link (that I have noticed) to a prominient figure from the known-world.
I found the character of Boon Hogganback an interesting one, at least in his relation to the automobile. Boon pretty much just appears out of the wilderness. He seems to belong to the wild in a sense: he materialized from there, he has a sensitivity to the horses he handles at the livery. But, by golly, he is the first to jump on the automobile bandwagon. Perhaps he represents something in the shift from the natural to the progressive?
The fact that this novel is told as a story perfectly complements its status as a "Reminiscence." The main character is spanning his coming-of-age years, while also, at times, giving the reader (or, in this case, listener would perhaps be a better designation) an explanation of years prior and beyond. I was rather touched by the fact that Faulkner referred to this novel as a reminiscence. So many of our old Yoknapatawpha friends and acquaintances were mentioned, especially those mentioned in Go Down, Moses. It seems that not only was the main character, Lucius Priest, reminiscing, but Faulker himself was revisiting those old friends and histories, while musing on potentialities of the future, of Yoknapatawpha County.
Of course, this book was also the most technologically aware of Faulkner's, at least as far as I can tell. Not only do Faulkner's characters venture to the city for a large portion of the novel, but there is a long explanation of the first automobile in Jefferson. Henry Ford is even mentioned, giving the first link (that I have noticed) to a prominient figure from the known-world.
I found the character of Boon Hogganback an interesting one, at least in his relation to the automobile. Boon pretty much just appears out of the wilderness. He seems to belong to the wild in a sense: he materialized from there, he has a sensitivity to the horses he handles at the livery. But, by golly, he is the first to jump on the automobile bandwagon. Perhaps he represents something in the shift from the natural to the progressive?
The Power of Myth & The Bear
Obviously there's a lot of myth in southern writing, especially Faulkner's, and I feel like whenever animals are present, the "mythical nature" is heavily present as well. We have now read two stories where a person encounters a snake and says: "Grandfather," and I think this should be explored.
What is it about snakes? What is it about grandfathers? What is it about always personifying animals? Does it make them mean more to us? Can we understand them better this way? Do certain animals represent parts of us, or parts of our world? Have they always?
I believe that Faulkner's use of "grandfather" particularly in The Bear, but also in Red Leaves, is an act of respect and reverence toward nature in general. A snake can bite and kill a human. It's "sneaky," it's fast, it's mysterious, and it's all over stories of myth and legends of mankind (ie: Bible). ALSO it's probably the most un-human of the animal kingdom. There is no "shared moment" when one looks into the eyes of a snake. They snake recognizes a human as an entirely different species, and the odds of living or dying rely completely on the snake's agenda. This makes humans nervous. We have no "control" over the snake, we don't even know how to fight them. They don't have a "call" like ducks, you can't hear them coming like deer. They put us on edge.
The reason I'm explaining all of this, is because I think that Faulkner parallels the snake to nature. For all the reasons that we are scared of nature, we are scared of snakes. Faulkner wants to show how the reason people feel like they need to take control over nature (build roads, cut trees, make factories, etc) is because they don't fully understand it, and that scares them. The innate human drive for destroying what has created them, essentially, is the simple fact that they can't comprehend it, but feel like they should be able to.
The characters that give themselves up to these snakes, and call them "grandfather" enforces a certain amount of respect that Faulkner does not believe the masses of the world have obtained yet. A grandfather is a very relatable, human thing, but is also held to a great respect, unlike "brother" which would imply nature is right on the level with man, or even "father" which implies some great respect, but is still too close to man in age and wisdom. GRANDFATHER implies wisdom obtained through many many years. Grandfather implies a very much loved, yet somehow distant source of stories and knowledge. This is the snake. The snake is the grandfather. Grandfather is nature. The characters who refer to all three things simultaneously in these lines, give themselves over to the trust they've had for nature, disregarding all other facets.
Faulkner dismembers some of the snake myths and makes his own, here, which is interesting. Perhaps he still wants the snake to represent original sin, but Faulkner interprets the original sin differently than the Bible. His take on it is more concerned with the wisdom gained from biting the fruit, not the fear of being cast out of the garden naked. His symbols are loaded and complex, but the best way to think about the snake, I believe, is a symbol for everything man cannot comprehend or prevent that occurs in nature. The choice: respect it, or spend an entire life trying to deny it's great existence.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
A Second Look at Nancy
After Wednesday’s discussion, and the points Kristen made, I went back and re-read “That Evening Sun Go Down” trying to keep Kristen’s perception of Nancy in mind as I read. What I found upon my second reading was that although I can understand where Kristen is coming from, I see what she means, I stand by my original analysis of Nancy—she is strong, black female character, admirable and pitiable, but not a flat stereotype of an African American servant. While I respect other characterizations of Nancy, I think that once one looks beyond the surface of her character, taking the time to read the story with the care Faulkner wrote it with, it becomes apparent that Nancy is an impressive and dynamic character.
The first thing I noticed on my re-read was the way that Faulkner wrote about Nancy in the very beginning of the story. He, or rather Quentin, describes the way she does the laundry in uplifting and flattering terms. She is steady with the laundry basket, holds her head high and dignified, and is independent, not being helped by her husband like the other laundresses. I think that this description is very telling. It is not just about the way she does the laundry but about Nancy herself. She is proud, independent, strong, and steady. Though it may not seem so, what with the drinking, prostitution, and possibly by unlikely drug use, but Nancy is proud to be how she is, which is why she refuses to “learn” breakfast for the Compson family even when it is her duty, and why she laughs when Mr. Stovall kicks her teeth out. Nancy is stronger than she lets on, and Faulkner lets the reader know this, though in an indirect way.
Second, Wednesday we talked about how Nancy kept say “I’m just a nigger,” and the way little Jason kept declaring that he wasn’t a “nigger.” It was posited that this was ridiculous, and that these declarations reinforced stereotypes and depicts Nancy as comically “black.” I respectfully disagree with this assertion. Nancy’s repeated claim that she is a “nigger” is not her blaming her life on her skin color, but, rather, Nancy’s acceptance of what society has labeled her. She is not a “nigger” by choice, and because society labels her so, she must resign herself to the fact that she cannot do anything about her situation. Like Will Mayes, no one believes Nancy when she claims that Jubah is coming to kill her. She cannot convince the Compsons to help because she is seen only as a “nigger” in their eyes. There is one telling thing in the story which leads me to believe this. When Jason is naming “niggers,” stating that Dilsey and Jubah are “niggers,” he has to ask if Nancy is a “nigger.” He is too young to automatically label Nancy the way his parents do because he sees her as someone he admires (think back to the way Quentin describes the way Nancy does laundry). And when Jason asks Dilsey if he is a “nigger,” she replies “I suppose not,” and not outright no. This leads me to believe that being a “nigger” is more than just a skin color, it is a designation one “earns” from society.
I can go on and on about the intricacies of Nancy’s character. Her relationship with Jubah is complex, at the same time both touching (everything he had was also hers) and terrifying (she fears he’s going to kill her). Nancy is complex, a sign of rebellion against the social constraints of her race in a turbulent time, and when one looks at Nancy and Dilsey together, all sorts of binary oppositions appear. Ultimately, though, Nancy is a very three dimensional character, and one of Faulkner’s most dynamic African American characters.
The first thing I noticed on my re-read was the way that Faulkner wrote about Nancy in the very beginning of the story. He, or rather Quentin, describes the way she does the laundry in uplifting and flattering terms. She is steady with the laundry basket, holds her head high and dignified, and is independent, not being helped by her husband like the other laundresses. I think that this description is very telling. It is not just about the way she does the laundry but about Nancy herself. She is proud, independent, strong, and steady. Though it may not seem so, what with the drinking, prostitution, and possibly by unlikely drug use, but Nancy is proud to be how she is, which is why she refuses to “learn” breakfast for the Compson family even when it is her duty, and why she laughs when Mr. Stovall kicks her teeth out. Nancy is stronger than she lets on, and Faulkner lets the reader know this, though in an indirect way.
Second, Wednesday we talked about how Nancy kept say “I’m just a nigger,” and the way little Jason kept declaring that he wasn’t a “nigger.” It was posited that this was ridiculous, and that these declarations reinforced stereotypes and depicts Nancy as comically “black.” I respectfully disagree with this assertion. Nancy’s repeated claim that she is a “nigger” is not her blaming her life on her skin color, but, rather, Nancy’s acceptance of what society has labeled her. She is not a “nigger” by choice, and because society labels her so, she must resign herself to the fact that she cannot do anything about her situation. Like Will Mayes, no one believes Nancy when she claims that Jubah is coming to kill her. She cannot convince the Compsons to help because she is seen only as a “nigger” in their eyes. There is one telling thing in the story which leads me to believe this. When Jason is naming “niggers,” stating that Dilsey and Jubah are “niggers,” he has to ask if Nancy is a “nigger.” He is too young to automatically label Nancy the way his parents do because he sees her as someone he admires (think back to the way Quentin describes the way Nancy does laundry). And when Jason asks Dilsey if he is a “nigger,” she replies “I suppose not,” and not outright no. This leads me to believe that being a “nigger” is more than just a skin color, it is a designation one “earns” from society.
I can go on and on about the intricacies of Nancy’s character. Her relationship with Jubah is complex, at the same time both touching (everything he had was also hers) and terrifying (she fears he’s going to kill her). Nancy is complex, a sign of rebellion against the social constraints of her race in a turbulent time, and when one looks at Nancy and Dilsey together, all sorts of binary oppositions appear. Ultimately, though, Nancy is a very three dimensional character, and one of Faulkner’s most dynamic African American characters.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Faulkner,Colored,and Progression
Go Down,Moses is the first chance we as readers see Faulkner writing about black people. Sure, in his other works, there was a black character here and there, but never in the forefront of his novels. Of course, we get to know these black or colored(I personally favor the one drop theory) characters through a white man's eyes.
In the midst of our,at times, heated discussion of Faulkner and his use of colored characters, I understand that Faulkner's perspective cannot shift to the view of a colored person living in Mississippi during his time. Also, in the class discussion, New Orleans was viewed and not being progressive. This did not sit so well with me. Racially, culturally, ethnically, muscially,etc-New Orleans is progressive.What other city can you possibly name(and no, its not NYC) that has all these elements? What is it that people want? Would you want an Applebee's placed on St. Charles Avenue so that it can be like Dallas or Houston? Would that make New Orleans progressive? Someone mentioned the schools being segregated. First of all, segregation is no longer legal. Whites simply high tailed it, or what is usually referred to as white flight, to the suburbs leaving the blacks behind in the cities with crumbling schools. It annoys me that people think Mississippi and Louisiana are "not progressive" or they are "so far behind." I completely disagree with this idea.
For a very short period of my high school academic life, I lived in Dallas,Texas-enrolled into white suburbian Coppell High School-what was supposed to be the BEST school in the district. However, I have never experienced so much racism before in my life until I set foot into this place. Immediately, the teachers and faculty automatically assumed that you should not be in the advanced curriculum courses simply because you were of another race. The student body was segregated according to race. People looked at me strangely because I mingled with everyone, not just the black students. Needless to say, I did not remain at this God awful school very long. I moved back to Mississippi, re-enrolled into the small little Presbyterian high school where I was content. I never felt any form of racism there in MISSISSIPPI,yes MISSISSIPPI as I had felt in good ol' Texas.
People from different places do not seem to understand New Orleans as a whole. It is more than just hand grenades and Bourbon Street. Give the city some credit. It is unique within itself. Many cookie cutter cities like Dallas,Houston,Atlanta, and even star studded L.A. are,for the lack of a better term, LAME. There is no culture;everything is the same. There is nothing that sets them apart,which makes them less appealing.
Sorry if this is a rant, but that's my feelings on the matter.
In the midst of our,at times, heated discussion of Faulkner and his use of colored characters, I understand that Faulkner's perspective cannot shift to the view of a colored person living in Mississippi during his time. Also, in the class discussion, New Orleans was viewed and not being progressive. This did not sit so well with me. Racially, culturally, ethnically, muscially,etc-New Orleans is progressive.What other city can you possibly name(and no, its not NYC) that has all these elements? What is it that people want? Would you want an Applebee's placed on St. Charles Avenue so that it can be like Dallas or Houston? Would that make New Orleans progressive? Someone mentioned the schools being segregated. First of all, segregation is no longer legal. Whites simply high tailed it, or what is usually referred to as white flight, to the suburbs leaving the blacks behind in the cities with crumbling schools. It annoys me that people think Mississippi and Louisiana are "not progressive" or they are "so far behind." I completely disagree with this idea.
For a very short period of my high school academic life, I lived in Dallas,Texas-enrolled into white suburbian Coppell High School-what was supposed to be the BEST school in the district. However, I have never experienced so much racism before in my life until I set foot into this place. Immediately, the teachers and faculty automatically assumed that you should not be in the advanced curriculum courses simply because you were of another race. The student body was segregated according to race. People looked at me strangely because I mingled with everyone, not just the black students. Needless to say, I did not remain at this God awful school very long. I moved back to Mississippi, re-enrolled into the small little Presbyterian high school where I was content. I never felt any form of racism there in MISSISSIPPI,yes MISSISSIPPI as I had felt in good ol' Texas.
People from different places do not seem to understand New Orleans as a whole. It is more than just hand grenades and Bourbon Street. Give the city some credit. It is unique within itself. Many cookie cutter cities like Dallas,Houston,Atlanta, and even star studded L.A. are,for the lack of a better term, LAME. There is no culture;everything is the same. There is nothing that sets them apart,which makes them less appealing.
Sorry if this is a rant, but that's my feelings on the matter.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
"Grandfather"
The Bear was by far the most existential thing I've ever read by William Faulkner. It reminds me a lot of "Walden" in some ways, but a tapered version, one that more closely focuses on actual land ownership, greed, and all the negative human desires that corrupt nature. To be continued...
Who the Hell Killed Owen Taylor?
As I've read The Big Sleep I didn't have any issues with some of the massive plot holes in the movie. There is no satisfying reason in the film for why Carol Lundgren would want to shoot Joe Brody. The homosexuality between the characters is present in the screen play but was removed from the final film because of the Hays Code.
The Big Sleep may be a classic display of Bogie and Bacall. It may be a classic piece of film noir. It's also a classic example of post war fear of corruption coming from the arts.
The Big Sleep is dealing with the underbelly of Hollywood. There's pornography, gambling, sexuality, and plenty of drinking. What we get in the film is an innuendo filled story that lacks the punch because the plot is censored.
Where as in the book Reagan was Vivian's husband, the film just has him as an employee of Sternwood. This is because you can't have Vivian in a relationship with Reagan and in anyway involved in his death. Mars killed Regan. Really? During that last scene I was unconvinced. I was more convinced when Vivian tried to say she killed him, and even then I didn't believe it. Mars has no real motive to commit the murder. He also has enough connections to not need Mars being believed to be in Mexico. HE also wouldn't need to hide his wife away.
I felt bad for the actress that played Carmen. She was practically cut out of the film because her performance out-shined Bacall's. Her character was central to the plot but she got no real chance to show how much of a danger she could be.
Do they ever really explain Geiger's business? I mean you know that Brody took it over but there's never a good idea of what it really is. Other than not "first editions".
The movie suffered greatly from a restrictive code. The screenplay did a good job of getting the grittiness of the novel.
Well I'd rather get wet in here than out there.
The Big Sleep may be a classic display of Bogie and Bacall. It may be a classic piece of film noir. It's also a classic example of post war fear of corruption coming from the arts.
The Big Sleep is dealing with the underbelly of Hollywood. There's pornography, gambling, sexuality, and plenty of drinking. What we get in the film is an innuendo filled story that lacks the punch because the plot is censored.
Where as in the book Reagan was Vivian's husband, the film just has him as an employee of Sternwood. This is because you can't have Vivian in a relationship with Reagan and in anyway involved in his death. Mars killed Regan. Really? During that last scene I was unconvinced. I was more convinced when Vivian tried to say she killed him, and even then I didn't believe it. Mars has no real motive to commit the murder. He also has enough connections to not need Mars being believed to be in Mexico. HE also wouldn't need to hide his wife away.
I felt bad for the actress that played Carmen. She was practically cut out of the film because her performance out-shined Bacall's. Her character was central to the plot but she got no real chance to show how much of a danger she could be.
Do they ever really explain Geiger's business? I mean you know that Brody took it over but there's never a good idea of what it really is. Other than not "first editions".
The movie suffered greatly from a restrictive code. The screenplay did a good job of getting the grittiness of the novel.
Well I'd rather get wet in here than out there.
The Big Sleep is Anything but a Big Yawn
While reading the screenplay for The Big Sleep, I found myself forgetting that William Faulkner had anything to do with it. It was so unlike anything we’ve read by Faulkner up to this point that I struggled with fitting it into the spectrum of Faulknerian literature. That being said, I enjoyed both the screenplay and the movie, and would recommend both to anyone.
The Big Sleep was written in 1944, later than Faulkner’s most famous works, which may explain, to an extent, why the screenplay is so different from rest of Faulkner’s work. Also, the silver screen is an entirely different medium from any Faulkner had written before. In a screenplay there is no room for rambling sentences, detailed descriptions, or stream of consciousness narration. Also, the theme of a detective-type story sans racial, incestual, or war-related tensions and subtexts is a departure from Faulkner’s normal MO. William Faulkner just doesn’t DO stories like this. The Big Sleep screenplay was adapted from a novel written by Raymond Chandler, so the overall story was not Faulker’s own. Still, the writing in the screenplay is not typical of Faulkner; he had to modify his way of writing to fit the medium. I think he had a great deal of help from the other writers, though, because the screenplay is so unlike his normal writing.
Even though The Big Sleep is so different from Faulkner’s novels and short stories, there are still a few Faulknerian characteristics in the screenplay. To begin with, the women in the movie—namely the two Sternwood daughters—are extremely sexualized. From the beginning, they are described in sexual terms, the eldest flashing her bare legs for Philip Marlowe and the youngest coming on to Marlowe in a very naive and sexual way. The youngest daughter, Carmen, is reminiscent of some of Faulkner’s other female characters, though she is not exactly like those women. Carmen reminds me a little of Temple Drake and Cecily Saunders, young, slightly androgynous girls who use their sexuality to get what they want. These girls get away with things they shouldn’t because they are spoiled by their fathers, and this is clearly the case with Carmen Sternwood.
Faulkner’s penchant for description and exposition can also be seen in the screenplay for The Big Sleep. Several of the character descriptions and stage directions are terribly complex and unrealistically detailed. For example, early in the screenplay, Faulkner describes Bernie Ohls as:
. . . a man who has been in close places in the course of his duty, has killed several lawbreakers, at times when he was outnumbered and they thought he was covered and helpless until too late. He is pleasant and affable to all, respects courage, loves no man. (The Big Sleep 32)
No person watching this movie could possibly know this unless he were told it. No cinematic clues can give an audience this much information, especially in such a small time frame. This is not specific to just Ohls; several other scenes and characters are introduced in a similar fashion.
Last, even within the first few scenes in the movie, it is apparent that alcohol is an important part of the story. General Sternwood and Philip Marlowe bond over brandy in one of the first scenes of the movie, Vivian Rutledge is seen “drinking her lunch,” and Marlowe and a bookstore owner spend two hours together drinking from Marlowe’s private flask. Alcohol and Faulkner are inseparable, no matter what the medium, decade, or anything else.
The Big Sleep was written in 1944, later than Faulkner’s most famous works, which may explain, to an extent, why the screenplay is so different from rest of Faulkner’s work. Also, the silver screen is an entirely different medium from any Faulkner had written before. In a screenplay there is no room for rambling sentences, detailed descriptions, or stream of consciousness narration. Also, the theme of a detective-type story sans racial, incestual, or war-related tensions and subtexts is a departure from Faulkner’s normal MO. William Faulkner just doesn’t DO stories like this. The Big Sleep screenplay was adapted from a novel written by Raymond Chandler, so the overall story was not Faulker’s own. Still, the writing in the screenplay is not typical of Faulkner; he had to modify his way of writing to fit the medium. I think he had a great deal of help from the other writers, though, because the screenplay is so unlike his normal writing.
Even though The Big Sleep is so different from Faulkner’s novels and short stories, there are still a few Faulknerian characteristics in the screenplay. To begin with, the women in the movie—namely the two Sternwood daughters—are extremely sexualized. From the beginning, they are described in sexual terms, the eldest flashing her bare legs for Philip Marlowe and the youngest coming on to Marlowe in a very naive and sexual way. The youngest daughter, Carmen, is reminiscent of some of Faulkner’s other female characters, though she is not exactly like those women. Carmen reminds me a little of Temple Drake and Cecily Saunders, young, slightly androgynous girls who use their sexuality to get what they want. These girls get away with things they shouldn’t because they are spoiled by their fathers, and this is clearly the case with Carmen Sternwood.
Faulkner’s penchant for description and exposition can also be seen in the screenplay for The Big Sleep. Several of the character descriptions and stage directions are terribly complex and unrealistically detailed. For example, early in the screenplay, Faulkner describes Bernie Ohls as:
. . . a man who has been in close places in the course of his duty, has killed several lawbreakers, at times when he was outnumbered and they thought he was covered and helpless until too late. He is pleasant and affable to all, respects courage, loves no man. (The Big Sleep 32)
No person watching this movie could possibly know this unless he were told it. No cinematic clues can give an audience this much information, especially in such a small time frame. This is not specific to just Ohls; several other scenes and characters are introduced in a similar fashion.
Last, even within the first few scenes in the movie, it is apparent that alcohol is an important part of the story. General Sternwood and Philip Marlowe bond over brandy in one of the first scenes of the movie, Vivian Rutledge is seen “drinking her lunch,” and Marlowe and a bookstore owner spend two hours together drinking from Marlowe’s private flask. Alcohol and Faulkner are inseparable, no matter what the medium, decade, or anything else.
The Big Sleep
Initially, I thought it was very unusual that this was written (partly) by Faulkner. Humphrey Bogart doesn't strike me as a Faulknerian actor, but that doesn't mean I don't think he is awesome. I read that it was based on a book by someone else, and the screenwriters were told not to mess with the script too much-- to just stick to the book, so I guess it wouldn't have as much of a Faulkner influence as needed to make it apparent. Maybe?
As a movie, though, I liked it and thought it was entertaining. As I watched, though, it became a bit more confusing with all of the different characters entering unexpectedly and then all of the dying, and that's where I finally saw Faulkner's influence. But I think it was just the book that had a Faulkner flair. I feel I am not making sense. The plot was hard to follow at times, it seemed to meander a bit, but the movie was entertaining, nonetheless.
This movie had some really great lines in it. Of course, delivered by Humphrey Bogart.
As a movie, though, I liked it and thought it was entertaining. As I watched, though, it became a bit more confusing with all of the different characters entering unexpectedly and then all of the dying, and that's where I finally saw Faulkner's influence. But I think it was just the book that had a Faulkner flair. I feel I am not making sense. The plot was hard to follow at times, it seemed to meander a bit, but the movie was entertaining, nonetheless.
This movie had some really great lines in it. Of course, delivered by Humphrey Bogart.
The Big Sleep
Faulkner was one-third of the screen writers for The Big Sleep, but by far the most noticeable. It's clear to me why he liked this story: it's about corruption, there's no real plot, and the characters are all either double-sided or complex in their own way. For instance,
Vivian & Carmen Sternwood are both unique female characters, but are each very different. Each are essentially two-sided. Vivian appears snobbish but reveals herself to be loyal and capable of love. She is a very masculine, "androgynous" female, because she takes on the role that her sickly father is too weak to. She drinks scotch. She gambles. She can hold her own in conversation with a witty protagonist, and is obviously virtuous enough for him to fall in love with her. Carmen is also two sided but in a different way. She appears innocent but actually isn't, she a murderess, a suspected nymphomaniac, porn star, drug user, and perpetuates all of the evil in the novel. These girls, combined, mirror a lot of Faulkner characters in their defiance of social norms. Caddy's muddy underwear for instance. They are both the pure and impure, the ultra-feminine but ultra-masculine androginous characters.
Then we have General Sternwood who represents his own deteriorating family. He's the "head of the household" yet has to have everyone else work for him, including his eldest daughter. He is clueless in their upbringing and let's them run "wild". He's on the verge of death, and symbolizes collapse. He is extremely wealthy, and, like Thomas Supten, is coming to terms with the fact that you can't just "buy in" or "buy out" of life situations. This is illustrated when Marlowe suggests just paying off the blackmailer, but Gen. Sternwood refuses and says that wouldn't do any good for him, showing that he has realized material goods can't do it all, there are emotions, too.
Lastly, Philip Marlowe is the shining star in a corrupt world. Anything he touches or holds dear is supposed to be looked at in a good light, and we are constantly shown women offering themselves to him and he refuses sweetly every time, placing himself somewhat above the innate sexual desire and the rest of the men of that time. He's the good, in combat with the evil. He's the teller-of-the-tale and somewhat of a rebel.
These characters, though classically "film noir" are also classically Faulkner. They defy expectations, social normalicy, etc. They come from broken or incongruous families. They have to assume roles different than what society expects them to assume. They're also rather exciting.
Death saturates this film, just as it does many Faulkner novels, and when thought of in conjunction with the greenhouse at the beginning of the screenplay being sweltering hot, motivates a plethora of comparisons to be drawn between this and Faulkner's motif of The Wasteland.
A Blurry Line
I think "Pantaloon in Black" was my favorite of the seven pieces in Go Down, Moses. The book is obviously intended to depict the ever-volatile relations between blacks and whites in the Old South in a realistic and moving way. Rider, the protagonist of "Pantaloon in Black," is an incredibly sympathetic character: his grief is deeply gut-wrenching, especially when compared to the white sheriff's deputy who coldly and ignorantly relates the last tragic events of Rider's life. It was the most emotional I've ever seen Faulkner write. Reading the description of the footprints of Rider and his wife in the August dust almost brought me to tears.
However, I started to question the motive Faulkner had for writing this story, indeed, any of the stories in Go Down, Moses, which are considerably more focused on blacks than anything else we've read by him. Why document the the incredible pain and suffering of Rider's grief? Because Faulkner is white, I have to wonder how accurate his depictions of Rider and the black community are. Is this story meant as an apology for all those long, long years of slavery, cruelty, and oppression? Perhaps Faulkner wants to do his best to validate the feelings of the black community, to humanize them in the prejudiced eyes of the white American South. The juxtaposition between the visceral nature of Rider's mourning--he cannot eat, cannot sleep, cannot even stand still--and the detached, contemptuous deputy's story seem to indicate that the pain of a race beaten down for so many years must go deeper than the white man's, and the race that is capable of inflicting so much hurt without even flinching must be callous and unfeeling. Maybe this story is the product of a white man's shame.
On the other hand, Rider's grief is often portrayed as animalistic. I once saw a special on the Discovery channel about young bull elephants who are driven out of the herd and go berserk. Elephants are normally very gentle creatures, but these elephants will destroy everything in their paths. It was like Rider was being illustrated as one of those elephants. Faulkner may be saying that white people cannot grieve like this, but it could sound like black people are less in control of their emotions. They aren't as rational as white people, and have to "tear shit up" in order to properly express themselves. It's like saying women may not be as intelligent as men, but they are very pretty to look at: black people may not be as sophisticated as white people, but see how deeply some of them feel!
As I pondered these questions, I felt myself treading into very dangerous territory. As a white reader myself, how can I gauge the accuracy of these representations? I was incredibly moved by the depth of Rider's love for Mannie, but was it just white guilt on my part? Is "accuracy" even the issue here? In my heart, I would much rather read "Pantaloon in Black" in the first way, rather than the second, but as a critical thinker would I be deceiving myself?
I asked myself, "If the protagonist of this story was white, would it change how moved you were?" Would I be angry at a white person for committing suicide in the end, or would I see it as tragically and devastatingly as I saw Rider's death? I ultimately found myself feeling as ignorant as the white deputy acts in the second half of the story. How much of this world am I blind to?
However, I started to question the motive Faulkner had for writing this story, indeed, any of the stories in Go Down, Moses, which are considerably more focused on blacks than anything else we've read by him. Why document the the incredible pain and suffering of Rider's grief? Because Faulkner is white, I have to wonder how accurate his depictions of Rider and the black community are. Is this story meant as an apology for all those long, long years of slavery, cruelty, and oppression? Perhaps Faulkner wants to do his best to validate the feelings of the black community, to humanize them in the prejudiced eyes of the white American South. The juxtaposition between the visceral nature of Rider's mourning--he cannot eat, cannot sleep, cannot even stand still--and the detached, contemptuous deputy's story seem to indicate that the pain of a race beaten down for so many years must go deeper than the white man's, and the race that is capable of inflicting so much hurt without even flinching must be callous and unfeeling. Maybe this story is the product of a white man's shame.
On the other hand, Rider's grief is often portrayed as animalistic. I once saw a special on the Discovery channel about young bull elephants who are driven out of the herd and go berserk. Elephants are normally very gentle creatures, but these elephants will destroy everything in their paths. It was like Rider was being illustrated as one of those elephants. Faulkner may be saying that white people cannot grieve like this, but it could sound like black people are less in control of their emotions. They aren't as rational as white people, and have to "tear shit up" in order to properly express themselves. It's like saying women may not be as intelligent as men, but they are very pretty to look at: black people may not be as sophisticated as white people, but see how deeply some of them feel!
As I pondered these questions, I felt myself treading into very dangerous territory. As a white reader myself, how can I gauge the accuracy of these representations? I was incredibly moved by the depth of Rider's love for Mannie, but was it just white guilt on my part? Is "accuracy" even the issue here? In my heart, I would much rather read "Pantaloon in Black" in the first way, rather than the second, but as a critical thinker would I be deceiving myself?
I asked myself, "If the protagonist of this story was white, would it change how moved you were?" Would I be angry at a white person for committing suicide in the end, or would I see it as tragically and devastatingly as I saw Rider's death? I ultimately found myself feeling as ignorant as the white deputy acts in the second half of the story. How much of this world am I blind to?
Black Community
Faulkner’s Go Down, Moses set a different tone in terms of understanding African Americans in the antebellum south. I thought this novel was real treat, compared to other works we’ve read involving Faulkner, who ventured out of his comfort zone ( as much as he could) to give an accurate account of either the black consciousness or experience in the south. Up until now, we’ve been presented with traditional southern stereotypical black characters such as Dipsey, the mammy figure, Joe Christmas and Charles Bon, the tragic mulattos. Here, Faulkner explores the community of Blacks in the south and the way he portrays this community is accurate as far social norms go.
For instance, the chapter Was gives a depiction of the expectation of marriage due to a male intruding on a female’s personal space thereby tainting her reputation. This is seen when Uncle Buck surprisingly find Ms. Sophonsiba in the bed with him. It is expected that Uncle Buck now must marry Ms. Sophonsiba. Also, in Was there is much discussion about Uncle Buck being a widower, and Uncle Buddy being a bachelor. Although these terms are not new, they are mostly used to describe a person’s character socially. In southern literature, the relative term “uncle” is usually used to de-sexualize the black man, making him nonthreatening to be around white women, and kindly looked upon. The same is done with the term “mammy”; all “mammies” are usually old women, who have motherly tendencies. This figure is scoped out by her old age to be categorized in the white mindset, thereby placed into the white household as nonthreatening because she is de-sexualize due to the role she is to play. Faulkner moves away from that traditional way of storytelling. Surprise, surprise Uncle Buck actually is an uncle! There is no stigmatism attached to his name. Another social norm we see is courtship; Turl and Tennie courtship is not only cute, but another aspect in the black community that is rarely seen during slavery. The audience gets a chance to see the challenges of courtship back then. Ms. Sophonsiba husband hunting is also amusing…again the audience is presented with a black character, which is depicted outside of stereotypical role.
Faulkner also thoroughly explores the African-Americans want to experience the wilderness. I think he hinted at this with Absalom, Absalom! except it’s the frontier. Creationism is a minor theme in Absalom, Absalom! It’s first obviously shown with Thomas Sutpen, who “supposedly” creates something—Supten’s 100/dynasty---out of nothing. However, this theme can be applied to the Haitian slaves as well, who along with Supten created Supten’s 100, either through building the house or working the land. It is because the slaves are occupied “creating” something that they miss out on experiencing the frontier as the white man does. By the time the Negros can experience the frontier, it’s gone leaving it be a Was. Uncle Buck represents all the blacks that had a desire to experience the wilderness just like white people did. Such an experience is very much part of being an American, yet Uncle Buck is separated from that experience.
For instance, the chapter Was gives a depiction of the expectation of marriage due to a male intruding on a female’s personal space thereby tainting her reputation. This is seen when Uncle Buck surprisingly find Ms. Sophonsiba in the bed with him. It is expected that Uncle Buck now must marry Ms. Sophonsiba. Also, in Was there is much discussion about Uncle Buck being a widower, and Uncle Buddy being a bachelor. Although these terms are not new, they are mostly used to describe a person’s character socially. In southern literature, the relative term “uncle” is usually used to de-sexualize the black man, making him nonthreatening to be around white women, and kindly looked upon. The same is done with the term “mammy”; all “mammies” are usually old women, who have motherly tendencies. This figure is scoped out by her old age to be categorized in the white mindset, thereby placed into the white household as nonthreatening because she is de-sexualize due to the role she is to play. Faulkner moves away from that traditional way of storytelling. Surprise, surprise Uncle Buck actually is an uncle! There is no stigmatism attached to his name. Another social norm we see is courtship; Turl and Tennie courtship is not only cute, but another aspect in the black community that is rarely seen during slavery. The audience gets a chance to see the challenges of courtship back then. Ms. Sophonsiba husband hunting is also amusing…again the audience is presented with a black character, which is depicted outside of stereotypical role.
Faulkner also thoroughly explores the African-Americans want to experience the wilderness. I think he hinted at this with Absalom, Absalom! except it’s the frontier. Creationism is a minor theme in Absalom, Absalom! It’s first obviously shown with Thomas Sutpen, who “supposedly” creates something—Supten’s 100/dynasty---out of nothing. However, this theme can be applied to the Haitian slaves as well, who along with Supten created Supten’s 100, either through building the house or working the land. It is because the slaves are occupied “creating” something that they miss out on experiencing the frontier as the white man does. By the time the Negros can experience the frontier, it’s gone leaving it be a Was. Uncle Buck represents all the blacks that had a desire to experience the wilderness just like white people did. Such an experience is very much part of being an American, yet Uncle Buck is separated from that experience.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Dry September
This story describes a typical situation in southern states during times of intense prejudice and racial discrimination. Dry September describes a story based on the "Southern White Goddess" concept of the southern white woman being a fragile and incapable of wrongdoing. If a white woman ever accused a black man of any type of sexual wrongdoing, she would automatically be believed. Class adds to the southern white woman's argument as well. A white woman of privilege would never be questioned concerning her allegations of a man's sexual misconduct towards her. This is the case in Faulkner's short story Dry September.
The black man Will Mayes is accused of raping the white woman of privilege, Miss Minnie. Even though Will seems to be innocent of the accusations, he is still treated with violence by the white males in his town. He only had one person on his side, the l0cal barber. It is questionable if the barber was fully white. In the story they compared him to the character McLendon by saying, "They looked like men of different races." Because the barber believed Will was innocent, he was also scolded and accused of being a "niggerlover."
This story is not very different from the historic case of Emmett Till in the early 1950s. The same discriminative justice that was sought after concerning Miss Minnie's allegedly rape by Will Mayes was taken with Emmett Till. The concept of justice was absent. White privilege filled the place of justice in the South, especially concerning acts of violence towards the delicate flower known as the "Southern White Goddess." Faullkner did a great job with capturing this concept and pointing the problems with it through the character called the barber. I was very pleased with this short story, although I was not sure if Will Mayes was killed or just left to wander back to town. It is documented that in the original version of the story Will Mayes was killed.
The black man Will Mayes is accused of raping the white woman of privilege, Miss Minnie. Even though Will seems to be innocent of the accusations, he is still treated with violence by the white males in his town. He only had one person on his side, the l0cal barber. It is questionable if the barber was fully white. In the story they compared him to the character McLendon by saying, "They looked like men of different races." Because the barber believed Will was innocent, he was also scolded and accused of being a "niggerlover."
This story is not very different from the historic case of Emmett Till in the early 1950s. The same discriminative justice that was sought after concerning Miss Minnie's allegedly rape by Will Mayes was taken with Emmett Till. The concept of justice was absent. White privilege filled the place of justice in the South, especially concerning acts of violence towards the delicate flower known as the "Southern White Goddess." Faullkner did a great job with capturing this concept and pointing the problems with it through the character called the barber. I was very pleased with this short story, although I was not sure if Will Mayes was killed or just left to wander back to town. It is documented that in the original version of the story Will Mayes was killed.
Red Leaves
I was first a bit confused about the meaning behind Red Leaves and why Faulkner wrote it, but as I completed the story I gained a greater appreciation for it. Instead of reading about racial relationships between people who are black and white, as in Faulkner's past novels, this novel deals with race relations between Native Americans and African Americans. The way in which they interacted and the level that the Indians understood the African Americans was very strange. At a certain point, it became funny despite the cannibalism. It was really funny that the Indians believed black people enjoyed sweating and had dark complexion because of the sweating. The tribal rituals including killing a dead leaders possessions once he died was also very interesting. This is actually a common factor in Egyptian history, but it is depicted in this novel.
The element of the story that stood out the most to me was the scene when Issetibbeha's servant was bitten by the poisonous snake. He says, "It's that I do not wish to die." After running from the Indians in fear of being eaten, his life is cut short by being bitten by a poisonous snake. His statement really stuck out to me because it seemed to sum up in one statement the feelings of other African Americans who found their lives cut short after fighting so hard to simply live. Even though this story does not include White Americans being harsh to African Americans, African Americans are still given the same position of lowly servitude. However, the Indian Americans in Red Leaves were very nice to the black male servant.
This story was a big breathe of fresh air from Faulkner. He never really seemed able to fully tackle racial subjects concerning white and black Americans, but he did a good job in this story with the Indian and African Americans. He did a great job of making fun of how African Americans are understood by an outside race and culture.
The element of the story that stood out the most to me was the scene when Issetibbeha's servant was bitten by the poisonous snake. He says, "It's that I do not wish to die." After running from the Indians in fear of being eaten, his life is cut short by being bitten by a poisonous snake. His statement really stuck out to me because it seemed to sum up in one statement the feelings of other African Americans who found their lives cut short after fighting so hard to simply live. Even though this story does not include White Americans being harsh to African Americans, African Americans are still given the same position of lowly servitude. However, the Indian Americans in Red Leaves were very nice to the black male servant.
This story was a big breathe of fresh air from Faulkner. He never really seemed able to fully tackle racial subjects concerning white and black Americans, but he did a good job in this story with the Indian and African Americans. He did a great job of making fun of how African Americans are understood by an outside race and culture.
Monday, April 12, 2010
A Rose for Emily:Narration
Overall, I enjoy reading Faulkner's short stories as opposed to his strange novels. In his short stories, he moves away from fighting with the "new" southern ideals and finds himself writing more creatively. In "A Rose for Emily",my favorite of Faulkner's short stories, it is important to note the narration. The narration often times switches between first person plural and third person plural. First person is used because the narrator is,obviously, one of the townspeople. When using third person plural, the narrator seems to set him or herself apart from the townspeople,observing what is occurring, and then gossips about it. There is a possibility that the narrator switches from different people of the town. Even though there is no clear indication whther or not they are male or female, gossip is prevelant mostly among women. Faulkner most likely created such a narrator so that he or she could in fact switch to different perspectives.
"A Rose for Emily" is a horror story both in the thematic sense having dark and gory imagery as well as in the sense of what could possibly could have happened to a young southern woman who never found true love(as creepy as it is).
"A Rose for Emily" is a horror story both in the thematic sense having dark and gory imagery as well as in the sense of what could possibly could have happened to a young southern woman who never found true love(as creepy as it is).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)