Toni Morrison's language

I've been struck by the beauty of Morrison's language and the vividness of her descriptions in this story. I find myself often underlining interesting phrasing or imagery.  There have also been a number of times when I have had to stop and re-read text because the horror of some of the situations facing the characters has stunned me.  Choose one instance of either beauty or horror and offer a detailed close reading of the scene.  Consider the proximity of the two (are they separate? closely linked?) and the effect that this kind of writing has on us as  readers.

Beloved beginning

I'm going to piggy back on Mesa's most recent post, seeking connection between the various works read.  I'd like you to take some time to comment on what common threads you are seeing already between Beloved and some of the other books we have studied.  In what ways does Morrison echo some of the other authors?  In what ways does she give us some different perspectives? Feel free to consider both the content and the style of her writing.

Family Dynamics in T.O.D.

I found the family dynamics in this book very interesting. In the other books we have read, mostly we have seen tradition families and marriages. Now we are getting a glimpse at an unconventional family whose motives are yet to be revealed. The Judge's new wife Fay happens to be younger than his own daughter, Laurel, which makes me think that there is more than true love to their relationship. Also, it surprised me that her nasty treatment of Laurel went unnoticed by the judge, or otherwise ignored. I would still like to learn more about Laurel's relationship with her father, even after he has died. What is strange to me is that so far Laurel has made her mother out to be a great person, and although she died, I wonder what caused Judge McKelva to marry someone who is seemingly very different from his dead wife. What do you think of the story so far? Any insights into the relationships between all the characters?

All Good Things Must Come to an End

Now that we have started our last book as an entire class (have fun on senior projects you guys!), I think it is important to look at the series of books we have read as a whole collection and what they have in common. We stumbled through Faulkner's erratic chronology, found humor in O'Connor's sardonic wit, and found Percy's stream-of-consciousness style endearing in the character of Binx. Now we will study Eudora Welty's style and her perception of the South. So here is my question- why these four (or five for juniors) books? What does Lucas, a slave on a farm, have in common with Binx, the nephew of an extremely entitled family in New Orleans, or with the Guziac family, immigrants from Poland? What connects these books so that they transcend time, race, gender, etc, and how do they embody the list of stereotypes we made at the beginning of the year? Finally, what was your favorite book and why? From what I have read, I think The Optimist's Daughter is going to be my favorite!

Style vs. Content

To me, The Moviegoer presents a paradox. The themes of the story have a philosophical, and sometimes dark nature. In the strong theme of existentialism, Binx is continuously searching for the meaning of human life - he strives to understand how people may live sincerely in a seemingly dishonest and artificial world. He wishes never to be "sunk in the everydayness" of life" and his greatest fear is to be invisible in a habitual society. Binx finds comfort in going to the movies because for him, a movie reinsures reality, it is "certification"... He explains, "Nowadays when a person lives somewhere, in a neighborhood, the place is not certified for him. More than likely he will live there sadly and the emptiness which is inside him will expand until it evacuates the entire neighborhood. But if he sees a movie which shows his ver neighborhood, it becomes possible for him to live, for a time at least, as a person who is Somewhere and not Anywhere" (63). Kate is a similar character; she, too, searches for revelations in life, but each time she thinks she has found one, she soon sinks into a phase of grave depression. Well, here is the paradox: this deep analysis of human life and existence is portrayed through Percy's light and almost poetic prose. What significance does this contrast of style and content hold?

The Moviegoer seems to be a very dull and mundan journey through the life of an ordinary man with no real meaning. But, the book shows the transformation of "a model tenant and a model citizen [who takes] pleasure in doing all that is expected" (8) into a man who does not want to be seen as plain and average "macaroni" (122). Early in the story there is a description of a living room, "the living room is bright, but it is not snug. The windows are open to the ceiling and the gray sky comes pouring in" (22). At first, as with his life, Binx sees it as bright and full with windows reaching high but as he looks around "it is not snug." There is a contrast that is created, something that seemed so great at first begins to become more and more undesirable.

The Moviegoer's Challenge

Having now started to read pages 64-86 of the nationally acclaimed The MOVIEGOER, I noticed some characters made some philosophical questioning that challenged the so called "norm" everyone seems to follow. The first time is when Binx is at the theater. Before Binx watches a movie he speaks to a manager to learn about the theater or something about the people who operate it. But he also comes to a conclusion about why he does it. It is for selfish reasons and he isn't afraid to admit it. "I am no do-gooding Jose Ferrer going around with a little whistle to make people happy. Such do-gooders do not really want to listen, are not really selfish like me; they are being nice fellows and boring themselves to death, and their listeners are not really cheered up. Show me a nice Jose cheering up an old lady and I'll show you two people existing in despair. My mother often told me to be unselfish, but I have become suspicious of the advice. No I do it for my own selfish reasons."(75) Binx truly believes that people can't be 'do-gooding Joses' for unselfish reasons because the only reason they would want to do it is to look better to everyone else. Binx firmly states that he is being selfish on purpose and there is nothing wrong with that. Or is he just being cynical? When Binx meets up with Kate she starts talking about doctors then a question dawns on her. "Now she takes my arm in both hands. 'Have you noticed that only in time of illness or disaster or death are people real?' I remember at the time of the wreck--people were so kind and helpful and solid. Everyone pretended that our lives until that moment had been every bit as real as the moment itself that the future must be real too, when the truth was that our reality had been purchased only by Lyell's death. In another hour or so we had all faded out again and gone our dim ways" (81) Binx agrees with Kate and they continue on their way. These little questions are short adn discussed short between the reader and Binx (his thoughts about her question are told to us rather than to Kate) then its gone with no further thought. At first this sudden outburst of philosophical questioning just left me slightly confused. What do you guys think? And did you noticed something like this in the beginning of the book, or in the other books?

"The Life-Goer?"

In The Moviegoer, Walker Percy narrates the life of a thirty-ish year-old businessman named Binx. Binx tells the story himself, giving his perspective on events and the people with whom he interacts. He also enjoys going to the movies: in fact, this seem so be a very important part of his life: "Other people, so I have read, treasure memorable moments in their lives: the time one climbed the Parthenon at sunrise, the summer night one met a lonely girl in Central Park and achieved with her a sweet and natural relationship, as they say in books. I too once met a girl in Central Park, but it is not much to remember. What I remember is the time John Wayne killed three men with a carbine as he was falling to the dusty street in Stagecoach, and the time the kitten found Orson Welles in the doorway in The Third Man." (7) Because Binx considers memorable moments to be movies, we know he sees them a lot. But it seems to be the way he views life, as well: while reading, I found a slightly third-person omniscient tone , even though it is a character narrating his daily life and a walk down the street. For instance, he observes a young couple walking down the street, and notices that "they are not really happy." He further diagnoses their troubles: "He is anxious; he is threatened from every side. Each stranger he passes is a reproach to him, every doorway a threat. What is wrong? he wonders. She is unhappy but for a different reason, because he is unhappy and she knows it but doesn't know why." Finally, Binx observes the effect of the couple's interaction with William Holden, the movie star (coincidence?): "All at once the world is open to him. Nobody threatens from patio and alley. His girl is open to him too... She feels the difference too. She had not known what was wrong nor how it was righted but she knows now that all is well." (p.15-16). I don't know about you, but I felt like this is the view of someone all-knowing, but it's just Binx's everyday walk. It seems, with his extraordinary perception, that perhaps Binx is not a moviegoer at all but in fact a life-goer. Is this Walker Percy's way of indirect commentary on life? What do you think is his reasoning for creating such a character?

From Font to Film with Flannery and Feagles

Last semester I took a class taught by Michele Lettiere called From Font to Film (shout out to Abdi who took it as well). As the title suggests, we studied numerous works of literature which were then turned into movies and watched to see how the plot line and characters were altered in order to create a more comprehensible, and often more concise, story. Even though The Displaced Person was not a novel itself, that does not mean that it cannot follow the same guidelines upon which other longer stories are assessed when turned into film. Even Brokeback Mountain, a movie of 134 minutes, was once only a short story of about 40 pages (completely guessing here because I can't find my handout, but that should be proof enough because it was only a handout). When watching The Displaced Person, I couldn't help but notice that it hardly left the story's dialogue or timeline whatsoever. Normally when I watch the movie-version of a book that I have read, I am thoroughly disappointed and often outraged at the way the director chose to portray one of the characters or that they decided to leave out one of my favorite scenes, so I thought that I would be pleased to have finally seen a film whose visual matched directly with the text. But this was not the case. I loved the story, but the film somehow bored me. Was it because I knew everything that was going to happen? Was it because I didn't like Mrs. Shortley in the book, so I obviously wasn't going to like her in the film? I still can't place my finger precisely on the reason that I just did not enjoy the film all that much. What do you guys think? Did you like the film? Would additional scenes have helped? Maybe more/fewer characters? Whatever the reason may be, I still enjoyed the entirety of A Good Man is Hard to Find, and will deal with a little disappointment regardless.

What's your favorite story?

After coming to the end of Flannery O'Connor's collection of short stories, I could not help but think which is the best? I suppose this is more a personal opinion than literary discussion question, but I still think it is important to examine because the question at hand is which story was most effective? For me, when I finished Good Country People, I had an "ah ha" moment where I felt like all the previous stories seemed to click into place. The themes and motifs O'Connor had alluded to were fully flushed out and the dark tragic comedy was perfectly placed and moved the story forward instead of detracting. I think O'Connor did a masterful job of weaving in, without seeming obvious, the important themes of religion, socio-economic classes, education, gender and the tension between city and country. In only a few dozen pages, O'Connor was able to resurrect not one or two but four complicated, intriguing and authentic characters. The stylistic choices of using flashbacks in time, humor, meaningful names and dialogue made the story come alive. Although I think this is a cohesive collection, I think Good Country People could stand on its own as a representation of the essentials of A Good Man is Hard to Find and Other Stories. The one important aspect of the collection that this story is missing is the subject of racism and racial tensions which can obviously not be ignored as it is a defining part of the rural South. Mrs. Hopewell's comment "Lord,... he bored me to death but I just couldn't be rude to him. He was just good country people... just the salt of the earth" (193) is just one example of the many poignant lines throughout the story that seem to stick with you and really get O'Connor's points across. Anyhow, do you agree that this was the most effective or favorite of your stories? Respond with your favorite and why or if you agree with me please add to the evidence.

"Humor"

 " 'I've gotten a lot of interesting things,' he said. 'One time I got a woman's' glass eye this way'...and then the toast-colored hat disappeared down the hole and the girl was left, sitting on a straw in the dusty sunlight. When she turned her churning face toward the opening, she saw his blue figure struggling successfully over the green speckled lake." (205) When I neared the end of Good Country People and read that quote, I couldn't help but let out a few uncomfortable laughs. It was a very unexpected and odd ending to the story and reminded me of Faulkner's Pantaloon in Black not because of the plot but rather the subtle "humor" that is shown in both. In Pantaloon, Faulkner uses humor when describing Rider's appearance and describing the dinner scene with the sheriff and his wife for the purpose of laying out the divide between black people and white people in a different way. To what purpose does O Connor use humor in this story? At first, I interpreted Good Country People as comic relief after multiple sad stories. What are you thoughts? Is this story inserted just because it's a change in mood, or is there a more subtle use of this humor?

Religion in "A Good Man is Hard To Find"

A major theme in “A Good Man is Hard to Find” is religion and how religion relates to moral obligation. This theme is woven throughout the short story “The Displaced Person” in terms of the priest. The priest is a symbol for Christianity. He is first introduced as a “long-legged black-suited old man with a white hat on and a collar that he wore backwards” (208). He was the one who arranged for the “Displaced people” to come work for Mrs. McIntyre. At first, a good light is shed on him because Mrs. McIntyre is so thankful for the displaced person and all the work he does. Later, when Mrs. McIntyre realizes that the displaced people are “lie rats with typhoid fleas” (210), a poor light is shed on the priest who brought them there. At first, when the displaced people are good, religion is good. But when the displaced people become bad, religion is bad. It is clear from the title that O'Connor thinks there are very few good people in the world but what is not as clear is what she defines as a good person. Do you think that religion is directly connected to being “good” and “moral”? Why do you think the portrayal of the Priest changed throughout the story? Do you think that Flannery O’Connor wants the reader to see Christianity as a good or bad thing?

Mesa Has to Comment on this Post Because She didn't Comment on My Last One.

As the lovely Maddy did in her post, I would also like to compare A Good Man is Hard to Find to Go Down, Moses. While these two books are set in very different time periods, I think they share a lot of the same themes and motifs. A Good Man is Hard to Find is the New South, no doubt, but that doesn't mean it has nothing in common with Faulkner's novel. First and foremost, let's talk about the juxtaposition of New vs. Old South that we see in both books. In Delta Autumn, we see Isaac, an old southerner, awkwardly mixed in with a bunch of new southerners on a hunting trip. Well, I would argue that we get another glimpse of that same situation in The Life You Save May Be Your Own. Mr. Shiftlet does not fit in with anyone, which is part of why he's a vagrant in the first place. I think he's a representation of an old southerner because he's a man that has "a moral intelligence" (57), and talks philosophically about "big picture things" while he is mostly ignored, "He asked a lot of questions that she didn't answer" (55). And, in the end, Mr. Shiftlet ends up accepting he doesn't belong, admitting that he is "slime from this Earth" (66) and driving on, just as Isaac realizes he doesn't belong pretty early in the hunting trip. There are also references to religion in both, but I'd be lying if it wasn't way heavier in O'Connor's novel. However, I think that this motif, too, can tell a lot about the books and what the authors are trying to show. In Go Down, Moses, Christianity is more of a way of life. It is something that the characters use to direct their lives or to substantiate their points as Lucas does when he's trying to convince Roth that there's money on the land, "Because God say, 'What's rendered to My earth, it belong to Me unto I resurrect it. And let him or her touch it, and beware,'" (99, GDM). However, the whole preface behind The River is to question religion. It a story where we get to compare people who are religious with people who do not affiliate with religion. O'Connor does not pass any judgments about what is right, and the story ends with the reader questioning whether the river is accepting or rejecting Bevel/Harry into the Kingdom of Christ. The use of religion, though, further extends the comparison between the Old and New Souths. What do you guys think? Do you agree with me? Disagree? Do you have any more places where you think a theme is used in both books? Let me know. And if you choose to disagree, please don't be a Maddy.

"and Other Stories"???

As I hope you all are aware, Go Down, Moses and A Good Man is Hard to Find and Other Stories are both collections of short stories. In 1942, Go Down, Moses was originally published as Go Down, Moses and Other Stories, before Faulkner addressed his editors and forced them to change it in 1949 for obvious reasons. Although they can be read and appreciated as individual works (for example The Bear), his stories not only are about the same characters and set in the same 'mythical county', but they share themes their significant themes and motifs. In the four stories of Flannery's that we have read so far, the connections between them are far less obvious as the characters, locations, and plots do not match, but I believe that, like Faulkner, Flannery could eliminate the "and Other Stories" from her title because the stories are interconnected through her continued use of motifs and themes. Flannery uses motifs/metaphors relating to the sun throughout her stories. For example, in "The River", Flannery speaks often of the sun in all turning points of the story, and she draws much attention to it. As Bevel enters the river for the last time, the "sky was a clear pale blue, all in one piece except for the hole the sun made"(48). As he leaves his house for the river, "The sun was pale yellow ans high and hot"(47). In each case, the sun mirrors the plot and is steeped in symbolism. Flannery uses this also in "The Life You Save May be Your Own", as the plantation belonging the mother and Lucynell is infused with the sunset which becomes heavily interconnected with the character of Mr. Shiftlet. Also, the stories all focus on the sense of desperation asscociated with religion, and religion is the theme that most of the stories are centered around. Stylistically, Flannery forms a 'pantaloon' if you will of the female characters in each of her stories by referring to them as 'the grandmother', 'the mother', 'the daughter', or 'the wife', placing them in highly symbolic roles that address gender and the past in the stories. These are just a few of the connections between the superficially unrelated stories in "A Good Man Is Hard to FInd and Other Stories", which in my opinion could really do without the "and Other Stories".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMkzLHwe4-c

We spoke briefly in class of the relation "Ode on a Grecian Urn" has to certain themes in Go Down Moses, and I am choosing to revisit this topic. The poem paints an idealistic and eternal picture of beauty on the urn. Similarly, Isaac sees the woods as sacred, and immortal. I also think the "motionless" motif that Faulkner constantly writes of can be directed back to the poem. When Isaac is in the woods, he is many times motionless, like a character in a painting on the urn would be. The poem leaves the reader with the thought "Beauty is truth, truth beauty, -- that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." However, the poem also discusses the hindrances in seeing this beauty as truth, explaining that this idealism "dost tease out of thought / As doth eternity." Nevertheless, Isaac lives by this moral, choosing only to see the woods as beautiful, and eternal, therefore, never accepting the change they endure. In reality, the wilderness Isaac cherishes is doomed for destruction and great change, for industrialization is making its mark. When Isaac is hunting Old Ben for the first time, he chooses not to shoot at him so he will not bring the idealistic hunt to a realistic end. In addition, Isaac continuously goes back to the woods he loves even as an old man, and "no longer told anyone how near eighty he actually was because he knew as well as they did that he no longer had any business making such expeditions" (320). Isaac never stops believing in the immortal sequence; "the fierce long heat of the next summer would renew him" (320). Is this idealistic view of the wilderness, as well as himself as a hunter, the real "truth", or is it only steering Isaac away from the reality? Chat amongst yourselves... (if you have any interest).

Is it true that what 'was' still 'is'?

Throughout Go Down Moses, we have examined the interconnectedness of past and present and made the conclusion that what 'was' in the past still 'is' in the later short stories which follow the so called 'future' generations of Buck, Buddy and Old Carothers. However, in Delta Autumn, the significant differences and changes between the 'old' and 'new' South seem most apparent. There is a blatant division between Uncle Isaac and McCaslin who revere the wilderness and the land and the new generation, which seems to disregard it. This becomes obvious at the end of Delta Autumn when he says "It was a doe"(347). The fact that Roth shoots the doe shows that he has forgotten Sam Father's lessons of old that there is a time "not only when to shoot but when not to" (333). These new generations have further forgotten and abandoned God as is obvious when the old man says that "the only fighting anywhere that ever had anything of God's belling on it has been when men fought to protect does and fawns" (323), and the past values and traditions have been cast aside. Additionally, throughout the previous stories and particularly in The Bear, industrialism is encroaching on the wilderness, which is representative of the past and its traditions. In Delta Autumn Uncle Ike reflects that there is "no scream of panther but instead the long hooting of locomotives" (324). The comparison of the natural world to industrial objects shows the progression of the South towards this brave new world that is not compatible with the old values of nature. This progression suggests that what 'was' no longer 'is'. The past is only resurrected in old Uncle Ike's of "the old men...moving again among the shades of tall unaxed trees and sightless brakes where the wild strong immortal game ran forever before the tireless belling immortal hounds, falling and rising phoenix like to the soundless guns" (337). Although the image of the pheonix suggests a cyclical nature of change and suggests that the old hunt may one day be resurrected, it also shows that right now that old way of the hunt is lost in reality even if it is perserved in memory. I challenge that what 'was' 'is' in Go Down, Moses, and instead think that Delta Autumn is Faulkner's way of saying that the past has been cleared away for the new south. What do you think?

God and Nature

In class we have started talking a bit about Isaac's views on nature and man's dominance over land. This is most obvious on page 245 when Isaac tells McCaslin that he "can't repudiate it. It was never mine to repudiate. It was never Father's and Uncle Buddy's to bequeath to me to repudiate... He created man to be His overseer on the earth and to hold suzerainty over the earth and the animals on it in His name, not to hold for himself and his descendants inviolable title forever..." and he goes on to talk about how the land is not his to do anything with because the land belongs to God and anyone who "had" the land before never actually owned anything. This seems to me to be an introduction to his views on how greedy humans are. On page 246 he says in an sort of cynical tone how "men fought over the fragments of that collapse until at last even the fragments were exhausted and men snarled over the gnawed bones of the old world's worthless evening until an accidental egg discovered to them a new hemisphere." Just the use of the words "collapse" and "exhausted" to describe the earth and the words "snarled" and "gnawed" to illustrate the actions of men make it so obvious how he feels about the avariciousness mankind and how people treat the earth. Do you think this is a valid argument? What do you think this says about him?

The Relationship Between Man and Nature

The entirety of Go Down, Moses thus far has dealt with the changing relationships amongst the characters and the impact those changes have on the overall story. However, in this most recent story, The Bear, the most significant changes are emphasized. These are, as stated on the back cover of the book, the changing relationships between man and man and between man and nature. Through the annual hunting trips, the reader see’s Isaac McCaslin mature into a man and with him his views on the world that surrounds him. In chapter one of The Bear, Isaac first eludes to a rift between man and nature, “It was as if the boy had already divined what his senses and intellect hand not encompassed yet: that doomed wilderness whose edges were being constantly and punily gnawed at by men with plows and axes who feared it because it was wilderness…” (183). This divide is further illustrated by Boon and Isaac’s arrival in Memphis. Although their disheveled appearance does not spark much attention in the small town of Hoke, they seem extremely out of place in urban Memphis- “They emerged from the warm caboose in their hunting clothes, the muddy boots and stained khaki and Boon’s blue unshaven jowls. But that was all right. Hoke’s sawmill and commissary and two stores and a loading-chute on a sidetrack from the main line, and all the men in it wore boots and khaki too…..But in Memphis it was not all right. It was if the high buildings and the hard pavements, the fine carriages and the horse cars and the men in starched collars and neckties made their boots and khaki look a little rougher and a little muddier…” (218-219). I read these passages originally with the idea that they supported the idea of the Old South vs. the New South, but when I read Isaac and Cass’s conversation from page 243 through 246, I began to wonder if in fact it was something deeper than industrialization. Were you surprised by Cass’s reaction? Do you think that the battle over the land has to do with industrialization alone, or is it something more?

The Best Blog Post This Side of the Mississippi

Something that really caught my eye in the most recent chapter of "The Bear" were the metaphors/analogies made between animals and men. There were a couple blunt references, like when General Compson speaks at Lion's funeral "as he would have spoken over a man" (236), or when Old Ben "took two or three steps toward the woods on its hind feet as a man would have" (228). That got me thinking, why would Faulkner compare these two ferocious animals, Lion and Old Ben, to men? It's obvious to me that Faulkner did this on purpose, so why? Well, I found my answer earlier on in the chapter when Lion is staring at Issac and Issac "knew it was not looking at him and never had been" (225). Who else is described to be looking toward Isaac but not AT Isaac? Why, that's Sam Fathers on page 174. I had seen parallels between Lion, Old Ben, and Sam Fathers before this chapter, but I think this ties it all together (with a nice little bow). The fact that they all die at the same time is just icing on the cake for me. In your response, you can do one of two things: you can either disagree with me, and prove why there is no substantial link between Old Ben, Sam, and Lion, or you can ponder WHY Faulkner has decided to include such a link. I think since Sam doesn't really have much of a family, Faulkner is giving him a connection to the natural world to show that humans aren't the only important things in a person's lineage. We have seen that Sam is sort of "one" with nature, so could this be a way of linking Sam to the theme of ancestry and bloodlines? Does it tie into any other of the themes or motifs we have seen so far? Let me know what you think.

The Bear (Part 3)

After reading Parts 1 and 2 of The Bear, I was thoroughly involved in the story. The years in the story passed quickly, and I could tell that the time for Lion to confront Old Ben was fast approaching. Yet Part 3 began with a different facet of the story: Boon Hogganbeck. We learned in previous chapters that Boon's status amongst the men at Big Bottom is low; like Sam Fathers, he has some Chickasaw blood in him, but "Sam was the chief, the prince; Boon, the plebeian, was his huntsman. Boon should [be nursing] the dogs" (210). Yet the image Faulkner gives of Boon is not only as a drunkard and lousy shot, but as a man faithful to what he holds to be important. This is especially evident when Lion finally confronts the bear. The dog leaps for Old Ben, but the bear "caught the dog in both arms, almost loverlike, and they both went down. ...Then, rising and rising as though it would never stop, stand erect again and begin to rake at Lion's belly with its forepaws" (228). Boon leaps onto the bear's back and uses his knife to kill the bear, which I find to be extraordinary because thus far Old Ben has been somewhat untouchable and immortal, sort of on a different plane. For Boon, only fit to care for a chief's dogs, to be the downfall of such a creature proves what he is capable of doing for someone he is devoted to. Then Faulkner ends the chapter with Boon defending Sam Fathers's grave on page 240, saying "This is the way he wanted it. He told us. He told us exactly how to do it. And by God you aint going to move him," and Isaac sides with Boon against his cousin McCaslin and Major de Spain. This ending, I think, is Faulkner's way of showing that while Isaac hugely looks up to and respects his cousin, he still does what he believes is right, and like Boon, holds faithful to the ones he is devoted to.

Dark Comedy of Faulkner

In Pantaloon in Black we get to experience a new facet of Faulkner's writing - his humorous side. Like many of the other students, I at first missed the comedy by being caught up in the tragic story of Rider. We follow a man "better than six feet and weighed better than two hundred pounds"(129) who is grief stricken after the death of his wife Mannie. He throws a log into the river, drinks himself into a stupor, plays a game of dice at the mill then cuts Birdsongs throat after accusing him of cheating. Rider is put in jail but manages to rip out only to be lynched. The story itself seems tragic, but also has many points of comic relief. "Soon he had one of the shovels himself, which in his hands resembled the toy shovel a child plays with at the store, its half cubic foot of flung dirt no more than the light gout of sand a child's shovel would have flung" (129) The image of a very large man using a child sized shovel while franticly digging is very silly given that this grieving man is digging the grave of his wife. "wolfing it -- pease again, alo gelid and cold, a fragment of yesterday's Sunday fried chicken, a few rough chunks of this morning's fried sidemeat, a biscuit the size of a child's cap -- indiscriminate, tasteless." (136-137). Here he's eating like an animal to what seems like garbage, a funny scene although he's eating to cope with the pain of his loss. What does the use of dark humor and slapstick comedy play as a role in the story? Also why do you think this chapter is important in progress Go Down, Moses as a whole?

The Old People

The title of this chapter at first seemed to suggest that it was referring to the older McCaslins: old Carothers, Uncle Buck, and Uncle Buddy, but as the chapter progressed it became apparent that Faulkner was referring to the Native Americans. Sam Fathers, "the son of that Chickasaw chief" (161), seems to have a special connection with the Chickasaw and their past. He shares this with Isaac McCaslin through mentoring him in hunting. When "Sam marked [Isaac's] face with the hot blood which he had spilled" after shooting his first deer, Isaac shares in the ritual passed through generations and "he ceased to be a child and became a hunter and a man" (169). On page 178 we see that Cass also shared in this ritual. The smearing of the blood across his face is very symbolic of his new connection with the land and the past. The buck Isaac sees also portrays the older generation, which is seen when Sam refers to the buck as "Chief" and "Grandfather" (175). The buck is calm and unscathed even after the shot fired by Walter, who never misses, but even he misses the big buck only to kill a smaller one not worth killing. Isaac has accomplished a rite of passage and is now a man, a hunter, and is connected to the past and land.

Time Sequence

From what we have read, it is clear that Faulkner never really makes the setting of a story clear. The place where the story takes place is discovered along the way, but figuring out the time of the story takes very careful reading. Looking at the book as a whole, each story within the book comes from a different time period, but even within these stories, there is variation in time. For example, there is a section in "The Fire and the Hearth", pages 40-57, which is entirely a flashback that Lucas has of attempting to kill Zack Edmonds. I only understood that it was in the past after going back and reading the passage a second time. The constant ambiguity concerning time forces the reader to read some passages multiple times before truly understanding when the event is taking place. However, playing with something like time sequence, which is usually so definite in most books, could distract the reader from any underlying messages that Faulkner intended to portray. Why do you think Faulkner makes it so unclear when he is changing time periods? Obviously, Faulkner is an incredible writer, but by doing this do you think he enhances the stories or takes away from them?

Two by William Faulkner

Ironically, two things struck me most by this story. The first was the vivid language Faulkner used in his descriptions. "The salesman was asleep on the wet ground now, drawn into a ball against the dawn's wet chill, unshaven, the dashing city hat crumpled beneath his cheek, his necktie wrenched sideways in the collar of his soiled white shirt, his muddy trousers rolled to his knees, the brightly-polished shoes of yesterday now two shapeless lumps of caked mud" (86). Faulkner's writing, though often ambiguous and confusing, tells a story in an interesting perspective with beautiful descriptive language, which can throw the reader for a loop. The second thing I noticed was the theme of racial segregation. This theme, as we noted in class, is very common throughout Faulkner's stories. On the first page of the story, the salesman is described as "young, not yet thirty, with the assurance, the slightly soiled snap and dash, of his calling, and a white man" (76). However, during the negotiation on page 91, they "faced one another in the darkness, two shadows, faceless," which levels the playing field. Though one of the men may be white and the other black, in the dark there are no faces, no upper hands based on race.

Both "The Sahara of the Bozart" and "I'll Take my Stand" glorify the 'Old' South and criticize the direction the 'New' South is taking. In going over the 'Bozart' article as a class, we agreed that Mencken's arguments were both untrue and racist. However he expressed the same indignancy at the loss of the "old south' as did the Twelve Southerners. I felt that in reading the opinions of the Twelve Southerners they failed to take into consideration the compliancy of the southern citizens in the rise of industrialism. They seemed to be saying that the industrialists were completely to blame and the south, as a whole, was a victim. Oppositionally, Mencken believed the fall of the south was of internal design, brought about by the poor white southerners. In many places in the text these two publications mirror each other, even though essentially they argue different sides. Compare and contrast the two articles. What do you find to be the most effective points for either one? Use specific text references.

I'll Take My Stand - The Twelve Southerners

Twelve Southerners collaborated to write this Introduction to "I'll Take My Stand". This piece of writing not only focuses on the South, but it focuses on America as a whole. This writing was in response to the "Sahara of the Bozart". The Twelve Southerners actually agreed on the basics of what was said in the "Sahara of the Bozart", but what angered them was the attacks on southern culture and traditions that they strongly valued such as Agrarian philosophy. In this piece, they blame the loss of the "Old South" on industrialization. They say, "The younger Southerners , who are being converted frequently to the industrial gospel, must come back to support of the Southern Tradition." They talks about Industrialization as a naive answer to all problems, when in truth in wont solve anything. He says that industrialization will depress religion, the arts and simple amenities of life such as "conversation, hospitality, sympathy, and family life". I thought it was interesting to read of piece from that time period and to see how relevant the same issue is now. Industry has take over the world today, and maybe if they had stopped it from spreading earlier, the old traditions and interest in the natural would be more prevalent today.