Arnold Friend is, to say the least, a strange character. He is first encountered as a creepy stalker when Connie is out with a boy named Eddie, and shows up one Sunday with his friend Ellie to kidnap her. Descriptions of him always hint at some sort of deception, but the nature of this deception is never made explicit in the work. However, Arnold Friend is most likely the Devil, due to a strange pattern of coincidences in the story.
The day that Arnold and Ellie come to Connie's house is Sunday; it is mentioned as an aside that “none of them bothered with church” (12). This is not the first indication we receive of Connie's sinful nature; as is apparent from the first paragraph, she is proud. The fact that the main character is sinful is crucial for the notion of Arnold as the devil to make any sense; he would not be able to take the soul of an innocent person. Further support is the fact that Sunday is clearly associated with Christianity; Oates is essentially setting up a giant sign saying, “this story is clearly connected to the Christianity!”
This isn't the only indicator she provides. Arnold points out the numbers “33, 19, 17” written on the side of his car, referring to it as “secret code” (36). This number is a reference to the 33rd book in the Old Testament, counting from the end, Judges, and the 17th verse of the 19th chapter. While this may seem like excessive pseudological contortion, this reference is clearly justified: “And when he had lifted up his eyes, he saw a wayfaring man in the street of the city: and the old man said, Whither goest thou? and whence comest thou?” (Judges 19:17). It would be an understatement to say that the old man's question is uncannily similar to the title of the text.
It's also made apparent throughout the text that Arnold is no ordinary man. He has many strange characteristics, such as the “pale” skin around his eyes and the unfamiliarity with a simple “ride somewhere” (55). He possesses near-omniscience about Connie's personal life that would be almost impossible for a normal man to attain, but his attempts at stay in style are pretty pathetic; it's ridiculous to consider the possibility of him gaining all this knowledge about Connie through normal means yet still be so out of touch with the larger populace. It is much more probable that this information was obtained in some unconventional way, perhaps by supernatural means. Again Arnold seems almost supernatural whenProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
he X he draws in the air is “almost visible” even though “his hand fell back to his side” (77). Connie also feels that he “had driven up the driveway all right but had come from nowhere before that,” suggesting that he is foreign to the world (94). Most importantly, he is unable to say the word “Christ” without sounding “forced” (110). If Arnold is supernatural, he certainly is not divine, because he speaks the name of Jesus as an enemy presumably would.
It's also heavily implied that Arnold is covering up his true physical appearance; Connie thinks that he may indeed be wearing a wig (94). One of his boots is worn awkwardly (118), and they “must have been stuffed with something so that he would seem taller” (124). Connie even observes at one point that “his whole face was a mask” (110).
It is certainly possible that Arnold Friend is just a creepy old man who stalks young girls. However, in light of certain facets of the story associating Arnold with Christianity and the supernatural, the explanation away of each coincidence as a fluke becomes less and less reasonable. The pattern that emerges in the story of Biblical allusion and satanic deception is a much better explanation than the alternatives. There is no reason why Arnold could not dress, talk, and act more like a human if he really were one; his character is, in general, too inconsistent with what may be considered normal thought patterns. In light of this fact, the story may be interpreted as another of the devil’s many conquests over the sinful. Given this fact, though, why does Arnold take Connie to an Edenic land at the end? (724)
Monday, September 28, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The Productivity of War and Words
In Ralph Ellison's Battle Royal, the main character struggles with his attitude towards whites. We see him pondering his grandfather's last words, wondering if his actions are for the right reasons. It is unfortunate that Ellison published this chapter out of the context of Invisible Man, because the reader never learns what conclusions the reader comes to. While the main character is inconclusive on this issue, the author takes a definite stance. The juxtaposed results of the battle royal and the character's speech show the Ellison's favor towards the racial philosophy of Booker T. Washington.
The argument for this is simple: the men who participate in the battle royal are fooled out of any substantial reward for their work, while the main character receives, among other things, a scholarship for his speech. However, it would be improper to fail to consider not only the effects of these two events not only upon the individuals involved, but also the effects of these actions on the perceptions of those witnessing them.
The battle royal is far more injurious to the cause of social equality than the speech could ever be (except perhaps if the main character had not excused the mistake!). The white men watching the fight are not impressed. How could they be? It affirms their perceptions of the black man as a savage, a less-than-human brute whose physical strength is seen as a result of being subhuman? The beneficial effect om the participants isn't much, either; a couple of bucks is decent enough money, but not nearly enough to justify their (willing!) humiliation.
On the other hand, the speech is beneficial for all involved. The main character receives a scholarship and an expensive briefcase, rewards worth many times more than all the prize money given for the brawl combined. The main character is provided a means to advance his education and social influence, and the white men see a spectacle they have never before witnessed. While they may think that the speech is a circus act, a simple side show, it seems obvious that they respect him in some way, as evidenced by the magnitude of their gift. By giving the main character an education, they can only increase the average education level of the black populace, making these sorts of events more frequent. This sort of event would only become more prevalent, and as Booker T. Washington asserted, this will only result in increased respect for them and an expansion of rights for their race.
Does this correspond to total favor towards Washington's policies? ProbProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
ly not, because otherwise the main character would not be struggling with the consequences of his actions. His “yeses” and “grins” may be outwardly Washingtonian, but the intent is similar to W.E.B. DuBois, the goals being “death and destruction” and fighting “the good fight” (2). This seems like it would be the only reasonable attitude; while it would be ridiculous to think that a black person could harbor no resentment at all, it would be equally ridiculous to propose open rebellion against an enemy much stronger. (516)
The argument for this is simple: the men who participate in the battle royal are fooled out of any substantial reward for their work, while the main character receives, among other things, a scholarship for his speech. However, it would be improper to fail to consider not only the effects of these two events not only upon the individuals involved, but also the effects of these actions on the perceptions of those witnessing them.
The battle royal is far more injurious to the cause of social equality than the speech could ever be (except perhaps if the main character had not excused the mistake!). The white men watching the fight are not impressed. How could they be? It affirms their perceptions of the black man as a savage, a less-than-human brute whose physical strength is seen as a result of being subhuman? The beneficial effect om the participants isn't much, either; a couple of bucks is decent enough money, but not nearly enough to justify their (willing!) humiliation.
On the other hand, the speech is beneficial for all involved. The main character receives a scholarship and an expensive briefcase, rewards worth many times more than all the prize money given for the brawl combined. The main character is provided a means to advance his education and social influence, and the white men see a spectacle they have never before witnessed. While they may think that the speech is a circus act, a simple side show, it seems obvious that they respect him in some way, as evidenced by the magnitude of their gift. By giving the main character an education, they can only increase the average education level of the black populace, making these sorts of events more frequent. This sort of event would only become more prevalent, and as Booker T. Washington asserted, this will only result in increased respect for them and an expansion of rights for their race.
Does this correspond to total favor towards Washington's policies? ProbProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
ly not, because otherwise the main character would not be struggling with the consequences of his actions. His “yeses” and “grins” may be outwardly Washingtonian, but the intent is similar to W.E.B. DuBois, the goals being “death and destruction” and fighting “the good fight” (2). This seems like it would be the only reasonable attitude; while it would be ridiculous to think that a black person could harbor no resentment at all, it would be equally ridiculous to propose open rebellion against an enemy much stronger. (516)
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Religion and Reality are Hard to Find
Jesus Christ was a woman. At least, according to Flannery O'Connor. We see this in an uncanny parallel between the death of Jesus and the death of the Grandmother in A Good Man is Hard to Find. The Misfit is an unsaved man, a heathen, clearly in need of religious stabilization (according to O'Connor); the fact that he is unsaved is demonstrated by his brutality, even if we disregard his outright statement of disbelief. The Grandmother transforms from a woman with the appearance of a good Christian to the spiritual image of Christ himself, performing an act of salvation before her demise.
The grandmother can only be described by unkind words at the onset of the story. She is selfish, among many other sins, but she maintains the outward appearance of a proper Christian. This situation changes as the story progresses, and we see her become Christlike in every way during the Misfit's crime. Jesus spoke of turning the other cheek, not of retaliation; the grandmother does nothing to prevent the deaths of her family. She does, however, love her fellow human as herself; it is unambiguously stated that the Misfit is a “good man”, even though he has killed many people. This irrational love for fellow man is a direct analogue to Christ's teachings, with much the same result. As surely as the Jews crucified Jesus, so did the Misfit mercilessly drive three rounds into Grandmother's torso.
A large number of people in class during the discussion of this story called the grandmother a “fool.” What would stop the same description of Jesus, then? The crucial point is that in class, we assumed that the grandmother's only goal was to save her own skin; this isn't necessarily true. In fact, the Misfit's reaction to her touch and his subsequent actions speak to a profound effect the grandmother had on the man. It's up in the air as to whether she intended to touch him so deeply; that it was unintentional is supported by the fact that it would be consistent with the grandmother's attitude, while positive intentionality of the act is supported by the fact that her mind becomes “clear”. The clarity, being more recent, represents a more accurate picture of her state of mind at that point and so we can logically conclude that this event is intentional. This is where the argument of foolishness falls apart; just as Jesus never meant to save his own skin, it appears obvious that this wasn't the grandmother's primary goal, either. It's not that she doesn't know how to save herself, it's that she doesn't really care.
All the same, it's a stupid goal. Just as Jesus never saved anyone by dying on the cross, the grandmother doesn't save the Misfit, as evidenced by the fact that he kills her anyway. The way to moral salvation to any man is not spiritual salvation; religion may attract good people, but it doesn't produce them. Otherwise, why would Mother Theresa be an exception, not the rule? Religion (and grandma's ramblings about being a good person) is not what the Misfit needs. He needs real help, not just empty promises of life after death. (538)
The grandmother can only be described by unkind words at the onset of the story. She is selfish, among many other sins, but she maintains the outward appearance of a proper Christian. This situation changes as the story progresses, and we see her become Christlike in every way during the Misfit's crime. Jesus spoke of turning the other cheek, not of retaliation; the grandmother does nothing to prevent the deaths of her family. She does, however, love her fellow human as herself; it is unambiguously stated that the Misfit is a “good man”, even though he has killed many people. This irrational love for fellow man is a direct analogue to Christ's teachings, with much the same result. As surely as the Jews crucified Jesus, so did the Misfit mercilessly drive three rounds into Grandmother's torso.
A large number of people in class during the discussion of this story called the grandmother a “fool.” What would stop the same description of Jesus, then? The crucial point is that in class, we assumed that the grandmother's only goal was to save her own skin; this isn't necessarily true. In fact, the Misfit's reaction to her touch and his subsequent actions speak to a profound effect the grandmother had on the man. It's up in the air as to whether she intended to touch him so deeply; that it was unintentional is supported by the fact that it would be consistent with the grandmother's attitude, while positive intentionality of the act is supported by the fact that her mind becomes “clear”. The clarity, being more recent, represents a more accurate picture of her state of mind at that point and so we can logically conclude that this event is intentional. This is where the argument of foolishness falls apart; just as Jesus never meant to save his own skin, it appears obvious that this wasn't the grandmother's primary goal, either. It's not that she doesn't know how to save herself, it's that she doesn't really care.
All the same, it's a stupid goal. Just as Jesus never saved anyone by dying on the cross, the grandmother doesn't save the Misfit, as evidenced by the fact that he kills her anyway. The way to moral salvation to any man is not spiritual salvation; religion may attract good people, but it doesn't produce them. Otherwise, why would Mother Theresa be an exception, not the rule? Religion (and grandma's ramblings about being a good person) is not what the Misfit needs. He needs real help, not just empty promises of life after death. (538)
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Authority and Freedom in a Teenage Wasteland
Noble acts do not always reach the goals we desire. Daisy's failures are proof of this. In Teenage Wasteland, all attempts to set her son straight fall flat. Why is this so? Daisy obviously has good intentions, so why is she subverted? The simple answer is that the ethical or moral consequences are not correlated with an action effecting them. For example, that someone wishes to solve world hunger does not necessitate the success of their charitable acts; if it did, we would live in a perfect world!
Now it must be asked: why does Daisy fail? What flaws of character or action led Donny to his eventual escape? First in Daisy's list of failings is her inability to be honest with her son; it is clearly no help to Donny to see his parents assert their trust in him and at the same time demonstrate the opposite (38). Clearly Donny hasn't earned their trust, and if they had been clear about this from the outset, the issues would have been much more easily dealt with. In addition, this dancing around the real problems allows Donny to feign innocence in several matters when he is obviously at fault; when Donny is expelled for having beer in his locker and tries to cover for himself, he pulls the trust card as soon as his mother begins questioning the veracity of his tale (41).
The second of Daisy's failings is her trust in a man who is clearly not to be trusted. By allowing Cal's authority to override her own, she is subverting the normal hierarchy of the family, allowing Donny's will to be placed on an equal, if not greater, level compared to her own; this is because Cal's will coincides with Donny's will and so by any reasonable viewpoint Donny's authority can be seen above his mother's. Cal's total lack of knowledge regarding his charge is evident; rather than the psychologist's assessment that Donny is emotionally stable (37), Cal asserts that he was “emotionally distrubed” (42). If Cal is so inept at improving Donny's situation, why is it that Daisy allows this to go on? As was suggested in class last week, the most likely reason is for her own good; because giving Cal responsibility will lessen hers, Daisy's actions appeal to her indecisive nature.
One must remember, however, that these numerous faults on Daisy's part in no way remove Donny's faults. Daisy is guilty “only” of giving Donny completely free reign in his life and accountability towards no one but the school (which he doesn't give a damn about anyway). It is Donny, however, who actually makes those choices and acts in such a way. No one can absolve him by claiming that all his actions were a result of his environment; while they may have provided an opportunity for some of these habits to arise, they were in no way the cause of it. To assert otherwise dehumanizes Donny by depriving him of his free will and reducing him to a large set of reactions against the environment around him. Either way, it doesn't look too good for Donny;is he will-less or a delinquent? (528)
Now it must be asked: why does Daisy fail? What flaws of character or action led Donny to his eventual escape? First in Daisy's list of failings is her inability to be honest with her son; it is clearly no help to Donny to see his parents assert their trust in him and at the same time demonstrate the opposite (38). Clearly Donny hasn't earned their trust, and if they had been clear about this from the outset, the issues would have been much more easily dealt with. In addition, this dancing around the real problems allows Donny to feign innocence in several matters when he is obviously at fault; when Donny is expelled for having beer in his locker and tries to cover for himself, he pulls the trust card as soon as his mother begins questioning the veracity of his tale (41).
The second of Daisy's failings is her trust in a man who is clearly not to be trusted. By allowing Cal's authority to override her own, she is subverting the normal hierarchy of the family, allowing Donny's will to be placed on an equal, if not greater, level compared to her own; this is because Cal's will coincides with Donny's will and so by any reasonable viewpoint Donny's authority can be seen above his mother's. Cal's total lack of knowledge regarding his charge is evident; rather than the psychologist's assessment that Donny is emotionally stable (37), Cal asserts that he was “emotionally distrubed” (42). If Cal is so inept at improving Donny's situation, why is it that Daisy allows this to go on? As was suggested in class last week, the most likely reason is for her own good; because giving Cal responsibility will lessen hers, Daisy's actions appeal to her indecisive nature.
One must remember, however, that these numerous faults on Daisy's part in no way remove Donny's faults. Daisy is guilty “only” of giving Donny completely free reign in his life and accountability towards no one but the school (which he doesn't give a damn about anyway). It is Donny, however, who actually makes those choices and acts in such a way. No one can absolve him by claiming that all his actions were a result of his environment; while they may have provided an opportunity for some of these habits to arise, they were in no way the cause of it. To assert otherwise dehumanizes Donny by depriving him of his free will and reducing him to a large set of reactions against the environment around him. Either way, it doesn't look too good for Donny;is he will-less or a delinquent? (528)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
