Heaven vs. Earth

In A Lesson Before Dying, religion becomes a huge issue as the plot develops, as Miss Emma and Reverend Ambrose are desperately trying to save Jefferson's soul as much as they want him to become a man. Grant and Rev. Ambrose are supposed to work together to help Jefferson in both a spiritual and worldly sense. However, Grant seems to feel some sense of competition with Reverend Ambrose. He recognizes that his goal of making Jefferson a man and Rev. Ambrose's goal of saving Jefferson's soul are often at odds. This bitterness between Grant and Rev. Ambrose is exacerbated by the fact that Grant is hardly religious and wants nothing to do with religion, which is a point of contention between Grant and Ms. Emma, Tante Lou, and Rev. Ambrose.

However, I started to see some irony in this sort of rivalry between Grant and Rev. Ambrose, as I realized that there are some really strong parallels between what Grant is asking Jefferson to do and Jesus. This became glaringly obvious to me in chapter 28, when Grant and Jefferson are discussing religion. The most striking moment to me was:

"'Who make people kill people, Mr. Wiggins?'
'They killed His Son, Jefferson.'
'And He never said a mumbling word.'
'That's what they say.'
'That's how I want to go Mr. Wiggins. Not a mumbling word (p. 223).'"

Neither Jefferson (as far as we know) nor Jesus were criminals, but they were both put to death anyway. Jesus's life could have seemed futile, just like Jefferson's, as they both knew that they were going to be killed. Jesus went to his death without any protests, letting people's ridiculing comments roll off his back, which also exemplifies Grant's description of a hero in the day room ("(a hero) is above other men (...) He would do anything for people he loves, because he knows it would make their lives better (p. 191)"). He even asks God to forgive the people killing him, because they don't know what they are doing. The idea that "they don't know what they are doing" reminds me a bit of the myth, or, in Grant's words, "an old lie that people believe in," that he describes to Jefferson in the day room about how white people believe that they are better than black people.

What's really interesting to me, though is how Jefferson looks up to and wants to be like Jesus the man, not Jesus the spiritual figure. Jesus's story is just as much about heaven as it is about earth, and to Christians, Jesus is God and human, but Jefferson and Grant only seem to be concerned with Jesus as a human at the moment. Grant and Jefferson are not even sure if they believe in heaven, though Grant believes in God. We find out pretty early on in the book that Miss Emma wants Reverend Ambrose and Grant to work together, which Grant seems to think is not going to work, but as the plot has developed, it seems to me that Grant and Rev. Ambrose's tasks are not as mutually exclusive as they seem.

A Dark Comedy

One of the essential theme of As I Lay Dying and that sets the tone of the story is the constant feeling that the characters are lonely and out-of-place. I first thought about this when we saw the country vs. town motif, as the Bundrens stick out like a sore thumb when they go into town. Just looking at Moseley's description of the family as they are in Mottson shows how they must seem like bizarre country folks coming on a trip to the big city: 

"It must have been like a piece of rotten cheese coming into an ant-hill, in that ramshackle wagon that Albert said folks were scared would fall into pieces before they could get it to town, with that homemade box and another fellow with a broken leg lying on a quilt on top of it, and the father and a little boy on the seat and the marshal trying to make them get out of town."

As I looked back though, it became more clear that the Bundrens weren't just country folks who were out of place in town, they are out of place even when they are at home in the country, judging by the way Tull, Cora, Samson, Armstid, and their wives talk about them. They don't understand Anse's determination to get to Jefferson (Rachel and Lula see it as an "outrage"), and their outside perspectives reveal to us how ridiculous the Bundrens are.

If I was only presented with these outside views of the Bundren family, I would be quick to say that the tone of the book is comedic, and it is poking fun at this eccentric, out-of-place family. However, the majority of the book is narrated by members of the Bundren family, which gives us their inside perspectives. Getting to know them individually reveals how they each have a reason to be isolated even within their own family, which makes them seem not just quirky and out-of-place, but alone, putting a darker spin on the tone of the story: As we get to know the family from the inside, we find out that Dewey Dell is the lone female, pregnant, and has no one to talk to. Vardaman is the youngest child by almost 10 years, disturbed by his mother's death, and is desperately in need of a parental figure to guide him, but no one fills that role for him. Jewel has a different father than all of the other children, and Darl has some form of omniscient powers/may be crazy. Even Cash seems isolated in a way, as he goes through a great amount of pain, but doesn't bother anyone with it.

Having both internal and external views of the Bundrens highlights the much-discussed issue in class: are the members of the Bundren family comically out of place in their surroundings or hopelessly alone even in the midst of their own family? Is this the story of an eccentric family making a spectacle while trying to bury their mother or a desperate every-man-for-himself struggle to solve individual problems? I honestly don't know. My best reasoning is that Faulkner juxtapositioned these many different perspectives to create a dark yet comedic tone for the book. My reaction while reading most of this story was “I feel bad laughing” because the characters were truly absurd, but the narrative structure of the book helped me get inside their heads so it was evident how alone they all were.

O Telemachus, Where Art Thou?

Though it was a great movie, one of the things that baffled me about O Brother, Where Art Thou? was that there wasn’t a clear parallel to Telemachus. Everett’s daughters, known as the Wharvey gals, ensure that the McGill family has a similar structure to the family in The Odyssey, but the girls do almost nothing to further the plot besides inform their father of their mother’s suitor. To further contrast Telemachus, they have no desire to get rid of the suitor and are hardly excited to see their father again (though, like Telemachus, they hardly believe their father is alive, but, unlike Telemachus, it is because they have been told outright that their father has been hit by a train). They mostly just parrot what their mother says and do very little to help Everett. This leaves a bit of a gap in the story, if it is supposed to parallel The Odyssey: there are no clear connections to the Telemachiad books, and there’s not a clear father/son reunion parallel followed by the two of them banding together for the great slaughter in the hall.

Unfortunately, I have yet to identify a single character who alone fills in the Telemachus role in the movie. There are different elements of Telemachus’ character, however, that different people in the movie embody. I mentioned before how the Wharvey gals fit into the literal role of the children of Everett. For the “slaughter in the hall” (where the Soggy Bottom Boys reveal themselves), there is a group of four men that could parallel the four-man alliance in The Odyssey of Odysseus, Telemachus, the cowherd, and the swineherd. I see Delmar as the Telemachus in this situation, because he is the closest and has been sort of guided the most by Everett at this point.

Meanwhile, at the beginning of the movie, there is no character equivalent of Telemachus who goes on his own little journey of his own, though there are allusions in the film to first four books of The Odyssey. The initial hospitality of Pete’s cousin Walsh somewhat parallel’s that which Nestor and Menelaus show Telemachus, though Telemachus stays much longer at Menelaus’ palace, and neither Nestor nor Menelaus betray him. Still, Walsh’s son plays a similar role to Pisistratus, particularly as he is helping the men get away. The image of Telemachus “vaulting onto the splendid chariot” (3.549) of Pisistratus and traveling as fast as they could go across the country is actually quite similar to that when Everett and crew get into the car and are driven off rapidly by Walsh’s son. Another parallel arises when the men insist that Walsh’s son go back to his father, like how Telemachus has Pisistratus drop him off at his ship and then go back to Nestor when they leave the palace of Menelaus.

All in all, I was a bit frustrated by the lack of a clear Telemachus figure in the movie, so it was interesting to try to put together the bits and pieces of Telemachus' character that are kind of scattered throughout O Brother. What do you all think? For a while, I was leaning towards Tommy the guitar guy as the closest character to Telemachus, but didn't have too much reason to stick with that idea. Do you think he's a more compelling parallel to Telemachus? Am I missing any other references or clues about a Telemachus character in the movie?

That One Scene with the Dog

Though it only takes up about a page and a half in The Odyssey, the story of Argos the dog is a truly touching one. It not only is a homecoming vignette that contributes to the more domestic aspects of Odysseus's journey and makes the reader a bit emotional, but it also provides some interesting comparisons for the other characters that Odysseus meets in disguise as he tests their loyalty. Argos seems to be the one character who has no ulterior motives (for lack of a better term) for staying loyal to Odysseus, as he is a simple creature who is also man’s best friend.

To give an example of one of these comparisons, we can look at the loyal swineherd, Eumaeus. He is loyal to Odysseus in that he carries on life as though he is waiting for him to come home and still sort of mourns his disappearance, as “the heart inside [him] breaks when anyone mentions [his] dear master” (14. 195). However, he has no doubt in his mind that Odysseus is lost forever, which he tells Odysseus (in disguise) many times. So Eumaeus seems to be staying loyal to Odysseus partly because he is still grieving the loss of his master, probably partly because he is a good person who wants to stay on the “good” side, but also probably for the sake of Penelope and Telemachus, to whom he is still loyal to. After all, the reunion between Telemachus and Eumaeus is described as that of one between a father and son. Meanwhile, however, Argos displays true loyalty, as he is over twenty years old and is literally staying alive just so he can catch a glimpse of his master before he lets himself die, as he has no other reason for living.

Penelope and Telemachus are also loyal characters, but they too have their doubts and other reasons for waiting for Odysseus. Telemachus has never met his father, so he probably does not really miss him much as a person. Rather, he wants his father to come back and get rid of all the suitors who are exploiting his hospitality and competing to marry his mother: “He could almost see his magnificent father, here…/in the mind’s eye – if only he might drop from the clouds/ and drive these suitors all in a rout throughout the halls/ and regain his pride of place and rule his own domains!” (1. 134-137) In addition, Telemachus still has many doubts that his father will return, even after Athena tells him so and takes him on his journey. He doesn’t even believe Odysseus at first when he reveals himself to Telemachus.

Anyway, I know it seems a bit cliche to use the dog as the epitome of loyalty, and it may be a bit excessive to write an entire blog post about him, but I thought that the scene with Argos was so touching because he had the most straightforward reasons for waiting for Odysseus, which brings into light some of the other characters’ motives. In addition, it proves this classic homecoming-man-meets-his-dog scene is really timeless, and I found it amusing that the Greeks from thousands of years ago would be touched by this kind of classic reunion just as much as we are.

A Journey through American History

One of the more bizarre trends among young girls, as many of you all may remember, was the American Girl doll. The idea was that each doll was a girl from a different time period in American history, which affected what kinds of clothes and props you could buy for them. Everyone went crazy over these 18-inch, lifelike toys and their accessories, and I was not much of an exception. What had more impact on me, however, was the set of books that went along with the dolls. As each doll was supposed to represent a period in American history, they each had their own five-book series that gave much more depth into their character. Though the characters rarely went on huge adventures, all of the books followed a general pattern that could be seen as a hero's journey.

Though each character lives in a different time period, there are very similar themes in each series that guide each girl on her path to becoming a better person:

•  Girl is living during a significant time in American history (e.g. WWII, the Great Depression, the turn of the century, the Revolutionary war)
• Girl has a specific distinguishing characteristic or interest (is an orphan, likes to write, loves animals)
• Girl becomes directly affected by the era she is living in or a dramatic change takes place in her life (e.g. father is in the war, father loses job, girl makes a friend very different from herself)
• Girl tries to make the best of her situation

To give a specific example, one of the dolls was named Kit, who was living during the Great Depression. Kit's main interest is that she writes a newspaper for her household, but her life is turned upside-down when her father loses his job and her family must start taking in boarders to make ends meet. Despite their hardships, Kit tries to make the best of her situation by continuing to print her newspaper and keep spirits high.

This general pattern takes place over the course of a five-book series for each character. Usually in the first book, the situation is introduced as well as the girl's first efforts to address this situation. The next three books contained various other escapades that pertain more to and complicate the historical issue, and in the last book, a more satisfying and decisive conclusion is achieved. Along the way, the girls usually find the support of their families and make a few new friends (and often also have 1-2 old friends as their sidekicks along the way). Though they don't usually have any "enemies," they usually have to deal with a grouchy neighbor, strict schoolteacher, or pesky sibling.

Using these common themes, the books would develop the character first on a personal level, by showing how she was a kid just like you and me. However, the books also had more educational and powerful elements with the underlying American historical narrative. For this reason, the books were both relatable and wholesome for an eight-year-old girl like me to read, which might be why they were (and still are) so popular among girls that age. As a result, for at least part of my childhood, I definitely internalized the message that American Girl was trying to promote: even if you are young, even if you are a girl, and even if this is a tough time period for your family or America, there is something you can do about it. They very much got across the idea of an everyday hero that almost any young girl could relate to.