The Perspective of Time Travel

            What Octavia Butler does in Kindred is break the trope and genre of time travel in many ways. An author or a filmmaker would have to have an actual device to make their character travel back and forth through time. Yet, with Kindred it is almost a physical ability, a trait within the DNA of Dana allows her to jump back and forth to the past in order to rescue Rufus. In the early reveals of this power, both Dana and Rufus lack the ability to explain what the action is, from Dana’s perspective; “I don’t know how it happens-how I move that way-or when it’s going to happen. I can’t control it.” What she knows is little and that she can feel it happening, the sense of nausea overcomes her and she fears what is going to happen. Both Kevin and Rufus witness Dana’s time traveling ability and describe it in similar ways, “(you) vanished. Just disappeared. And the reappeared later.” Rufus goes on to describe the action further, “”Disappeared? You mean like smoke?” Fear crept into his expression. “Like a ghost?”” Although the characters view the physical act of time traveling and disappearing then reappearing in different ways, one thing binds them all and that is fear. The fear of the unknown within the characters is something that is steadfast within the genre. The forward thinking of science or the unknown is common to time travel, but having this kind of intimate form feels fresh and new to a novel. Butler uses this to her advantage knowing that the technique has been used before but not in this way. It creates a more intimate relationship between Dana, Kevin and Rufus. The unknown is also frightful to Rufus’ parents and they clearly can’t handle what they don’t understand. I can only imagine seeing a stranger appear with a child, rescue them and then vanish into thin air. Kindred is doing something special with time travel, how else does it break the rules with the genre and what does it mean for it in general? Should audiences and readers begin to expect more out of these kinds of stories?

Who is to Blame?

When the class was discussing Flannery O’Connor’s A Good Man is Hard to Find the question of morality kept creeping into my thought process. We thoroughly fleshed out what it meant to be a moral and good character within the confines of the story. Yet, a question loomed for me, who would be considered the “good” character when looking at the grandmother and the misfit. More so, does the reader’s upbringing really come into play when making this choice? Personally and it sounds terrible to write it but I would have to side with the misfit in the argument. Although this character is a known serial killer and has the entire family murdered in the woods, there is something about him that displays that he knows what kind of person he is and is okay with it. The misfit is comfortable with being honest within himself and to the outside world. On page 128, “my daddy said I was a different breed of dog from my brothers and sisters.” It is this recognition in being different that sets the misfit apart. Coming back to a previous point of someone’s upbringing determining how he or she would identify goodness; my personal stance is that of a person who finds racism to be the lowest of the low, so to speak. The grandmother identifies herself as one of a southern “bell,” she acts higher than might in particular to the poor and that of color. This sense of entitlement is something that identifies the character especially when setting herself apart from the rest of normal people. An example being when she reflects upon her past romantic relationships, citing the reason she didn’t marry Teagarden due to the fact that he “just brought her a watermelon on Saturday.” Also that she should have due to the fact that he had “bought Coca-Cola stock when it first came out.” Money again is something that the grandmother uses to set herself apart.

            Another topic that was not touched upon during class was that of the grandmother being to blame for everything that went wrong in the context of the story itself. Without the grandmother being present the trip wouldn’t have been planned, the house that they tried to find wouldn’t have been there so the crash wouldn’t have happened, and she wouldn’t have recognizesd the misfit outloud thus leading to the eventual killing of the family. Without her, everyone would have survived but because of her sheer existence

A Good Man Is Hard To Find Because He Doesn't Exist

The conclusions we reached in class about the characters was great. It really helped show what an incredibly well-written story this is and how great of a writer O’Connor is.

            What really grabbed my attention out of all of this was the title, because it seems to sum up the entire story. What then could it be referring to? Does it mean that when you do find a good man (assuming it is The Misfit), there’s something about him that hinders this quality (like being a murderer)?

            But can we call The Misfit a good man? All of the characters are not likeable; these fake people whose pretense or labeling of “good” just highlights how far they are from being good, and who earn almost no sympathy from the reader by the end. The Misfit however does seem like the best one out of the bunch. His demeanor, his choice of words, his actions all distinguish him as being a gentleman of sorts. The first thing The Misfit says is “Good afternoon” (O’Connor 126). Then the reader learns more about him and his story. Yes he kills people, he kills the family while he’s talking with the grandma, and yet one could argue he is a “good man”. He talks about Jesus resurrecting the dead and says, “If He did what He said, then it’s nothing for you to do but throw away everything and follow Him, and if He didn’t, then it’s nothing for you to do but enjoy the few minutes you got left best way you can...” (132). Later he says, “I wisht I had of been there....if I had been there I would have known and I wouldn’t be like I am now” (132). What this tells me is that there was hope for The Misfit; he seems to imply he doesn’t like the way he is and he could have been different – good. Given the way things really are though, I’d say The Misfit isn’t a good man.

There are also the grandma’s requirements of being a “good man”. It could be quite comical, if it weren’t so tragic, at just how backwards the grandma is portrayed. The laundry list of traits we came up with for the grandma make her anything but a “lady”. Therefore, with our example of what a “lady” is, the grandma really destroys the entire concept (on top of calling Red Sammy a “good man”). The reader’s judgment of what’s good and bad is compromised because our one example is faulty. Furthermore, when the grandma says to The Misfit “...I know you’re a good man at heart. I can just look at you and tell”, her words hold no value. (128)

            Adding to this, even The Misfit disagrees with the grandma when she calls him a good man. “‘Nome, I ain’t a good man,’ The Misfit said after a second as if he had considered her statement carefully...” (128) What’s especially suggestive in this response, as pointed out by O’Connor, is that The Misfit thought about what she was saying. What all this tells me is that the point of the story may be that there is no such thing as a “good man”. Perhaps the only hope for the story was The Misfit, but nothing can change the way he is. Therefore, “a good man” doesn’t exist in the world of the story. Translating this then to the real world, I wonder what O’Connor is trying to say?

Work Cited

O’Connor, Flannery. “A Good Man Is Hard To Find”. ­The Complete Stories. The Noonday

            Press: New York. Moodle. PDF file.

I would like to try and touch on an interpretive problem that was brought up in class that may cause some controversy. In class we talked about how in the  “Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglas”, Fredrick portrays a lot of physical violence against slave women and leaves out any real detail when there is a man being beaten. On pg. 51 he vividly describes his aunt being whipped until he entire back was gashed and bloody. He says as well that “it the first of a long series of such outrages, of which I was doomed to be a witness and a participant.” (pg. 51). And he does tell us about how he witnesses many more but fails to tell us in detail of his moments of weakness (except for once briefly). Why is Douglas hiding this from the reader? It is not until the tides turn on the “slave breaker” Mr. Covey that he goes into detail about his experience.

            We also see this this same literally problem when we read Harriet Jacobs. She failed to show any violence against women in her story. This brought up the question for me that maybe both Fredrick, and Harriet is trying to keep their genders dignity. I believe this because they both are hiding one genders hardship from the reader and almost refusing to show the other side. Is this an attempt to try and give strength to one gender over the other?

           

In the “Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglas” I believe that he might be trying to play himself up for this big finale where he kicks the shit out of the “slave breaker” so it may or may not be an attempt to set the reader up for this. That way he is portrayed as more of a hero to all of the slaves, especially all of these women that have been beaten so badly.

I also wanted to play around with the quote, “I now resolved that, however long I might remain a slave in form, the day has passed forever when I could be a slave in fact.” (pg. 113). This quote took place after he had beaten up Mr. Covey and I believe that this is completely linked to literacy and Fredrick’s ability to read. Earlier in the book Mrs. Auld began teaching Fredrick the A, B, Cs until Mr. Auld found out and said: “if you teach that nigger how to read there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit him to be a slave.” (pg.78). So this physical interaction with Mr. Covey was sparked by Fredrick’s knowledge of literacy and how it is the only thing that gave the white man the power to enslave the Blackman. And because Fredrick understands that he is able to overcome his fears and stand up for his freedom.

Ignorance Is Bliss

A large section dealing with Douglass’ transition to being able to read really stood out to me, specifically what he experienced. It begins with “The reading of these documents” then ends at “and moved in every storm”. (Douglass 84-85) I broke down the passage into five sections: 1) his understanding of slavery; 2) his newfound anger from this understanding; 3) the understanding of Master Hugh’s (ironic) words and the hatred of knowing; 4) the envy of what he was before; 5) his new general view of the world from this knowledge.

From this, what really stood out to me were sections 2 and 3. I found it quite tragic that this gift he was fortunate enough to receive caused him so much pain at first. He writes “that very discontentment whish Master Hugh had predicted would follow my learning to read had already come, to torment and sting my soul to unutterable anguish” (84). When we as children learn something as simple as how to read, I think Douglass’ description is the last thing to come to our minds. Of course, he was a part of a completely different time. But words like “torment” and “anguish” just struck me (no doubt well-thought out to make the reader feel exactly this). This passage not only highlights the things we take for granted, but also the incredible struggle Douglass went through, as well as perhaps other slaves. It seems that no matter what happened to them, they never seemed to get a break. It’s truly heartbreaking, seeing the world as they knew it to be through their eyes.

He continues with “As I writhed under it, I would at times feel that learning to read had been a curse rather than a blessing” (84). Upon reading this and the lines that follow I thought of Adam and Eve once they ate the forbidden fruit; they understood everything, and ended up suffering for it. “It had given me a view of my wretched condition, without the remedy. It opened my eyes to the horrible pit, but to no ladder upon which to get out.” (84) He has this knowledge; great, now what? He can’t do anything with it, not yet at least, and all it has left him is seeing his situation with more clarity and the ability to express his feelings. I’m sure that when Master Hugh said “As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and happy” he wasn’t completely referring to what Douglass ended up going through, but it’s sad how he ended up being right.

Then Douglass points out the frustration of being able to think for him. “It was this everlasting thinking of my condition that tormented me.” (84) Knowing nothing but how to be a slave (which for him was just knowing how to live), and then all of a sudden being able to understand not only what but also that he didn’t understand. Douglass then writes “In moments of agony, I envied my fellow slaves for their stupidity.” (84) However, with the saying “ignorance is bliss” in mind, he wasn’t even happy when he was ignorant. This passage really shows how miserable life was for slaves; for Douglass it’s a lose-lose situation, which works to highlight even more the terrible experience he went through.

Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave. 1845.             New York: Penguin Group, 1986. Print.