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.

Commentary of The Narrative of Frederick Douglass

            Within the context of the reading the topic and interpretation of sexual overtones cannot be missed. On page 49, “…administer their own lusts, and make a gratification of their wicked desires profitable as well as pleasurable.” The idea of these slave owners gaining a sense of sexual satisfaction as they deliver punishment to the slaves in question is something that Douglass witnesses and can comment on. The act itself seems to be some kind of sexual release for the owners and the only way to gain this is to in fact punish the slaves. The act of whipping is indeed something that we can view as horror but to Douglass it seems that he recognizes the slave owners’ true intentions behind it. Whether or not being able to look back and analyze the situation gave Douglass the gift of hindsight is unsaid, yet looking through some kind of Freudian lens before the id even was clearly described, he could see the true meaning behind these kinds of beatings.

            During discussion last week the topic was brought up that the inevitability of owning a slave was going to be cruelty. Within the Narrative, the readers do have examples of this but I wasn’t completely sold on taking the idea as all or nothing. There has to be some kind of grey when it comes to the topic of the treatment of a slave. The reader is given examples of two women in a few rapid pages (78-81). Within the text itself Mrs. Auld may represent the good and the bad represented by Mrs. Hamilton. Now if the evolution of a slave owner were to hold true, Auld would indeed become Hamilton at some point of ownership of a slave. Now, it could be my tendency to look at a glass as half full, but I believe that humans themselves have the capacity to be the better person in any situation and not fall into the “normality” of the time. Not every person who owned a slave would eventually become violent towards him or her. I understand that this is a topic that is full of cultural influence and also geographical location, but the decent treatment of one human to another is something I still hold on to. This is not to say or be blind to that owning a slave could be justified, because the very definition of slavery is something that sickens me. However, what is the true difference between a butler in this day and age versus a slave. It is still establishing a hierarchy within a house where one person is clearly identified as being “better” than another. Although someone could easily argue that pay is the difference, the morality of each scenario is the point I would attempt to argue.

            At the end of class last week, Professor Oster recommended that we do a Google search for the “Cult of True Womanhood.” The idea of the cult was a simple one, that a woman should possess four cardinal virtues; piety, purity, domesticity and submissiveness. The problem with this idea of womanhood is that it only applied to women in a certain class and location, a woman would normally have to be white, Protestant and live in the New England area. My confusion of the topic came about how we were applying these to slavery in general or was it just to the idea of womanhood? If indeed we were applying the Cult to women in general, then the amount of females that would not be considered is a staggering amount. Working class, immigrant women and black women all would fall outside the category of true womanhood. If a majority of women were also to invest into this kind of cult, it would cripple women’s ability to find or even look for work thus preventing a footing in any kind of labor industry. I’m sure that the Cult of True Womanhood saw themselves as ways to identify what it means to be a real woman, yet in fact all the group accomplished was to hold the female gender back.