What Happend to Macon Dead II?

Throughout the entirety of the present tense story of Song of Solomon, Macon Dead the second seems to be a pretty nasty guy without an abundance of redeeming qualities. He tries to justify his abuse of Ruth by explaining to Milkman about Ruth’s inappropriate relationship with her father, but this is certainly no excuse and doesn’t seem to convince Milkman to be sympathetic towards his father, only alienating him. In general, Macon Dead is portrayed as being greedy, cold-hearted, and abusive. It is made clear that the entire community sees him as such and have a dislike for him exemplified by Milkman being disallowed to drink in the bar and Guitar’s description of Macon as a “kicker.” The only time in Michigan that we get an even slightly sympathetic depiction is when he opens up about his past to Milkman and describes Lincoln’s paradise and working alongside his father, and this momentary sympathetic portrayal is short lived.

When Milkman travels to Pennsylvania however, we get a totally different depiction of Macon through the locals who remembered him. Macon and his father are held up like legends in the community, as examples of good, hardworking people who experienced the success they deserved but were not greedy or cold-hearted. Either people misremember Macon or conflate him with his father, or Macon has been transformed from a good son who liked to work alongside his father to a greedy, coldhearted, and abusive man. I think this second alternative is more likely, and I think it is interesting to contemplate what all contributed to this transformation.

Macon the second, even in his transformed state, is clearly not completely different from his father. Many of his detestable traits are a different expression of traits that were admirable in his father. While his father coveted land ownership as a symbol of freedom, Macon covets land ownership because of his greed. It seems likely to me that the root cause of both of their desires to own property is the same, and these desires are just expressed differently because of different circumstances. Macon the first became his own man in a very liberating manner: he moved from an oppressive, racist South, to a supposedly free north where he had the rights to own his own land. Macon the second however became his own man in a manner that was anything but liberating. Macon’s father was shot by white people who wanted to take away what he had, convincing Macon that true freedom was not something that could exist for a black American. Because of this, Macon turns this drive for property away from a freedom that he feels is impossible and turns it towards climbing his way up the cold and oppressive hierarchy of the industrial north. If he climbs high enough, then no rich white man can come with a gun and shoot him dead for his property.

They are Victims Both

Antoinette is undoubtedly the primary victim in Wide Sargasso Sea. Her whole life has been filled with hardship after hardship: as a young child she was spurned by the former slaves, other whit Jamaicans, and even her mother. She witnessed a stranger take over her home and drive her mother insane. Her house is burned down and one of her only friends throws a rock at her, injuring her greatly. Eventually, she and all of her possessions are sold off to another person who goes on to lock her up in a prison of an attic. If Antoinette is the primary victim of the story, than it is easy to paint Rochester as the primary Villain. I would argue, however, that Rochester is another victim of the story and suffers at the hand of the same villain, although he undoubtedly does not suffer to the same extent as Antoinette.

I see the primary villain of the book as being the systems of laws and institutions that are the British empire. The extent of Antoinette’s suffering at the hands of British law and customs is closer to the surface and easy to see than that of Rochester’s, so I will explore Rochester’s suffering more. Under British law and customs, only the eldest son gets to inherit the possessions, status, and even identity of his family in full. As a younger son, Rochester is denied the home he grew up in and along with it his very place in the world. At the same time, society and likely his father send him the message that the entire measure of his success and worth is the extent to which he fills his father’s shoes. The fact that his father’s shoes are not left to him, puts him in a really challenging situation where his very identity is at stake.

In order to do his best to succeed in the context of the English aristocracy, even though he was locked out of it by his order of birth to some extent, Rochester heads to the east indies to marry and gain an estate to be his own. Once there, he finds himself in a completely unfamiliar world and feels very uncomfortable and very much the outsider. He then finds out that he had unwittingly married a woman thought widely to be crazy or on the way to it, confirming his suspicions that this new unfamiliar world was hiding something from him. Rochester’s life was such a series of painful events that its best moment may have been the death of his brother and father. Finally, he could become what society had taught him he must become, but his family members had to die so he could do it. Once he has finally achieved his ambition that he had had knowing or not since the day of his conception, Rochester seeks burry all of his painful past and to lock it away out of sight. His locking up of Antoinette can be seen as a physical manifestation of this psychological need to forget and repress.

Meursault Wants to Kill

It is hard to decipher just what motivates Meursault in The Stranger. He tells his story as if he is essentially emotionless and acts totally in the present, basing his actions only on his state of physical comfort or discomfort. I would like to propose this detachment of his is a subconscious defense mechanism thrown up to prevent him from doing harm to himself and others. This defense mechanism is guarding from one thing in particular: Meursault’s desire to kill, and the events that lead to Meursault killing the Arab on the beach constitute a breakdown in these defense messages.

At the start of The Stranger, we are struck my Meursault’s apparent disinterest and lack of grief at his mother’s funeral. Based on this proposed interpretation of his character, this can be explained as a result of Meursault subconsciously destroying any emotional response he might have to death in order to prevent his desire to inflict it. During the funeral scene we see the imagery of an overbearing sun, red dirt, and uncomfortable heat which reappears during the murder scene. This can be interpreted as an inner conflict of Meursault’s as the walls protecting him from emotions associated with death are assaulted by the numerous and powerful emotions associated with the death of his mother. The same defenses that block out Meursault’s desire to kill inadvertently prevent him from grieving for his mother.

The beach scene near the end of part one is a mystery in many ways. It is hard to explain Meursault’s motivation for repeatedly returning to the beach. One explanation is that he simply wants to kill the Arab. The entire Raymond story line is Meursault’s journey to the murder he commits, and this is signified by the fact the part one ends abruptly upon his shooting the Arab. Raymond’s violent nature slowly works away at Meursault’s defenses and his innate desire to kill is brought ever closer to the surface. The intensity of the events at the beach turn this gradual undermining into a full-on assault. The violence Meursault witnesses in the first fight is enough to greatly accelerate the deterioration of his defenses, and his taking the gun from Raymond is an admission of near defeat. The intense physical discomfort Meursault feels after the second engagement and preceding the third is a manifestation of his psychological defenses’ final stand against his desire to kill, and in the end this desire wins out. He kills the Arab, and his desire to kill satiated for the present, his shields are again raised. These shields prevent him from recognizing the potential impact of his actions and keep him from even trying to do anything to save himself from punishment.

Maybe.

           

Gregor's Choice of Room

            The peculiar nature of Gregor Samsa’s room is one of the most striking features of the first scene of Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. As Gregor’s family discovers that he has not yet left for work, they begin to talk to him through the doors of the bedroom. Doors. Plural. The only time a bedroom should have more than one door is when it shares a bathroom with another bedroom and there is a door to the hall and to the bathroom. I had never heard of a bedroom having “side doors” before, and the description of side doors in Gregor’s bedroom was immediately off-putting. The idea of each member of Gregor’s family talking through a separate door to him is so absurd that it immediately casts into doubt the status of the world described in the novel, making you wonder whether Gregor inhabits the same world as we do or not. The scene is almost comical and seems as if it is out of a cartoon. While comical and cartoon-like, Gregor’s situation seems positively dystopian and imagining myself in his position, with family members surrounding me and try to talk through me through three different doors makes me profoundly uncomfortable. What I find interesting is that Gregor is in this horrible position by his own choice.

            Later in the story it is revealed that Gregor himself was the one to pick out the apartment. He intentionally picked out an apartment with such an oppressive floor-plan and was presumably planning on locating himself in that room from the start. Gregor’s family calling at him through the various doors in his room and the very fact that he is surrounded by his family on all sides when in his room are symbols for Gregor’s lack of individuality and the extent to which Gregor is dominated by his family. The fact that he picked an apartment with a floor-plan that would lead to this horrible situation with family members on all sides shows either that this submission in all aspects of life to the family is by choice or that it is so complete that Gregor feels like it is his duty to select living arrangements that exemplify this submission. In this sense, Gregor’s choice of this particular apartment and to sleep in the room that he does, are the ultimate example of Gregor’s family dominating his life. He has internalized this domination to such an extent that he only feels comfortable in an environment that exacerbates it and constantly reminds him of it.