This was the class blog for the Spring 2012 UT Austin Course E344L: The American South in Literature, Film, and Other Media. To the left, you will find a list of links to final student blog projects. Thanks everybody for contributing!

“I wisht I could die. Die right now to spite his sorry ass. Yes sir. To show he ain’t got no power over death. Yes sir. I could die right now – content” (48).

I found this statement to be one of both sadness and empowerment. It once again reminded me of the condition of the Jews within the concentration camps. The Nazis’ goal was to strip away all forms of dignity and humanity, leaving nothing but a primitive struggle for survival. There were very few cases of armed resistance, but many stories have since come out of the Holocaust of what’s known as spiritual resistance. This encompasses any act meant to fight against this removal of humanity, be it keeping up appearances, sharing food, refusing to have one’s baby aborted, or even suicide. The Germans wanted to control every aspect of Jewish life, including the time and means of death. An act of spiritual resistance, then, would be taking control of one’s own death. It’s both sad and empowering. This story seems to take place in the first half of the 20th century, when white people still had control and sway over the minorities. Stokes, as it turns out, acted in both armed and spiritual resistance, by killing the dog of a white man and seemingly taking control of his own death. While both of these acts involve death, it seems that this was Stokes way of living outside of oppression; only by killing and dying could he truly have freedom.

I never quite understood the significance of Chi. I’m sure we will discuss it, but I’ll ask anyway. Why was Chi a part of this story? Did Chi kill Stokes?

Racial Blindness

"The Terrell boys jumped in front of Mr. John Edgar but he did not stop; merely leveled his gun, cocked it, and kept walking.  The boys got out of the way.  'Crazy old nigger.  What's he doing?' " (38)

This utterance of the n-word was the point of the story in which I realized that John Edgar was African American.  I cannot be sure if I missed anything earlier than this in the story, but I do not remember seeing any prior signifiers of this.  Naturally, discovering this lent a completely new edge to the story which, up to that point, had felt like nothing more than a story about an average Southerner who cared for a stranger and went to avenge his dog's death.  Now, the race issue was haeted up further.

I use the word 'further,' because the race issue was already introduced in the character of Chi.  Frequently, he is referred to as a Chinaman, and John looks upon his early morning activities in the back yard as strange.  Before we find out John Edgar's race, I thought that his mild discomfort with Chi signified that he was white, and this was Randall Kenan's commentary on a less discussed form of racism in the old South.  Can his attitude toward Chi be considered racist?  He is not openly hostile to him.  Contrarily, he is incredibly hospitable and caring toward him.  But there is still the issue of his outlook upon his skin color and his habits.

I'm not going to lie: I do not fully understand the message in this story.  I'm still trying to work it through in my head.  I did understand the plot progression.  I was very involved, especially when I discovered that he was African American.  That discovery really ratcheted up the intensity level of that scene of revenge.  I did feel bad about Terrell's puppy having to die, but I was still satisfied that John Edgar got his revenge somehow, especially considering the flat-out grotesque nature of their actions toward his dog (as well as their overall grotesque personalities).  But, still, I don't understand exactly what Kenan is trying to say about race in this story.  I know he is trying to say something, but I am having trouble deciphering the message.

Question: Did anyone realize that he was African American prior to the moment that I pointed out?  What do you believe is Kenan's message about race here?

"He took a step forward and Mr. John Edgar raised the gun to the level of the boy's heart." Pg.38

The action taken by Mr. John Edgar in this scene struck me as a representation of changing southern attitudes. The death of his dog Shep has certainly caused him pain but instead of taking it with a grain of salt and trying to avoid confrontation, he breaks the norm by threatening the white family responsible and murdering one of their dogs. We have read many stories in this course that involve black southern characters facing oppression and injustice and the safest and most common defensive strategy for these characters has been passive resistance. Any time these characters have resisted physically or verbally they have been left with mortal consequences. Yet Mr. John Edgar purposefully and calmly murders one of the Terrell dogs and threatens to shoot each of the family members as they try to defend their pet. It could be argued that Mr. John Edgar reacted this way because of the arrival of Chi. While we dont know much about Mr. John Edgar before he encounters Chi, it is reasonable to assume, (because he is an old man and has apparently lived in the same place for many years) that he has encountered the Terrell family before and likely suffered some previous transgressions. Yet he has apparently never reacted with violence before. It seems that witnessing the aftermath of Chi's apparent quarrel with intolerance pushed him to an emotional edge and when confronted with the murder of his dog, he decided to make his judgment known. Perhaps this scene represents a change in black southern attitudes, reflecting the spread of public protest in the south as well as the civil rights movement. The extremely violent reaction of Mr. John Edgar and his attitude about it could be used to represent the violent resistance movement of the black panthers and other militant groups. Any way you look at it Mr. John Edgar seems to be doing more than just avenging Shep. He seeems to be shouting at the intolerance of his homeland, "An Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth. That's the onliest Law i'm studying about."

Question: Is Kenan trying to reflect a change in southern attitudes? Who the hell is Mr. Chi?

Things of this World

""Seems like up to now I been sitting right here in this chair waiting, waiting. But you know what?" "No, sir." "It who was worth it. Worth it to see the look on that ole Terrell's face. I stood up to that cocksucker. Yes sir"" (48).

Although John Edgar's actions in the short story seem to be characterized by simple revenge, the weight of his decisions and the stony conviction that he displays in their wake lend special significance to his actions. After killing the Terrell's hound, John Edgar moves with an unflinching authority seemingly stemming from the anger of having his dog murdered. He declares that his justice is fair and Biblical, lying outside any of the unfair boundaries prescribed by the corrupt and racist Terrells. John Edgar's passion seems to infect the people that rally around him as both the doctor and the reverend find themselves exhibiting tremendous courage in the face of the danger of the swelling throngs of policemen gathering outside the yard. John Edgar's actions carry such weight that the sheriff is frightened into calling for backup and the Terrells demanding that someone else do their dirty work for them. Only in the end of the story does the reader finally get to hear John Edgar's actual feelings about his actions as he finally breaks his silence, revealing a level of satisfaction and pride in being able to stand up for something he knows is right. And at precisely that moment of personal revelation, John Edgar allows himself to die. Content that he had finally made some good of his otherwise placid life, he concedes that he can finally die with a sense of pride. Chi ominously concurs.

Question: The title of the story is Things of this World and Chi is clearly a nearly supernatural character whose arrival and departure frames the story, what purpose does he play in delivering the story's intended message?

Angels Unawares

"Mr. John Edgar looked around and scratched his head, wanting to have a witness before proceeding. Not particularly eager to flip the thing over and say "Morning," to the Grim Reaper. He felt a creepy sensation in the back of his neck," (25).

In Randall Kenan's Things Of This World, race relations and religion merge into one mutual force of vindication; an eye for an eye, a dog for a dog, and everyone else now blind. Each character in the story seems to symbolize some type of Paradise Lost-like archetype, in that Mr. John Edgar Stokes seems to have fallen from grace as he retaliates against Terrel and then stands his ground from the cops on the porch with his gun; Lucifer defending his new earthly, sin-filled kingdom. Chi, is a black angel of death, a grim reaper, and his presence in Mr. Stoke's backyard at the beginning of the story is an ill omen, and sure enough, it is Chi who kills him; leaving as quickly as he came, bringing to the fallen angel the Hell he had already brought upon himself.

What does the subtitle of the story, "Angels Unawares," mean for the Paradise Lost-type of reading? and what does the fight between Percy Terrel and Mr. Stokes symbolize?

Charon

I don’t have a particular excerpt from the movie to point out, but this is more of an overall observation of the film. It opens with our three characters breaking away from the other convicts and coming to a man on a handcar that seems the play the role of an oracle. We also see this individual at the closing of the film, pumping away. I immediately realized this was an allusion to Greek mythology’s Charon, the ferryman that transports people to and from the underworld. We also have the sirens and one-eyed Big Dan Teague. What are other connections to Greek mythology throughout the film?

What exactly do these allusions do for the film? Do they work for it or against it?  Cliché or genius? 

O my God, they killed Petey!

“I generally refrain from speech during gustation. There are those who attempt both at the same time; I find it course and vulgar. Where were we?”
“Makin’ money in the Lord’s service.”
“…Yes, Bible sales…One, where to find a wholesaler. The word of God in bulk as it were!” (52:25)

In this film, the Coen brothers do a fantastic job of creating vast caricatures of stereotypes of the South, often to the point to ridiculousness. This technique has often been used in TV and film for the purpose of destroying a stereotype. Examples of this can be seen in the 1970s’ blaxploitation films, often featuring a black male that heavily exaggerates the many stereotypes of black men. It’s a way to expose the absurdity of racism inherent in our society. While this particular scene is dealing with a different subject, I believe the Coen brothers are doing something similar. Big Dan T is a character that knows how to exploit the southern religious system for his own benefit. He makes his living as a con man, hiding behind the pious title of a Bible salesman. Using religion as the means to an end is not isolated to this scene. It is also reflected in Stokes’ speech to the KKK, essentially saying that Tommy must be hanged; it’s the will of God. Religion has been used as a failsafe for many years in the South, with misused and misinterpreted verses in the Bible quoted to support acts of violence, greed, and hate. Of course this is not isolated to the South, but growing up in the Bible Belt made this scene stick out to me. As evidenced in this movie, people do ridiculous things in the name of the selfish and greedy god of the South.

Writing this post made me curious; is this the way southerners outside of religion view the Christian church?

Not a moment too soon.

“No, they're flooding this valley so they can hydroelectric up the whole darn state. Yes, sir, the south is gonna change. Everything's gonna run on a paying basis. Out with the spiritual mumbo-jumbo and the backward ways. We're gonna see a brave new world where they hook us all up to a grid. Yes, a veritable age of reason. Like the one they had in France. Not a moment too soon. Not a moment too soon.”(96:00)

This is the moment in the film that summed up some of the themes and ideas we have encountered throughout the works we’ve covered in class. As we’ve seen in the novels, the stereotypical representation of the old South as backwards and flooded with zeal is alive and well throughout the film. (We get somewhat the same notion of backwardness that we see in the Bundren family in Faulkner’s “As I lay Dying”). 

The technological advancement the South finally goes through, marks an important shift in the film’s plot. Whether it have been an act of God or not, the shift into an age of modernization is the very thing that saves Everett, Pete, Delmar, and Tommy. On a side note, I find it a bit ironic that Everett gets on his knees and prays for God’s mercy and just moments after he is finally “saved” (perhaps baptized, depending on how you look at it), he goes on to say “Out with the spiritual mumbo-jumbo and the backward ways.” 

The film plays with religion similar to ways Flannery O’Conner’s “The Displaced Person” does. The Coen Brothers paint us images of religion being misused and abused (the Bible salesman taking advantage of Everett and Delmar) contrasted with positive images of the way things should be (the surreal baptism ceremony). As Mark wrote, this is ultimately a clash between good and evil in which good triumphs, but evil still prevails.

I really enjoyed the film. It had the perfect mix of comedy and really neat allusions. I’ll never forget the part where they ask Tommy why he would sell his soul to the devil and he simply responds with “Well I wasn’t usin’ it.”

Q: Everett always seems to have an explanation for everything. He claims the manner in which they were saved (at the end) has a “scientific explanation.” Are you entirely on board with this? Does the film give you enough evidence or reason to believe that this was an act of God and not mere coincidence?

A Simple Tale of Good vs. Evil

"Oh, no.  No, sir.  He's white.  As white as you folks.  With empty eyes and a big, hollow voice.  He loved to travel around with a mean old hound.  That's right."  (19:24)

This is, of course, Tommy's description of the Devil, whom he "sold his soul to at the crossroads to learn to play the guitar real well."  I had viewed this film many times before I fully paid attention to this line, but, once I did, I realized who Tommy was describing.  This statement perfectly describes Sheriff Cooley, the man in pursuit of our protagonists throughout the film.  As soon as I realized this, I picked up on the overall story of this film.

On the surface, O, Brother is about three men in pursuit of treasure.  However, I view the inclusion of Tommy's description of Sheriff Cooley adds a much deeper level to the story.  Overall, it is about good versus evil.  At the beginning of the film, Pete and Delmar accept the Lord into their hearts, but Everett is still "unaffiliated," as he describes it.  Because of Everett's lack of faith, there is still room for the Devil to claim there souls.  Their lack of unity in their faith makes them an easy target for Satan, a.k.a. the Sheriff.  At the end of the film, during their final confrontation with him, Everett finally lets the Lord into his heart, right as the flood waters arrive and kill everyone around them.  These three men serve as a metaphor for the entire human race.  It's not so much about religion as it is just about the general forces of good and evil.  Religion is just the way the Coen Brothers get their message across.  As long as there is still room for evil within the human race, then, no matter how much good there is, evil can still prevail.

This is actually a common theme in many of the films from the Coen Brothers, my personal favorite filmmakers!  In Raising Arizona, it's Hi McDunnough versus Leonard Smalls, "the Lone Biker of the Apocalypse."  In The Hudsucker Proxy, it's Norville Barnes versus Sidney J. Mussberger (as well as a physical confrontation between an angel and a demon).  In The Ladykillers, it's Marva Munson versus Professor G.H. Dorr.  There is always a good, innocent person who must go up against a personification of evil.  Whom better to play that in O, Brother, a film set in the rural South during the Depression, than a Sheriff?  The law was always seen as one of the most racist forces during these times, and so a sheriff seems like the perfect person to represent evil.  Also, I should note that the films I have mentioned here are comedies.  In all of them, good has triumphed over evil.  However, the Coens have also made some darker, more serious films which also contain personifications of evil, such as Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men.  The outcome was not so positive in that film, and it is always a lot murkier in their more serious fare.

QUESTION: Tommy said that he sold his soul to the Devil, so he has already willingly turned to evil.  Yet, at the end of the film, he is "allowed" to live?  Why do you think this is?

Praise the Lord, I saw the light

"Well that was some fun, though, wasn't it, George?"

"Yeah."

"Almost makes me wish I hadn't been saved. Jackin' up banks! I can see how a fella'd derive a whole lot of pleasure and satisfaction out of it." (36:33)

I can't even bring myself to call Delmar a hypocrite- he's just so much fun. The essence of Delmar is that he goes along with everything, and does it so cheerfully and good-naturedly that it never seems insincere. When Delmar and Pete rush so eagerly to get themselves baptized, they seem to do it for little more reason than that the congregation happens to have come by at that moment. One senses that, for all his religious enthusiasm, Delmar wouldn't have given the salvation of his soul a second thought if he and his friends hadn't stumbled onto a baptism ceremony. Yet in the scenes following his encounter with the congregation, Delmar takes his newfound faith quite seriously- this doesn't stop him, though, from being delighted by George's bank robbery. He observes the contradiction between this delight and the religious ideals he should be upholding, but brushes his doubts off without worry ("almost makes me wish I hadn't been saved"). One would be tempted to call it a parody of religious hypocrisy if Delmar weren't so earnest and bighearted about everything he did. He'll commit himself to Christian morality one minute and take pleasure in a bank robbery the next, and to him, there's nothing terribly problematic about that.

At the risk of reading too much into things, I think that the Coen brothers are painting a great portrait of the Southern Baptist faith here, with its odd balance of rigid morality and gleeful licentiousness. That's not a slight to Southern Baptism either, by the way- it has always struck me as one of the most complicated and interesting of Christian denominations.

Questions: What, if anything, does O Brother Where Art Thou say about Southern religious assumptions? How representative of Southern Baptist thinking is Delmar?

"'I just don't think it's right, keeping him under wraps like we's ashamed of him'
'Well, if it is Pete, then I am ashamed of him!" (48:49 49:04)

I had never watched this movie prior to yesterday and it's already one of my favourites. Like Stuck Rubber Baby, the story is dependent upon various elements to produce a coherent and believable recreation of the post-war South. In the case of O Brother, Where Art Thou, the plot, the acting, the cinematography, and the music do a fantastic job of this. The movie has a weird but pleasant blend of history and a certain kind of surrealism that makes all the ridiculous events that take place seem perfectly logical.

I don't have a specific moment to comment about (I apologise about this) - I chose this because I thought it was hilarious (the timing was perfect). My question is: do you think the more serious matters in the movie (such as the KKK scene) should have had less humour? What I mean to say is, do you think that the level of humour present in the movie detracted from the seriousness of the issues of the South or did it serve to highlight them? Basically, could the movie have worked without its undercurrent of humour?


(Sorry for the confusing wording!)

"...I blundered into it full force... and went sprawling. If i just hadn't- (lemme start again.) If i just hadn't bumped my damn head into his shoes" pg 177-78.

 I wanted to comment about some of the artwork in this story considering that it is the only book we have read that contains illustrations. Earlier we talked about how the illustrations and the narration are two equal parts of the same whole. I found that this particular scene truly embodies this relationship. When read without the drawings, this scene would be confusing and almost completely ambiguous. Cruse dosent explicitly explain that sammy has been lynched and is now hanging from a tree in the backyard and the illustrations don't show any images of sammy's body in full detail. In one frame all we see is sammy's leg, disguised as a tree trunk and even when we are shown the whole of sammy's body, his face is strategically covered by a concerned Riley. All of the images and language seem to be delicatley hiding the more graphic truth about the scene. I was brought back to the first class session when we talked about the softness contained within Cruse's art work. It seems that this soft, roundedness is what makes the very real and frighteneing subject matter more surprising and emotionally striking. I cant help but wonder why Cruse chose to hide one of his more striking moments behind so much static.

Questions: Why did Cruse choose to hide some of the more gripping parts of this scene? and Does anyone else think it is creepy that sammy was hung from a tree house?

Be Like Them

"I'm a coward in some ways... but in other ways, I'm brave. Nobody's brave all the time. But for goodness sake Toland, don't act so deprived! If you want me to sing for you, I'll sing for you. Just come over here to the house now an' again when you've got time to kill. We'll come out here on the stoop an' you can watch me sing for the birds in the yard! They don't review me for the newspapers! They don't cluster in chairs to stare at me! An' they don't expect me to be anybody besides who I naturally am! Be like them honey, an' I'll sing for you whenever you like" (205).

Although taken out of context, Anna's impassioned advice to Toland may seem just a little corny or hackneyed, this moment stands as one of the most powerful and cathartic moments in Stuck Rubber Baby. Toland wrestles with the weighty issues of Sammy's death and his implicit belief that he played a part in it, his child, and coming to terms with his sexuality. All of these factors become the focal point through which his world and the decisions made within it become all the more confounding and difficult. It is for this reason that Anna's down-to-earth wisdom comes as a refreshingly simple breath of air. Amidst the immense struggles that Toland has faced throughout the novel, this brief, although powerful, piece of advice alleviates some of the intense drama that both he and the reader have endured through the story and almost miraculously, sets the story up for a happy ending. Even amidst the nearly unimaginable suffering and unbearable guilt Toland reckons with, a happy and even exciting ending can be reached, perhaps signaling that the Civil Rights Movement that the story is framed around, like Toland's own story, can have a satisfying outcome as well.

Question: Is the connection between Toland's struggles and the struggles of the emerging Civil Rights Movement compatible and was it Cruse's intention to offer a ray of hope for both battles at the end of his story?

"It could've been me" (196)

When I climbed onto the bus Monday with "Stuck Rubber Baby" in hand , I noticed a woman reading a copy of a book titled:" The Lynching of Emmett Till". It was a lengthy, dense looking novel. It got my blog-post process going as I once again thought of the similarities between our two stories: between Sammy's death and Emmet's, the effects of the deaths, and the culture surrounding them.

The ending of the book harkens back to the beginning section mentioning the Till case. As Toland is remembering the scene of Sammy's death, we see the same depiction of a face exploding that we saw when he was describing Emmet Till's head wounds (pg 2). Toland is hit in the skull while Sammy is murdered, the same part of the body where he draws such pain from Emmet's murder. Also, Toland's grief over having physically touched Sammy's body runs in the same vien of the haunting received from Emmet Till's skull, and the crooked cops who care about Sammy's justice about as much as did the cops for Emmett's.

It's clear the author thickens the strings tying the two cases together. Sammy's murder was Toland's Till case; it propelled him forward through the pain of loss. But the question I'm left wondering is how far the similarities go.

Q: Would Toland have come out publicly had Sammy not been murdered? Was his death a necessary evil for the spark of bravery?

-Hunter

It was ME that murdered Sammy Noone

"Toland... it was me that murdered Sammy Noone."
"Looking at it in retrospect, it's plain that I wasn't giving the bastard any quarter because what he'd said to me had hit way too close to home. Y'see I'd known for years that I was really the one who'd murdered Sammy Noone."

I guess I should of foreseen something terrible happening like the lynching of Sammy Noone, but unfortunately I did not. When I started to read the scene where Sammy is killed my pulse began to race, my palms began to sweat, and I started muttering warnings at the pages as if the characters could hear me and react. I was completely engulfed in the story and like every other character my emotions were at a high. I was terribly sad at the incident, which soon turned to anger. This anger searched for someone to blame, but it did not point a finger at either Orley or Toland.

So, I thought it was interesting that both of these characters felt responsible for Sammy's death instead of blaming the people truly responsible for putting the noose around Sammy's neck. Guilt and misplaced anger seem run rampant through this book and while Toland feels them frequently, it seems that almost every character feels these emotions as well.

With this in mind I cannot help but wonder if these emotions are also apparent in the South during this time. Within this book the reader witness acts of violence and hate, and the victims described feel these emotions, but what about the abusers? Are they committing these acts because they are part of that old generation and are resisting the changing ways? Or are they attempting to fill the south model that perceives African Americans below Caucasians? Could they possibly feel any guilt for their actions?

My Question: Who do you think is responsible for Sammy Noone's death? And what is the purpose for all of this guilt, does it tie any way to the southern ideologies or methods of the time?

Galaxies Away And Never Closer

"And I'll be damned if I can recall what any of them were in particular - except for these four: It could've been me." (193)

When Toland speaks before the crowd at the Alleysax, and confesses his similarities and regrets for the fallen soldier Sammy, our stuck rubber baby seems to pry himself from the cold recesses of confused and silent homosexuality in the South, and come out to the community he believes he has hurt. He finally understands what may happen when one is not completely true to oneself. What I mean to say, is that it was not enough for him to frequent the Rhombus or be nice to his newfound group of Subterraneans, his heart really needed to be able identify, in order for his position as a gay white man in the South to allow himself to sympathize with the more race related plight of those around him and find the acceptance from himself, alongside the acceptance from his group of friends; Shiloh becomes an expression of this movement, and from one foot in and out of the closet to crying before those that he really cares for, the cold hard microphone takes the cold hard feelings from Toland and his heart becomes humbled before the death and pain that the Dixie Patriot seems to have impressed upon those different of skin and sexuality.

What does it mean for the future of the South and for the future of Toland, that he could finally become unstuck, and be able to show a great deal of humanity in the face of such horrible tragedies? AND why is it important that here in the story (192) he imagines himself as Sammy, galaxies away from his own unconscious body on the night he was murdered?

CRACKERS!

“ In my opinion this humble uneducated colored woman has more brains in her head than a thousand of these sign-waving, folksong-singing Harvard dropouts who keep showing up on our doorsteps to tell us how to lead our lives.” (99)

I believe this moment is a perfect example of how many white southerners were completely brainwashed at this time, while others disapproved of the environment the lived in, but couldn’t get around it. Orley continually attempts to show how a newspaper article they are reading is accurate, by saying that the majority of blacks in the south really do disapprove of being told to protest the way they are treated by whites. He represents the uneducated southern community that has been taught to accept that there is nothing wrong with the southern way of life that has been around forever. However, we are also given Riley’s point of view, one that sees that the newspaper is doing nothing more than presenting the people with the South’s form of yellow journalism. When they have a white man interview his black maid to express how she feels about the protest marches, it is clear that she wasn’t going to say how she truly felt. Riley says that the woman is trapped. Trapped by crackers on the left and right of her. Crackers write the news and crackers read the news. But nobody can get away from this news, because as he eloquently puts it, “All of us are stuck in a goddam cracker box!” They were all raised to think and be like “crackers” and there was no possible way to escape it.

Discussion Question: Does identifying as a southerner at this time force you to embrace the “emblem of the Confederacy” that Orley seems to love so much? Was there any way to avoid this “cracker” way of thinking?

How to change stuff?

"You're going to have to go, Sammy. You can't live or work here at the church anymore. When my phone starts ringing this morning I need to be able to say you're already packing."
"Today? You want me out today?"
"It's a delicate political situation. Please understand"(122-123).

In retrospect, the civil rights movement may seem to have been morally black and white: you were either in support of or against racial equality. However, when Father Morris, who had up until this point been portrayed as a staunch advocate of gay and black rights, is faced with the difficulty of dissociating with Sammy after a slew of negative publicity, we are reminded that things were far more complex. In the days of ruthless lynching and mob violence, even associating with the wrong person was a life or death matter.

It could be argued that Sammy made himself a dangerous target with his "outrageous" behavior, but his behavior was only a reaction to the recent acts of violence committed against civil rights protesters. The whole movement seems to have been tempered by a tension between peaceful protest and the oftentimes necessary use of force and violence against vicious racists and gay bashers, which often excited even more violence in return. We see this tension earlier on, when Reverend Pepper, who emphasizes the nonviolent nature of the "crusade," tells Toland that he thinks Mabel ought to be disincluded from further demonstrations because of a rumor circulating about her having hit a police dog with a brick in her purse. Toland comes to her defense, "But to tell the truth, I don't see much wrong with hittin' a dog when it's snappin' its teeth at you" (110). Reverend Pepper explains that, while he understands Toland's logic, he feels that the pitfall of civil rights protesters is "tak[ing] their bait," "their" referring to "the opposition." He feels that responding to violence with violence, even when seemingly necessary, is holding the whole movement back and potentially subjecting them to more violence; what protesters ought to be doing is wielding "psychological leverage" against their oppressors by remaining peaceful no matter what.


Let's talk about the (in?)effectiveness of the "Occupy" movement! I know it's nothing near the civil rights movement, but it's worth talking for reasons discussed above. Should they be more extreme or forceful to get their point across? Is violence sometimes a necessary evil? Is anyone taking their peaceful occupation seriously? How best to go about catalyzing social change? Is it necessary to "speak the language" of those to whom you're trying to appeal? Do Toland and co. make any efforts to speak the language of their oppressors?

Lauren Gore

"Scrub yourself good. Then you can play with Ben some more. It was confusing(141)."

This part of the novel reminded me of the rising conflicting thoughts many of the characters we've read about have experienced. Whether they were colored or white, many of the characters had ideas with which they weren't completely content with. Toland's mom is an example of this. She is completely appalled by the game her son and Ben have engaged in, but she still gets upset when Toland's sister calls them "nigger clothes". She also sends Toland in to change and bathe, but he can play with Ben again once he's done. It seems like her reaction to the situation is directly influenced by her upbringing, but there is also a glimpse of progression in her views. This has been an ongoing trend in the majority of the pieces we've been reading: the embodiment of the Old South, but also its shift into a more modern era.

Question: Why did Toland's mom react this way and what might have influenced her views?

"But to tell the truth, I don't see much wrong with hittin' a dog when it's snapping its teeth at you" (110)

This quote by Toland is a perfect parallel to the situation that he is going through. The snapping dog represents the bigoted/racist whites, who consistently undermine the rights of the blacks. I thought this was a pretty big step for Toland, who has never been comfortable with openly siding with any group. This is a conscious decision he has made about his sympathies and one that allows him to question his own actions and whether they are adequate. This quote highlights the fact that an oppressed group of people will only take so much before they lash out against the people snapping at them. It is also interesting to see the underlying futility in all this - for all their sit-ins and demonstrations, everything ends up being talked through but nothing much ends up being done. It makes me wonder what stance the book is going to take on race relations.

Question: based on what we've read so far, do you think (racially), the book will have a (relatively) happy ending? What direction do you think the book is going in?

Illusions and Twisted Logic

"Later I'd look back nostalgically at the way my dad always took time to explain stuff to me in his fucked-up way (3)."

I literally laughed out loud when I came across this line (and I was at Flightpath, so I got some dirty looks) because it stated exactly what I was thinking. Even though Toland's dad assures him that their gardener, Stetson, is to be respected, he still makes a point to mention that white people's brains are more developed than black people's brains ("It's been scientifically proven!"). I see a recurring theme of irony in the library that Toland's parents keep but never use, the Rhombus that everyone knows is a gay bar but that the police ignore as long as everyone pretends to be straight, the fact that Toland continues to hide his sexuality despite that his friends probably won't care if he is gay, and the Chopper's excuse for closing down the park ("renovation and beautification") when in reality he is just trying to stop protesters from gathering. It seems that most of the "upstanding" citizens of the South in the novel (Toland included) like to pretend that everything is perfect and pretty and "Godly" in their world as long as African-Americans aren't allowed civil rights, despite the fact that everyone knows that the world is more complicated than that. I think that the above quote from Toland's father exemplifies this idealistic but twisted mentality because his father, like many southerners at the time and some today, acts as if the world is in perfect order with African-Americans that are smart enough to be respected but not developed enough to be equal with white people, when the truth is that his logic is, as Toland so eloquently puts it, "fucked-up."

Discussion Question: How do the illusions that the characters uphold (the library, the Rhombus, the park, etc.) reflect an image of the South as a whole? Why would southerners feel the need to project an image that even they know is unrealistic?

"I went through a period of looking back and wondering if all that wrestling with Ben was what made me a homo!" (5)

I left my book out on the living room counter over the weekend, and someone got a conversation started by commenting: "Are you really reading a comic book for your class?". I assured them It was for my southern literature class and that this wasn't too weird for an English class to do. They then picked it up and randomly flipped it open to a scene in the middle of the book. It had naked men in bed together. Everyone then concluded I was lying, being further confused when I told them it was really all about the civil rights movement of the 60's, and the parallels of being pro-civil rights and being homosexual during that time. I can't really blame them for the confusion.

This novel is in a unique genre of literature, and this uniqueness is what makes it do what it does so well. It pokes and prods at our social norms, while poking and prodding at social norms of the southern 60's. We are thrown into one of the most controversial groups of people you could probably hang out with in that time, in a genre that is not widely read and, given the substance of this one, controversial. The surprise I got when I first found out Toland was gay (above quote), that same surprise, runs throughout the book. It was a pretty shocking first section to a pretty shockingly ignorant and hateful time period towards both gays and blacks. It is fit for its task.

Q: So, does this being a comic book then make it more accessible?

-Hunter

Reconciliation

"Behind y-?! What's he--?? I don't...You just stood there while he got in a few more KICKS!...An' Don't you go spreadin' LIES about me either FAGGOT!"

We have read through Nordan's prose journey to reconcile his own southern, racial, and class identity in the midsts of a time of turmoil. He works through this by highlighting different characters in his fictional town that are partially autobiographical, and partially "magical" (although we have contemplated the nature of this word and the role it plays in Wolf Whistle, I think much can be read into his application of this technique)

Cruse, on the other hand, uses not only dialogue heavy prose, but illustrations to work through his own sexual identity coupled with race and southernism during the same time. He even references Emmitt Till in the novel as being a large part of the main character's thoughts and dreams as well as his fixation on "the skull" during his childhood. Toland is in the midst of many different battles: those within himself and those social issues on the brink of explosion.

We also see in this excerpt the inability of a police officer to reconcile his own sexual identity, and the violence that ensues due to the social pressures placed upon him.


Question: How much of southern identity is reconciliation? Does identifying as a "southerner" require you to accept evils as well as the beauty that sparks within these evils that we have seen highlighted in many of our readings? Furthermore, is this simply a condition of humanity, and not something special to southerners at all? 

Maybe life was better outside of the South...

"Alice had never seen a colored woman wearing such nice clothes, a dark straight skirt and silk blouse and a light seersucker jacket. Maybe it was true that life was better outside the South. Maybe, somehow, the world really was a place of hope and light, if only the geography were different from what Alice knew about. Well, it couldn't be any worse (246)."

Alice has become accustomed to her life in the South and doesn't know any different. Her classroom field-trips consist of boat rides through sea human waste and a funeral parlor. There is a naïveté, due to the lack of exposure, that allows for such field-trips to take place. So upon setting eyes on Bobo's mom, she sees a woman of color dress differently to what she is use to seeing. This seems to allow her to see past her surroundings. Alice is already upset with the murder of the young child and the trial injustice soon approaching. However, seeing this woman, welcomes a different perspective to the world she thought to know. But given her present situation in the courtroom, she figured that whatever the North had to offer wasn't any worse than what she was already experiencing.

Could this sighting have encouraged Alice to leave her job as teacher and move on, and perhaps, also give her the courage to speak to Sally Anne?

I was the sorriest post in the class

"They were in the sorriest state in the nation."

Just after sun down, I was on the patio with my nose in my eye phone, and my father walked out and said would I like to watch the Daily Show with him. So consumed was I by ruminations of the South and murder and black and white, I ignored his question altogether and proceeded to tell him all about Emmett Till and what had happened, as though he'd never heard it. Give me some credit though, I was telling it in a new way. I had chosen a fresh and important climax for my story, that being Mamie Till's quote, saying no don't touch him up, I want everyone to see him. I want everyone to see what they did to my boy. And everyone did see, but it was her courage, her outrage in place of acceptance, that made the difference. I could see my effort to make this story one of might in the face of adversity had failed. My father said, not altogether heartfelt, "Uhg. It sure is terrible what people do to each other." Then I heard Jon Stewart and Rush Limbaugh and a few bleeps and a few more laughs.

Is that what we're supposed to take from this book? Is it a tragedy about a travesty? Or is it a condemnation of the South, as the above quote would imply? I check one and am more apt to side with two, especially after the quote from Nordan that Noah showed us before break. I will allow one possibility though - Just like I did, but in his own way and for some other or any reason, is Nordan trying to draw something entirely new out of the Emmett Till story?

Alice

leaned first one way and then the other, down the line of children. She said, "Is everybody understanding this?"

One child said, "The misuse of power is the root of all evil?"

Alice said, "Well--" (246)

Alice and her students are an interesting group of characters in Wolf-Whistle. Alice on the one hand seems to be a magical force of good, (amongst a cast with its fair amount of awfulness) while on the other, she seems pretty socially ignorant and naive. She seems to understand the emotional damage that might accompany taking a group of kids to, say a mortician, and yet she continues with her hilariously-terrible teaching plan, which in itself is not awful because of inaccuracies, the epithets are indeed very true of the world, however the extremity of these philosophical consequences that come from the mouth of the children in relation to what simply just happens, around them, sheds light on what Nordan seems to be saying of the South and of the human condition. That the lessons are awful because they have to be given, and anyone will learn to live with the injustice of human action if it is all that they know. It is Alice's social ignorance that allows for the juxtaposition, -- the terrible-ness with the innocence of childhood, -- or rather the ability of the children to see what is in in front of them better than those in charge of raising them. What seems important about the children in Alice's class is their ability to be influenced by what the rest of the characters consider to be the norm for human action.

Why does Nordan need the voice of the Alice's school children? How might the line, "The greatest depth of our loss is the beginning of true freedom," relate to rest of the novel?"

" Now why do you reckon Bob's gone remind Solon of a plastic Jesus, colored child like he was and Jesus white as the day is long? Solon didn't claim to have no analytical mind, he just meant to pay the boy a compliment, if he wanted to take it that way. Seem like there was a song about plastic Jesus, won't they? Solon looked around in his head for the tune....Well sure, that was it. Bobo the Plastic Jesus, sho nuff. Solon wondered had anybody else ever noticed the resemblance." (169)


To me Nordan is alluding that Bobo is savior to the black race in this bit of Solon's inner dialogue. We have learned that it is Emmet Till's death that propels the civil rights movement into existence, ushering in a new fight for freedom for blacks all across the country. His death was a wake up call to both black and whites to the insanity of the social situation in the country. The song Solon remembers sings of the plastic Jesus resting on the dashboard of the car, an instrument used to signify hope. Nordan is stating that Bobo's horrific death is, in an paradoxical way, a beginning of hope for the black people of America.

The song "Plastic Jesu" itself is fitting to the blog as it is "southern" in feel,. Here in the video it is played by Paul Newman on a banjo, in the film Cool Hand Luke. Newman's character seems to be in a time of despair, so it is fitting for this portion of the book as well.




Q: Am I right about the symbolization or is this just Solon being his normal bogus self?

Brace yourself, this post is not as funny as usual. How could it be, I'm doing homework during Spring Break

"The next shot was worse, didn't even hit the truck, that boy's losing his touch. Then the next one hit him high on the left side, and Solon thought, 'Well, now I know what it sounds like when a rib breaks. It sounds like a banjo string, real bad out of tune.' This was the shot that turned him over on the seat, flop. Shock, it's not such a bad thing, really, shock ain't."

If you read an encyclopedia article about the murder of Emmit Till, you will likely discount Lewis Nordan's revitalization of the event.

But reading the article in Look magazine is a whole different story. When I skimmed over the Wikipedia article on Emmit Till I didn't see "Bobo" anywhere, but sure enough, the Look article refers to Emmit as "Bobo Till" almost exclusively. Nordan's description of the initial conflict between Bobo and Carolyn (Sally Anne Montberclair) also bears a closer resemblance to the Look account than the historical archive. The Look writers concluded their description of the incident with much emphasis on the "wolf-whistle" that Bobo made to Carolyn. Nordan chose this colloquialization for his book's title.

I went to the Look article to find an explanation for Nordan's Solon character, and although I think I found it, I will stop short of telling what I found and instead ask the class...

How historically accurate do you think this account is, and what purpose do you think Nordan's embellishments serve? The only hint I'll give is that the exchange of fire between Bobo and "Solon" both did and didn't take place.

Wisdom, by Solon Gregg

“It scared him to think that murder and suicide might be just another vain dream, an ideal hope that, once it was accomplished, would turn out to be just like New Orleans, just like everything else in this life, nowhere near what it was cracked up to be, and only another way of feeling bad about himself” (109).

I found the 5th chapter to be incredibly engaging. The stream of Solon Gregg’s thoughts about murdering himself and his family was given in such a hopeful way, giving a disturbing look into the way people like Solon Gregg can think. In this particular quote, he seems to have a moment of clarity, reflecting on his past decisions that have brought him only pain and misery. I semi thought that after this he would decide to turn from his ways, but of course that won’t happen (at least yet). He then quickly pushes aside this thought when, according to Solon, God miraculously gives him the perfect opportunity to go through with his murder suicide, saying, “In Jesus all things were possible, if you only believed” (125). The way he rationalized his actions, despite having at least a small amount of wisdom displayed in this quote (the first one), was terrifying to say the least. Besides saying he is psychopathic, why would he move so quickly from his point of clarity to intentions of murdering Bobo, his family, and himself?

Confederate Buzzards

"Rage Gage didn't like cutting hair up underneath no bunch of buzzards. Especially buzzards named after white men. He wondered why the scientists down in Jackson couldn't be naming a few buzzards after colored people. Ain't like they don't have plenty of buzzards to go around. Half them buzzards ain't even got a name. That's the truth (90-91)."

The recurrence of the buzzards in this story struck me as odd in our first reading, and this scene in Rage Gage's barbershop confirmed that there has to be something more to the scavenging birds than eating dead armadillos. To me, there is a connection between the buzzards and the white people, specifically the original Confederate soldiers whose corpses drew them into Mississippi in the first place. The birds are described as "part of the glorious history of the South (68)", just as Confederate soldiers are, and some of them are said to be so old that they are actually the same birds who feasted on the dead soldiers. I find this detail important because it gives the reader an idea that the soldiers who fought to defend slavery are still around, at least in spirit, and the next description of the younger birds who wander aimlessly in the world, longing for freedom and purpose that their ancestors had, could be compared to the descendants of old white Southerners who still have trouble finding a place in the modernized and, in some places, racially integrated world. I think that Rage Gage has the same feeling about the buzzards, and it doesn't help that half of them are named after white government representatives of Mississippi. Rather than naming the other half after black people, as Rage Gage suggests, I feel like the rest of the buzzards represent the poor white class who have no better standards of living than their black neighbors, but who continue to loom over places like Rage Gage's barbershop and wait for their chance to assert what power their skin color gives them.

Discussion question: Could the section about the buzzard named Ross Barnett be connected to Solon Gregg's own story as he visits Lord Montberclair? If not, why does it exist?

Family Ties

"Alice imagined that this was the way that wives and husbands talked after supper. She thought this was the way she would have confided in Dr. Dust, if they were married, if something had scared her." (85)

Maybe it's just me, but I can't shake the feeling that Wolf Whistle is haunted by the specter of incest. Solon's recollection of his abusive father is the big example, of course, but there are a number of smaller and subtler moments in the novel which hint at the same issue- Joyce and Cloyce's rhyme about Eugene Brister kissing his sister, for example (84). When Alice imagines herself speaking to her uncle as a wife would speak to her husband, one begins to wonder what Nordan is saying about family relationships, and connections between people in general. On some level, Wolf Whistle is a novel about people who don't know how to relate to each other. "Are we alone in this world?" and "everyone is alone in this world" are codas which appear frequently throughout; relationships between blacks and whites shift disastrously and arbitrarily; along with Alice's estrangement from Dr. Dust, Nordan takes pains to render the splintering and chaotic dynamic of the Gregg family, as well as Lord Montberclair's anxieties, by turns violent and tender, regarding his relationship with his wife. With childlike innocence, Red worries that Runt is angry with him. Wolf Whistle is full of characters who try to connect with each other and often go about it in the wrong way. Romantic and sexual relationships, friendships, familial love, and interracial harmonies seem to be built on shaky, shifting, and unsteady foundations. Alice whispers "I love you" to pillows and parrots because she can't say it to Dr. Dust. She talks to her uncle like a husband because the people in Wolf Whistle have trouble knowing how families and marriages and friendships and societies are put together.

Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

Questions: What do Alice's anxieties about family and love tell us about relationships in Wolf Whistle? What sort of portrait of social connections is Nordan painting?

"He could do this one job, snuff the nigger, then come cruising back into town in that sweet little El Camino, tool on over to his house, and how would you say it, close down his family life forever, end on a positive note." (124)

I found this moment worth mentioning because of what we talked about, concerning Solon's character, during last class. Solon seems to have an endless barrage of malicious ideas running through his head at all times and he convinces himself that he is a decent person by taking note of the crimes which he does not commit because they are to heinous even for him. In this moment he comes to the conclusion that he and his family should just quit while they aren't too far behind and commit mass suicide or more like let themsleves be murdered so that Solon can forgive himself for their murders by killing himself last. This would somehow justify his crimes and put him at peace with his family and God. Interestingly enough he realizes that his daughter might want to get married instead of ending her life at fifteen and Solon seems to be okay with this. He even decides to give her the blood money he's going to earn as a wedding present. This type of negatively-reinforced rationalization, provides Solon with the motivation to continue doing the horrible things he enjoys doing and in some moments seems proud of. So far, this book seems to be full of characters who are extremely distant from the other characters in the novel. No one in this book seems to really like each other and most of them certainly dont trust one another. If i ever visit this town i might want to carry a concealed handgununder my shirt too.

Question: How does the apparent distance between characters quide the story's action and why does Solon feel the need to convince himself that he really isn't that bad of a criminal?

Why be Funny?

"It was a happy dream, and filled with hope, although Solon wondered where he had come up with so many bullets. He must have won the bullet lottery. And he must have gotten holt of a heavier pistol too, .38 caliber at least, Solon would have to guess, judging by the amount of carnage" (Nordan 110).

Lying abruptly within the surreal crisis that Solon experiences during his time in the Arrow Hotel, this passage highlights one of the most fascinating dualities in Wolf Whistle, the existence of humor within such great sadness. Obviously, Nordan writes the story as a retelling of the Emmett Till saga predating the Civil Rights Movement but does so through a bizarrely comic means. Here in the story, Solon is contemplating murdering his family as well as himself, yet Nordan decides to frequently inject his pitch black sense of humor throughout. For instance, he coins the term "bullet lottery" (110). Although the humor is indeed pervasive, it never seems to wholly undermine or derail the flow of the story. Somehow the gonzo sense of humor meshes well with the telling of the story and in a way helps the reader better understand the state of mind of characters like Solon.

Discussion Question: Much has been made of the profound impact that the Emmett Till trial had on Nordan, why then does he decide to fill his retelling of the story with wild humor as well as profound sadness and horror?

Vulgarity & Me

"Some days you just have to hang in there for a while, and endure the worst that life has to offer, self-doubt and hard luck and low self-esteem, the whole shooting match, before events just seem to turn themselves around 180 percent...and good things start to happening, you couldn't stop them if you tried."

Rather than take a quote from the work of literature assigned for the week, I thought I would mix things up a bit and take a quote from Prevention magazine. This quote emanated from the legislative lips of Sarah Palin. I expect the reflective downtroddenness she exhibits referred to her failed presidential bid and her daughter's unexpected pregnancy, while the upbeat resoluteness at the end referred to the quickly approaching bear-poaching season.

Just joking! This quote is the omniscient narrator of Wolf Whistle divulging Solon's thoughts. And Solon's reflective downtroddenness concerns his toaster strudeled son and his inability to exact informant's spoils from Lord Montberclair, while the upbeat resoluteness refers to his ability to extract hitman's spoils from Lord Montberclair for murdering bobo and his whole family and himself but not Wanda, if, and only if, she chooses not to be murdered.

I'm wondering what Nordan's characterizations are trying to say about the South. He depicts scenes of chaos - both in the southern streets and in southern minds, but to what end? The quote is something that anyone - you me Sarah Palin and even Solon - can agree with and relate to. This humanization of Solon we cannot turn a blind eye to, although at the same time, he is vicious and depraved. My conclusion is that the contrast only helps the reader to see, that the chaotic slums and murderous thoughts could encroach upon their back alley and frontal lobe, should they have lived in the South at that time. The humanization serves as authentication.

How much of Solon do you see in yourself, or, do you consider him a redeemable/redeemed character?

Sherman's March

“Well, you never solve everything, Ross. You never solve everything. The only thing you've got is a chance for a few passionate hits. You see how foolish it all is. You see what the army comes to. The bunkers, the island, the burned-out house. Hell, it's all a tragedy. It's just a matter of how you get through it. And the most interesting way to get through it is to say, "I can't help it. I'm full of passion and I'm gonna die this moment." It's the only way to pretend you're alive. It's the only way to not be alone and depressed.”

Not knowing what to expect, after watching this film I was taken by idea that it was initially supposed to become a documentary about William Tecumseh Sherman’s march through and complete destruction of the South, but instead becomes something entirely different. McElwee dives into his and other’s personal emotions and takes us with him on his journey to replace the love he once had but lost. In an effort to recount the story of the general, we notice that McElwee in fact has some things in common with him. For one thing, they both embarked on their journey depressed and with a sense of failure. Both felt like they didn’t really belong. I find it interesting how Charleen encourages him to break away from this broken state of mind and be more passionate about things. “This place is like a tomb. No, it's not. It's like pubic hair. Part, part the bushes. Go into the place. Go with it, Ross. It's not like a tomb. That's the trouble with you. You don't know the difference between sex and death. Sex and death? Yes, and death. This is life, this isn't death. When it sits on your face, you can't tell which it is.” In this part of the film, although funny and bizarre, Charleen makes a good point.

On another note, women were important after the destruction of the South because most of the men were either wounded or dead. They are obviously a vital essence to the entire film and the women that McElwee encounters all seem to have something wrong or weird about them, it feels. It is as if he is wandering through the broken South that Sherman left behind in search for love, expecting to find someone sane enough to fit his expectations. They are either in love with an abusive boyfriend or are a bit ‘mentally strange’ themselves. The film does show us the culture and uniqueness of the South and for that I think it is pure gold. The camera captures genuine emotions and conversations that I don’t think I’ve seen much of in other films.

What role do the women play throughout the film?

(Besides McElwee's search for love) 

America of the '30s

“It reminds you a little bit of the America of the ’30s, people up here don’t realize that.”

I agree with some of my classmates when they say that at some point in this documentary, it seemed a bit pointless. But as it went on, I got the sense that McElwee was actually acting as a modern stand in for Sherman, traveling from city to city, observing different forms of southern culture in each place. The part that stuck out to me the most was when he meets Claudia, and she introduces him to her band of extreme survivalists who, if anything show that McEllwee himself isn’t nearly as strange as we thought. I saw a few of the characteristics that we used to describe the south on the first day of class in this little isolated settlement. Family is the dominant factor in this environment, reminding us a little of little house on the prairie. They are free from all regulation from the U.S. allowing them to shoot their guns whenever and wherever they like, manufacture their own alcohol whenever they want to drink it, and remain and isolated and have that sense of unity amongst their small settlement by keeping anybody they don’t want in with them out. This settlement relied on the bible for their information on the nuclear holocaust and the apocalypse, going back to the idea that the south is highly religious. I couldn’t help but laugh when one of the men was pleading to the federal government that they had better leave them alone, all while chewing on his Red Man tobacco in the woods, if that doesn’t exemplify southern stereotypes I don’t know what else does. The quote says it reminds them of America of the ‘30s, and to me it did, showing us that idea of the South never quite progressing with the rest of the U.S., still believing that at any time Nuclear Warfare was going to end civilization, an idea that had pretty much died out throughout the country some years back. This settlement, for better or worse, is to me what the south is. Although it is a different form of living than many of us are used to, these people know who they are, what the want, and are proud that the south is part of their identity.

Question: Did all of the cities seem like they were still in regression, favoring the pre-Sherman forms of themselves?