O'Connor writes that Mr. Head and Nelson gaze at the sculpture "as if they were faced with some great mystery, some monument to another's victory that brought them together in common defeat. They could both feel it dissolving their differences like the action of a mercy."
I thought it was interesting that this sculpture brought them together. After being denied by his grandfather, Nelson wants to stay in the city. It isn't until they see the sculpture in this wealthy neighborhood that they feel their familial bond again and return to the country together. That was the strangest part of this story for me: is the artificiality of the title the contructed otherness that is necessary to hold traditional groups of people together? In that sense, all race relations are based on artificiality: like Nelson says, the black population is not "black," but rather "tan." Similiarly, the special curtain needed to segregate the dining car on the train is a perfect example of artificial ways of labeling and dividing groups of people for the so-called necessary stability of society.
So to whom does the text refer with "another's victory"? Has the African American population triumphed in the segregated part of the city as well as in this white, wealthy neighborhood in the sense that they've been made into art? That sounds pretty sick, but I'm at a loss as to read it.
But my questions concerned the nature of Mr. Head and Nelson themselves. They are, obviously, what Mrs. Turpin would call white trash. They share their private frustrations with complete strangers on the car, and clearly have a "country bumpkin" quality. So when they find themselves in the wealthy neighborhood, is it really the sculpture that "dissolves their differences"? Or is it the presences of the sculpture in an upper-class part of the city where "they ain't got enough real [African Americans]...They got to have an artificial one." In a sense, I think this folk art interpretation of an African American articulates black otherness to the point where it also articulates the otherness of white trash. Mr. Head and Nelson find themselves in "common defeat" in a wealthy, white neighborhood. They realize suddenly that there are actually two Other groups which they do not understand, and to which they do not belong: both the black community, and the wealthy, white community.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree with you. When I was finished reading the story I found myself questioning what really brought Mr. Head and Nelson back together again. I understand that it had something to do with the sculpture but is it because the sculpture portrays a black person or is it because of the wealthy neighborhood in which they find themselves? I feel that this neighborhood makes them feel a little uneasy about themselves but it is the statue which helps break the silence. They use this statue as a way of coming back together. And it is sad to think that they need to poke fun at not only the wealthy but black people as well in order for them to become ‘friends’ again. They need to degrade others in order to make themselves feel better.
I took the "victory" to mean that the statue had gained victory simply by surviving the weather/rough use it seems to have sustained. O'Conner describes the statue as being, "pitched forward at an unsteady angle because the putty that held him to the wall had cracked" (268). In addition to this, the statue's "chipped eye" gives him a miserable look. I think that O'Conner might simply mean that victory occurs when something has outlasted the test of time. I especially think her use of the word, "monument" adds to this understanding.
Huh, that's an interesting way of looking at it, Dana. In some ways, the "white trash" find themselves defeated by the black population who have sustained centuries of abuse. Members of the African American community now find themselves well-dressed and eating in fine dining cars, whereas the poor, rural whites find themselves packing a brownbag lunch despite the social distinction of being white.
I think the white trash theory is pretty interesting. I don't know if I agree with it, but I can definitely see how you would be getting that from the story. I just assumed that they were poorer than a lot of people. However, definitely not too poor to be able to travel to the city for a day. The reason I didn't see them as white trash (at least according to Mrs. Turpin) was because Mr. Head had high moral standards... even if they may have been a little skewed. I didn't lump him not liking black people (or feeling defeated) with the girl in the waiting room because of the times... you didn't have to be white trash to not like black people. The only sense of defeat I got was getting lost, and in a black neighborhood at that.
Also, my biggest reason is probably the opening with the personification of his things. It shows he has property, even if it is in a very metaphysical sense. I don't know if he owns land or a home, but he definitely "owns" things when he walks into a room.
However... this is all just perception. He could just be stepping out of a white trash stereotype. Remember Bevel's parents? They were pretty wealthy but acted no better than the woman in the waiting room.
That's an interesting point of view: I think maybe you're getting to the crux of what "white trash" means. I don't think it necessarily has much to do with moral sense, so much as social polish. I think Mr. Head's behaviour on the train is somewhat uncouth: he spews his private problems to strangers and yells in the dining car.
In contrast, Bevel's parents seem to have little moral sense, but they are actually polished, urban socialites. They live in an apartment at an expensive city address, and Bevel's meal in the morning is actually a gourmet hor d'oeuvre (even if it has been sitting out all night). I never considered Bevel's parents to be white trash.
But I the differences between the way you and I read "white trash" into the characters actually highlight the most telling ways in which the term is used in society.
Post a Comment