Sunday, October 5, 2008

narrative structure in The Violent Bear it Away and the Catholic mass

Wow, there is so much to unpack with this story, but I am really interested in the narrative structure here.  Rather than a linear narrative that we would be perhaps more accustomed to, this story is presented in what seems to be cycles of history repeating itself (in terms of the family tree and the different generations, character mirroring each other, etc.) and in another way, cycles of repeating the events of the story more than once, with little details added with each retelling.

I find it interesting that much of what would seem to be the plot is given in the first sentence:  the death of the great uncle.  There is no gradual set up.  After this, we get continual flashbacks (I'm not sure if this is the right term, but for lack of a better one) that interrupt the "real time" of the story.  These flashbacks are not linear either and give us details over and over of the old man going to live with the schoolteacher who's writing the article about it, the old man kidnapping both boys, the car wreck, the schoolteacher coming to get Tarwater and getting shot for it, and so on.  

I really liked this way of telling the story.  The retelling provided something of a ritualistic rhythm for me.  This retelling of narration is also echoed in the old man and Tarwater's relationship.  The old man would continually tell the story of the boy's origins and his own mission as a prophet over and over.  So much so that the boy would anticipate the story.  On page 372, we see the boy reminding the old man of parts of the story he has skipped, dreading parts of the story he does not like, and wishing to rush to parts of the story he does like.

Now I may be way in left field here, but this rhythm really reminded me of the Catholic mass.  One of the definitive features of mass is that it is the same structure and ritual every time.  In particular, the reciting of the Apostle's Creed really seemed to mirror what's going on in this novel.  It is something recited every mass that in addition to stating beliefs, also sums up the history of the religious movement up to that time, in a way, by chronologically listing the events of Jesus' life.  Every time the old man tells the story to the boy, it is like this reciting of his beliefs and the history of the family member's lives again and again.  The connection really was reinforced for me when the narrator mentions that the old man would start reciting this story to the boy about once a week (I apologize for not being able to locate the page number at the moment), the same time interval that most Catholics go to mass (not taking daily mass into account, of course).

So, in a way, the old man and the boy were celebrating mass cyclically in their home by reciting this story, and this structure is mirrored in how the narrator is telling us the story too.  Any thoughts on how effective/not effective this narrative structure may be?

3 comments:

VinnyD said...

Great analysis. I, too, was surprised by the jumping in the timeline. It seems to differ from most of O'Connor's work that we've read so far. It goes a long way to add an edginess to the piece, as we know it's going somewhere dark, but she's taking us there with a lot of tension.

Excellent point about the Catholic mass. I hadn't thought of that, but that is an interesting thought. It would fit the pattern of some of her other work.

wcwlvr said...

I think your reading of the education of Tarwater on history mirroring mass is especially important considering the timeline of the story - from the death of the old man to Tarwater's return to Powderhead, did we decide in class that six days pass? What does that foretell of the seventh day, the Sabbath, on which religious education and observance is practiced?

Heather Loser said...

mmm I think as far as the Mass thing goes it is a stretch. Although the repetition is is apparent in the story you could say that for almost any religious ceremony. I do think that the story became a religion for the 2. If you look at how O'Connor brings religion into her stories it is counterintuitive. Instead of coming right out and letting the characters actions persuade you from a religion she persuades you away from the opposite, in this case protestantism.