"Good Country People" vs. "The Life You Save May Be Your Own"

Or rather, Tom T. Shiftlet versus Manley Pointer. These two characters both appear to women living without men, though the impressions of men remain. As Michelle pointed out, "The two women in this story were referred to as Mrs. the whole way through, even though we do not see their husbands in this story. Because they are referred to as Mrs. they become identified by their marriage and by their husbands instead of by their own identities and their first names." Further, Glynese has suitors, and Carramae, "only fifteen but already married and pregnant," has a husband and father somewhere, though just where is left to the reader's imagination (264). Compare this to "The Life You Save," where the two Lucynells live with the phantom of their husband/father in the spectre of the car. The elder Lucynell shares, "That car ain't run in fifteen year . . . The day my husband died, it quit running." (173)

As the only male characters in the story, a lot can be interpreted about Pointer and Shiftlet's roles in these women's lives. Shiftlet's repair of the car is a feat of manliness: "With a volley of blasts it emerged from the shed . . . Mr. Shiftlet was in the driver's seat, sitting very erect." (178) It's a moment of male potency, both in the field of autorepair (traditionally masculine) and Shiftlet's posture. His role as husband to Lucynell the younger after their marriage is thereby conflated with his role as father to her, and husband to Lucynell the elder, the repair of the car being rather Elektric.

Pointer's role to the Hopewells seems far less Greek. To Mrs. Hopewell, he is an annoyance. She says, "'[H]e bored me to death but he was so sincere and genuine I couldn't be rude to him.'" (274) But to the younger Hopewell, Hulga/Joy, he is some kind of romantic hope. So excited for their picnic, she "didn't take anything to eat," and spruces herself up by putting "some Vapex on the collar of [her shirt] since she did not own any perfume" (276-77). Pointer's role as a romantic interest to Hulga/Joy seems to be more than similar with the misguided pairing of Shiftlet and the Lucynells, each female party seeing in this new male an opportunity and being terribly mistaken.

Because Pointer's theft of Hulga/Joy's leg puzzles me, I'd like at this time to continue in an analysis of Shiftlet - specifically as a kind of perversion of the Christ figure. Lucynell the elder's insistence on Shiftlet's marriage to her daughter purports him to be, in her eyes, some kind of savior - and who could blame her for thinking so? He is, after all and in his own words, a carpenter (175), famously the vocation of Jesus. And, before even introducing himself, Shiftlet turns to face the sunset: "He swung both his whole and his short arm up slowly so that they indicated an expanse of sky and his figure formed a crooked cross." (173) Shiftlet is put on the cross before word one to Lucynell! That notion of the cross being crooked is a masterwork of foreshadowing, as Lucynell puts all her egg's in Shiftlet's basket only to have her salvation ruined beyond recognition. Shiftlet as the crooked Christ figure becomes complete when he perverts Luke 23:34. "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Compare this to Shiftlet's line at the end of the story, "'Oh Lord! . . . Break forth and wash the slime from this earth!'" (183) Shiftlet's prayer is antithetical to Jesus' plea, one requesting the forgiveness of sinners, and the other the purging of them. The irony, of course, lies in it beginning to rain on Shiftlet. Water is a cleansing force, and Shiftlet, perhaps realizing that the slime that needs washing may be himself, "race[s] the galloping shower into Mobile." (183)

Yet, Shiftlet as the crooked Christ figure does not necessitate Pointer as all that. Where one could draw a comparison between Jesus healing the sick and Pointer robbing the maimed, calling the Bible salesman any kind of Jesus is probably giving him too much credit. Certainly Hulga/Joy sees him as some kind of salvation, but not in a Christian sense. After all, she sees herself as already saved - "'We are all damned,' she said, 'but some of us have taken off our blindfolds and see that there's nothing to see. It's a kind of salvation.'" (280) Instead of pat Christian saving, Hulga/Joy sees Pointer as a kind of avenue to intimacy, to experiencing what about life is enjoyable before her prophesied premature death. In imagining her seduction of Pointer, she fantasizes "that she took his remorse in hand and changed it into a deeper understanding of life," (276) the irony here lying in Hulga/Joy's own virginity - "[s]he had never been kissed before and she was pleased to discover that it was an unexceptional experience" (278) - and so this foray into sexuality could lead to a deeper understanding of life for her.

It is too bad that Pointer is no full-blown Christ figure, because Hulga/Joy makes no secret of her atheism (278). (Neither does her mother, 270.) It could have lessened the ache of being forsaken in that hayloft, cut off and alone. But in my mind, still, Pointer and Shiftlet are two very like peas - both are strange men with ulterior motives who crash a girls-only party. What is O'Connor saying about men in a world of women? On one level she says that they can't be trusted, that they are deceptive and ultimately no good. Are these stories an advocation of nunnery - of cloistering yourself from that foul sex - or, in fact, the opposite? Of exposing yourself to men, and becoming the better for it? Of course we have no way of knowing if Hulga/Joy makes the best of this situation, if she learns from it. She can be awfully dense for a genius.

And, a tad off-topic, I think O'Connor's choice to have Mr. Paradise fail to save Bevel and, one page later, title a story "The Life You Save May Be Your Own" just excellent.

Contempt in Good Country People

It seems to me that there exists between the character's of "Good Country People" a hierarchy of contempt by which they measure themselves and one another. Mrs. Hopewell has a kind of patronizing contempt for the Freemans because of their lower social class and the implied subordinant status of tenants. Mrs. Freeman has a quiet contempt for Hulga that expresses itself through her prodding use of her legal name, and is contemptuous of the bible sailsman's supposed "simplicity." Hulga is contemptous of the other three, openly and directly, for their perceived ignorance and the annoyance their interactions cause her. Finally, the bible salesman has contempt for Mr. Hopewell and Hulga because he knows he has tricked them and, in fact, seems to derive his contempt from the knowledge of theirs; his humiliation of Hulga is an act that turns her patronizing contempt around on her. The salesman makes Hulga stop thinking of him as a country bumpkin but instead as an equal and possible companion, which puts him in a position to dominate her and throw the contempt she held for him back upon her tenfold. Its an act of revenge with no real goal but to demonstrate his cleverness to those who think themselves intelligent.

Disillusionment and the Double Meaning of Good Country People

I found Flannery O’Connor’s Good Country People to be ironic. In this story, we have Joy-Hulga, the archetypical O’Connor character. However, unlike O’Connor’s other characters who share similar traits, Joy is an intellectual who is brought to her own demise through naivety and disillusionment.

Disillusionment in this story is very important and Manley Pointer, a simple country folk, is its main proponent. Manley says that he is selling Bibles and speaks often of Christianity. However, in the end he proves to be the story’s protagonist. Manley has succeeded in tricking “good country people” into believing that he is like them and moreover, that he is a Christian, simply by using the word. Thus, the role of the phrase “good country people” in this story takes on another connotation. Disillusionment also occurs with the character of Joy. Rather than being fooled by Manley, she brings herself to her own demise. By instantly assuming Manley to be what he says, a good Christian country folk, she instantly assumes her intellect is superior to any of his motives. By regarding her own mental capabilities too highly, Joy’s guard is let down and she is taken advantage of by Manley.

As a whole, Good Country People is about taking first impressions as face value and the disillusionment that ensues when no questions are asked of character.

Good Country People

While I was reading this, I kept wondering who the reader was supposed to sympathize with and what we were supposed to take away from this story. O'Connor seemed to be making a statement with this story, but I am just not sure what the statement was. At first, it seems like O'Connor is making a statement about how mothers think that the only way their daughters can be valuable in society is if they are married (like Carramae) or desired (like Glynese), instead of educated like Joy. The two women get duped by the Bible salesman. What is this saying? It could be taken as some sort of comment on religion. Then Joy gets duped by the salesman. What is this saying? That she is book smart but not exactly street smart?

I also thought the names in this story were interesting, and I think the names play into what the statement of the story is. The two women in this story were referred to as Mrs. the whole way through, even though we do not see their husbands in this story. Because they are referred to as Mrs. they become identified by their marriage and by their husbands instead of by their own identities and their first names. Their names were also interesting choices: Freeman and Hopewell. Both of these names indicate their personalities. I also thought this was an interesting sentence too, "One of her [Joy's] major triumphs was that her mother had not been able to turn her dust into Joy" (267).

I honestly do not know how to respond to this story. I am so appalled by "Pointer". I guess I should have expected a twist to the story, but this ending was just too much. I agree with the previous post in that my attention was drawn to the names, however, I am more involved in the idea of blindness and ignorance. Mrs. Hopewell seems as though she can read every person that walks into her life. She explains that she likes good country people, and despises white trash. It seems that she is so confident in understanding other people, explaining that she has no faults, and she finds faults in everyone else. However, she is completely blind to the evil side of the boy she invites to dinner. As her daughter is left alone, helpless, she looks after the boy, wishing everyone could be "good country people," more like him. I found the story to be extremely upsetting, and I was not expecting such a turn.

An "intellectual's" POV

This is kind of the first story where we get most of the story through the college educated character. I was convinced that this would be entirely through Mrs. Hopewell, but it does this very subtle shift to Hulga's story. I actually thought that Mrs. Freeman was going to be a major character, rather than a side character, and act kind of like Mrs. Shortley in The DP. This was brought up in the last class (I think Dana) that many of the evil characters in O'Connor's stories are overweight women. And the college educated, big girl was crazy. Hulga still fits the role of the bitter, rude intellectual that is going no where in life, but she still seems down to Earth a bit more (maybe because we see her side more?). Her wooden leg adds extra sympathy to her character, but makes her bitter and has frozen her in time to be a little girl.

The scene in the barn with Pointer had me very tense the entire time. I honestly thought he was going to rape her. Mainly because he pulled out the box that said "only to be used in prevention of disease" (i.e., condoms). When he finally took her leg, I actually let out a nervous laugh. Who would do something like that? Where is his pleasure in stealing women's artificial body parts? Obviously, it's some form of control, as is highlighted by the condoms and rape insinuation. But it's weird. The dynamic between religion and the characters in this story is much different from the others. He pushes his way into their home by making them at ease by being a good Christian, yet he ACTUALLY wins over the only Atheist in the house! Is it because he is simple? Hulga couldn't have really believed in him when he said he liked to have "serious thoughts." College graduates don't talk like that, from any time period. So what was his charm? Maybe she was happy that someone was attracted to her despite all her physical problems. Maybe it was their common condition. Maybe she thought she could manipulate him. That's how I saw it anyway. She really wanted to manipulate him into putting down the Bible and pick up another book but instead she got a lesson of her own. Even though she had all this higher learning, it still didn't erase all the stereotypes she had in her mind. She really wasn't any better or smarter than the country folk.

RE: Names

Yes, I also thought that there must be something big going on with the names. In addition to those you have greatly explained, Manley Pointer is also a very odd name. What, if anything, is so manly about him? And also, I am suspecting that in O'Connor's South, it would have been very rude to point, so here is this person described as being so nice and simple while at the same time having a very rude name. What's he pointing at, figuratively? Could O'Connor be using his character to point to what's wrong with the world? (i.e. he's a charlatan, he's putting on a front) Also, I noticed something interesting about Joy/Hulga. We all know what the character chooses to call herself: Hulga, and we also know that the mother still calls her Joy. That's pretty straightforward, but what about O'Connor's narrative voice? The narrator seems to be shifting back and forth from calling her Joy to calling her Hulga. There seems to be something of a rhythm, and I am wondering if this flip-flopping is just random or if it indeed means something. After we know that the character changed her name legally, the narrator begins calling her Hulga except for when we get a window into Mrs. Hopewell's point of view. We get the first instance of this at the bottom of page 267, and this would make sense, since she continues to call her Joy, when we get her thoughts and beliefs, it makes sense to use Joy. Then during the initial meeting scene with Manley Pointer, the dinner scene, the narrator refers to her as Joy every time (pgs. 270-273), even when we are not "in Mrs. Hopewell's head." Then as if flipping a switch, on pg. 274 we get "Hulga had cracked her two eggs...," and for the rest of the story, the narrator's voice only uses Hulga or "the girl." Joy is never used again. I am reminded of "The River" and how there as well, the narrator seemed to be making a very conscious choice of calling the boy not by his God-given name. So what is going on here? On page 273, we get the scene in which the girl and Manley Pointer are talking at the gate, and Mrs. Hopewell is pondering what they are talking about. This feels like a crucial moment. Mrs. Hopewell is astonished that they are talking, and it is the next scene the next morning that the shift in name occurs for the narrative voice. Like Mrs. Hopewell, I am left wishing to hear the particulars of that conversation. Did the character change, and is O'Connor showing us this by the conscious shift in appellation? And since "Joy" is obviously a hopeful, very positive name while we know that "Hulga" is meant to be an ugly name, is this change in character supposed to be a negative one? Did the character maybe fall from grace here? Is this supposed to mark when the character begins to give in to Manley Pointer, who will eventually be her downfall? It is almost like the character is losing her "joy" to succumb to the full embodiment of Hulga, meant to be ugly, and this can be a foreshadowing of Manley Pointer's putting one over on her. I was wondering if anyone else noticed this, and again, it may be a small insignificant detail, but I think we have read enough O'Connor now not to trust any such details to randomness.

Grotesque in Good Country People

This is one of the stories we discussed in my Grotesque class because it hits that uncomfortable crossroads of humor and aversion, and because the imagery is anchored in the body.
Hulga's encounter with Pointer is disturbing, but also humorous in that "I can't believe this is funny-I-feel-a-little-sick-and-uncomfortable-laughing-about-this" kind of way.
The first time I read this story as a freshman, I remember thinking it would be kind of romantic to be a chilly intellectual like Hulga- finish a phD in philosophy and then retire as a sort of hermit to the country. Yet each time I read the story for a new class, I am struck more and more intensely by the perverted nature of Hulga's unsociable behavior. Presumably, she comes home to live with her mother because of a heart condition, and makes no effort to make herself sexually appealing (at least, before Pointer). Her existence is supposedly predicated on her nihilism--she accepts her fate in the country, because she believes that the world is without permenance or meaning. For her, their is no salvation of any kind. With all this in mind then, it seems strange that a nihilist would attach so much psychic energy to a material object as Hulga does with her leg. O'Connor writes that Hulga "took care of it as someone else would his soul, in private and almost with her own eyes turned away" (281). Hulga professes a belief in Nothing, yet when her leg is actually taken from her (when she is left with Nothing, instead of Something), she is faced with a true instance of vacuum--nothingness. Perhaps on an intellectual level she had convinced herself that she believed in Nothing, but Pointer's acknowledgment and theft of her leg rob her of her illusions of a purist's nihilism: her leg is a totem endowed with mystical powers, a fetish that "makes [her] different." Only when she experiences the loss of her leg, "like losing her own life and finding it again, miraculously, in his," does she realize that she values Something (perhaps a Something entirely outside of her articulation, but a Something none the less) that can be taken away or lost. The story remains Grotesque in the sense that we cannot resolve what that Something might be, or what the moral consequences of the story might be, for her or for Pointer.

Names in "Good Country People"

I took a particular interest in the names of the characters in “Good Country People”. I think many of the characters are cleverly labeled. Each name seems to describe, in some way, a certain characteristic or personality trait of that specific individual. Mrs. Hopewell, a lively and happy woman, believes just as her name implies; she hopes that all goes well or better yet she hopes that all is well that ends well; in other words, problems to not matter as long as the outcome is good. Mrs. Hopewell believes in the good country people, like Manley Pointer. She believes that “good country people are the salt of the earth” (O’Connor 271). I found Joy Hopewell’s name particularly interesting. Her name was Joy however she changes it to Hulga, which is described as “the ugliest name in any language” (O’Connor 266). After Joy loses her leg as a child she no longer has joy or hope in her life and therefore has the need to change her name to show how she feels. Since, Hulga is described as ugly, she must see herself as ugly. The Freeman family, however, does not portray what their name suggests. Instead, they are the opposite of their name. Mr. Freeman works for Mrs. Hopewell as a farmer, so in a way he is not a free man because he works under someone; someone else controls his money and living arrangements. O’Conner uses this name play very skillfully, because it adds to the readers understanding of the characters.

Manipulation in Good Country People

While reading “Good Country People,” I was so surprised that the only thing that Pointer did was steal her leg. Which I assume was a symbol of her vulnerability since that was the only part of Hulga that was weak. Hulga was intelligent, rude, and cynical and then the one time she lets down her guard and thinks hat she has found an innocent person in which she is worried about seducing and taking advantage of, he turns in to this completely different person that destroys her only hope that there are good people in the world.
I also thought is was really interesting that her mother believe that Pointer is such a good kind person too so he not only manipulates Hulga, but her mother as well. It was really ironic at the end of the story when her mother say that she wishes she was a simple good person like him, where really he just tricks Hulga into believing that he is this honest Christian whom just wants to help the world and preach the word of God while he is still live since he apparently has a heart condition. Which could be true seeing as he is always panting and tired but it seems like a way to get to Hulga and her mother due to Hulga’s heart condition; so they have something in common which is an easy way to intrude into someone’s life.
I also thought it was interesting that it was not the first time that he has taken advantage of someone with a disability; he admits that he has stolen a glass eye from another girl. So I just have to wonder why he goes after people with disfigurements. Maybe if he does have a heart condition he feels as if he has been abused and wants to do it to other people with problems. Or maybe he just goes after people with eccentricities because they have weaknesses in which they are self-conscious about and they become easy targets.

"The Displaced Person"

My initial reaction after reading “The Displaced Person” was discomfort and a little anger as well. There were a couple of parts in the story where I was extremely frustrated with the characters and their behavior. When Mr. Shortley, for example, is explaining how if he could travel he would go to Africa or China only because people would be able to tell the difference between him and the natives. He says, “You go to these other places and the only way you can tell is if they say something” (O’Connor 324); I am assuming “these other places” that he is speaking of are Germany and Poland given that he has repeatedly says there is no difference between the two. This is a very rude and almost vulgar thing to say. It is amazing to think that someone could say that there is no difference between people from Germany and people from Poland simply because they look alike especially during this time period. Why do we feel the need to distinguish ourselves from those who are different from us? Are Mrs. McIntyre and Mr. Shortley any better than the Guizac family? No. However, it matters to Mr. Shortley; he wants everyone to know that the Guizac family is different and where they come from.

I found all of this rather disturbing; Mr. Shortley would not have this foreigner outdo him and the only way for him to keep Mr. Guizac down is to spread rumors because it is evident that Mr. Shortley is no where near as good of a worker as Mr. Guizac. Therefore, since he cannot surpass him in physical labor he will try and hold him back through horrible gossip. This is irritating because Mr. Shortley has no right to do this simply because Mr. Guizac is a displaced person and he takes advantage of his “American” status to hold Mr. Guizac back.

Ordinary Folk

A common theme throughout the O'Connor stories we've read is that people--Southern people specifically, with her work--are dichotomous.

On the one hand, her characters subscribe to a loosely defined code of social decency, focused more on meeting these criteria than actually acting decent. On the other, her characters feed off each other like parasites. Exploitation is a common theme, and if there is a character that I believe best fits O'Connor's view of the typical person, it's Pointer.

I say this because he is able to work within this social construct not with an idealistic bent but rather an opportunistic one. He looks after his own best interests while conforming to an acceptable image. In the end, he has it both ways.

Pointer stands in contrast to Mrs. Hopewell and Joy (funny names), who are each idealistic in their own way. In Mrs. Hopewell's case, she subscribes to the social mores, at least superficially. Like most of O'Connor's characters she sees herself as moral and looks down on "trash" who don't subcribe to the mores.

Joy is equally idealistic, though in opposition to her mother. She realizes that the "code" of "Good Country People" is a farce, and she is too intelligent to be aussaged by the contradictions of her mother's life.

Both, however, are subscribing to a moral code: Mrs. Hopewell to one of social mores, Joy to one of truth. This makes them both susceptible to the advances of Pointer, who is equally adept at hocking Bibles to housewives and stealing the limbs from their daughters.

While there are plenty of Mrs. Hopewells and Joys in the world--or at least people who fancy themselves as such--I believe O'Connor believes that there are more Pointers in the world. While Mrs. Hopewell's "Good Country People" are a myth, Pointer is all-too real.

Two Sides of Immigration

With the character of Guizac, O'Connor touches on our somewhat schizophrenic relationship with immigrants, and shows that the xenophobia surrounding immigration issues is a timeless topic.

As has always been the case in this country, immigration is vital to the success of our economy. Though this can lead to exploitation, American businesses rely on low-income workers to come in from other countries desperate to do the dirty work Americans don't want to do.

At the same time, Americans complain that the immigrants are taking our jobs.

How true is this with Guizac! At first, he's a godsend for Mrs. McIntyre, as he's grateful for any work, and unlike her American laborers, who are prone to loafing, he is a hard, uncomplaining worker.

The initial suspicion of him comes not from Mrs. McIntyre, but rather from the other characters who feel threatened by his work ethic. They eventually convince Mrs. McIntyre to act against her own best interests, and not with logical reasons, but rather suspicion and xenophobia.

This type of thinking has permeated immigration issues, and still does. The absurdity of it would be comical were it not so tragic.

Paranoia in The D.P.

What stood out in my mind while and after reading The Displaced Person was Mrs. Shortley's idea of herself. She liked portraying herself as a strong person, loving the feeling of putting other people down. Despite her best efforts, I found her to be a completely insecure, paranoid individual. She confided in her husband, most likely for his approval of her insecurities and theories, yet she couldn't keep her mouth shut around the others. The one section of the story that really stood out for me was when Mr. and Mrs. Shortley were in bed, and Mr. Shortley was pretending to be a "dead man." While Mrs. Shortley had an incredibly low opinion of black people, she confessed, "I aim to take up for the niggers when the time comes." She talks in circles, in an attempt to find reason in her fear of "them poles." Mrs. Shortley's constant paranoia branches from the threat that they have more knowledge than they let on. My question is...if she views herself as being so much better than them, speaking poorly of them behind their backs, then what is she afraid of? And why would she even speak of her fears out loud? It seems that with her pride, she would keep these emotions bottled up.

The Displaced Person from a Sociological Standpoint

I cannot help but think that O’Connor’s sole purpose for “The Displaced Person” was to simply shock American culture into awareness of its own intolerance toward the victims of the Holocaust. She most definitely suceeded into shocking into awareness of how American culture pervertedly percieved the horrors of the war. In her writing however, O'Connor never mentions the words ‘concentration,’ ‘Hitler,’ or ‘Nazi’ but the absence of those key words only heightens the importance of the subtext in sentences like “I’m a logical practical woman and there are no ovens here and no camps and no Christ Our Lord.” Obviously Mrs. McIntyre alludes to the mass murder of the people in Europe, but her own misconstrued notions of right and wrong persuade her to believe Mr. Guizac deserves nothing—not even the chance to make a living after fleeing his home. She believes she solidifies the true system of America when she refuses to allow her black worker to send for Mr. Guizac’s cousin, and rebukes him saying “I cannot understand how a man who calls himself a Christian could bring over a poor innocent girl over here and marry her to something like that.” She calls her black worker a “that.” As if he were less than human.” Forget that this young woman has been in a “camp” for three years. Forget that she may be starving and dying. It would not be worth it to Mrs. McIntyre to derail her reputation and allow a mixed marriage to occur under her nose. Racism, again, championed over basic moral reasoning. She should let this young woman suffer, obviously, because it would be better to die than to marry a black person? What?! The simply ironies in this story were bitter and sickening. Was the American mindset really too proud to welcome these displaced families—these suffering families uprooted from their homes and torn away from their loved ones— with open arms? Did Americans refuse to believe in moral obligation? Is the reason O’Connor wrote this story to shake our society into recognizing that we fit the mold of either Mrs. Shortley, a person motivated by greed and ignorance, or Mrs. McIntyre, a person motivated by greed, pride, and dangerous ideology. I really do not even know what to write about after reading this story. I feel such animosity toward these women because I know that women in my own country harbored these xenophobic fears toward people who truly had nothing. Nothing. The nonchalant way Mrs. McIntyre and Mrs. Shortley women speak of these refugees—“the Pole and his family were getting fat; she pointed out that the hollows had come out of their cheeks” or “every time Mr. Guizac smiled, Europe stretched out in Mrs. Shortley’s imagination, mysterious and evil, the devil’s experiment station.” Mrs. Shortley claimed “Mr. Guizac came from the devil”, and that unlike him, she was one of God’s chosen ones with a “special part in the plan because she was strong.” Her so-called strength eventually gave her a stroke. Her husband blamed her death on their devil-contaminated Poles. In contrast, Mrs. McIntyre initially claims that Mr. Guizac is her “salvation” and again, in her conversation with the Priest, Mr. Guizac is recognized as a Christ figure who “didn’t have to come in the first place” but “came to redeem us.” Mr. Guizac and his family worked only to find a home with Mrs. McIntyre, but she rejected him and his tireless, perfect work. She rejected perfection, and in a sense, rejected Christ. Again, this piece seems to serve entirely as O’Connor’s social commentary of America’s hypocrisy. We say we believe in freedom, but we reject the oppressed. We say we believe in a loving Christian God, but we reject his principles.

The religious overtones in this story seemed to saturate every part of the story. The peackock stood as another metaphor for Christ. Mrs. Shortley prophesized “the children of wicked nations with be butchered,” foreshadowing the death of Mr. Guizac. Both Mrs. Shortley and Mrs. McIntyre claim to be Christian women but condemn the priest as one who “comes to destroy.” The women use religion to appease the guilt they would otherwise have felt toward the Polish family. If I had more time, I would dig more into the religious themes of this short story.

Rich or Poor, Everyone Fears Industrious Immigrants

I thought that "The Displaced Person" exemplified the fear of immigrant workers that pervades both working class and upper class Americans through the fears of Mrs. Shortley and Mrs. McIntyre. Initially Mrs. McIntyre was able to appreciate Mr. Guizac's strong work ethic and multitude of job skills because she viewed him as non-threatening but mysterious. The Shortley's thought that they could escape from his problematic presence, but the need for forced Mr. Shortley to try to reclaim his job. However, rather than try to prove his worth to Mrs. McIntyre, Mr. Shortley only attempts to reinforce her racially motivated distrust of Mr. Guizac. However, I had a strong impression that if Mrs. McIntyre hadn't feared that Mr. Guizac would upset the strict Southern social structure by ignoring racial boundaries, she would have continued to benefit from his presence. This story shows how economic pressure and a desperate desire to maintain established social norms can cause rich and poor Americans to hate and fear immigrant laborors regardless of the possible positive impact that they could have on our society.

Displaced Person

I thought the “Displaced Person”, was a very honest story due to the fact that it is true how society teats immigrants even in today. People are constantly blaming and immigrants and acting just as Mrs. Shortely does. Mrs. Shortley is very critical and uses names to make fun of the immigrant like the Guizac’s she calls, “Gobblehook, but not to their faces. I also found it interest how she brought the “negros” into the story and showed how Mrs. Shortley acted around them as well. It showed that closed mindedness is not just to one group but rather it spreads to all groups that are unlike her. I also thought the Priest had a very interesting role in the beginning that seemed to emphasize the idea that not all people feel the same as Mrs. Shortely. I also liked the fact that this story shows that people do not change even today we still hold certain ideals that are outdated just because our parent or grandparent believe in them.

Blindness in "The Displaced Person"

This morning, when I woke up, I felt differently about the role of the peacock and what it could possibly symbolize in O'Connor's short story. I know peacocks are often associated with The Transfiguration of Christ (I've seen a lot of artwork of this in churches, particularly when I was in Greece), so it took me on a religious tangent. I did some more research today, and also found that peacocks have another, sometimes more sinister, symbolic meaning within society. The most useful sight was actually vanishingtattoo.com, which provides the symbolic meaning of peacocks throughout the ages! To this day, in many cultures, peacock feathers are not allowed inside the home because they are "the evil eye" and bring bad luck into the home; the green part at the end looks like an eye to many people. The tattoo artist also called it the "bird with 100 eyes" because of its pattering. O'Connor also draws attention to the "spots of sky" at the end of Mrs. McIntyre's bird. When I re-read the short story, I noticed that O'Connor incorporated the motif of blindness into her short story.
Many characters, one way or another, seem to suffer from poor eyesight. The first instance of blindness I noticed was with Mrs. Shortley, when the peacock is first introduced. Her "unseeing eyes [are] directly in front of the peacock's tail", and yet she is unable to see it, because she is trying so desperately to see what is beyond it. Mrs. McIntyre, perhaps more than any other character, carries on the motif of blindness. She lacks foresight, that is the ability to see how her actions will affect her and others around her, and also the ability to see people clearly for who they truly are. She wills herself to be blind to the faults of some people, while willing herself to be blind to the virtues in others in order to justify her selfishness. When Guizac tells her about Astor stealing her turkey, she responds that "all Negroes will steal". Mr. Guizac strives to bring honesty and enlightenment onto her farm, and she struggles equally against his attempts in order to remain ignorant. She also chooses to ignore Mr. Guizac's virtues and humanity, seeing him as one of a million faceless victims, in order to deny her responsibility to him. Mrs. McIntyre, Mr. Shortley, and Sulk are also blind to how their actions will result disastorously. Like many of O'Connor's works, she uses foreshadowing to alert the reader to a disastrous end; although she provides her readers with sight, her characters obliviously continue on towards a path of self-destruction.
Once again, the peacock also emphasizes the blindness that is taking place on the dairy. The bird is considered "a mythic metaphor as all-seeing witnesses to hidden transgressions" (vanishingtattoo.com), which is why O'Connor is always careful to emphasize its presence its presence in the story. The bird is all-seeing and all-knowing- once more associating it with God- and a witness to the many sins that are occurring on the farm. Ironically, it is the one character who can see everything that is taking place, yet lacks the language to communicate. I also wonder if the fact that Mr. Guizac wears "gold-rimmed glasses" is significant. He also has poor eyesight, but tries to correct his insufficiencies, his human imperfections, through glasses. While the others will themselves to be blind, he wants to see clearly. This motif of blindness ties into my assertions last night about racism. The characters allow themselves to be blinded by appearances, and are unable to see people for who they truly are.

The D.P. has made me worry

This is I guess less about the literary aspects of The Displaced Person but rather my initial reactions to it while and after reading it. First of all, I felt very tense the entire time reading the story. I cannot remember feeling that way about reading her other stories. Perhaps it was because she spent SO much time leading up to every incident that happened, it seemed more suspenseful. The constant griping about the immigrant from Poland made me uneasy. It also made me feel incredibly sad that almost nothing has changed as time has gone passed. No, we aren't really complaining about the Poles taking our jobs, but we have been complaining. Especially the language issue. I cannot help but remember all the times I've heard in conversation that people get irritated because an immigrant will not learn the English language. Honestly, I see both sides, and I've decided to remain completely neutral about this issue until absolutely forced to make a decision.

This fear of the unknown and "exotic" has pretty much been a constant theme in all our history. I feel like the peacock in the story kind of represented the Guizac family. They are such beautiful creatures, but all except for the priest, everyone seems annoyed by them and just put up with them (another mouth to feed). A part of me feels really guilty for not knowing. Why? It's part of tolerance. I feel like I'm a pretty accepting person when it comes to other people's ways of life... but I worry that there is some polite immigrant out there who sees me as a Mrs. Shortley.

I think I'm getting off track... My initial reaction I guess was just uneasiness. And not the same uneasiness that Mrs. Shortley felt in the beginning. It was the tension between the two sides. The two "white" sides anyway. I honestly do not know how I feel about the black servant representation in this story. I KNOW they have an integral part in it, but I think I'm too clouded right now about the immigrant/worker tensions that I've actually failed to think about the black workers. How should I feel about the put downs, but then when push comes to shove, it's the Shortleys that are fired? Obvious racism, but there is also obvious comfort in knowing them, making them less of the unknown. But the Shortleys were a comfort to Mrs. McIntyre too. I'm confused about this so I welcome any comments.

Displaced Jesus

Like many of O'Connor's other short stories, the Biblical allusions were especially striking to me in "The Displaced Person". Mr. Guizac plays the role of a modern Jesus throughout the story, which is particularly evident in the end, when it is his innocence and naivety that makes him an outsider, and ultimately leads to his death. Also, he is a "carpenter", so the connection here is undeniable! In my opinion, the priest played a minor part in the plot of the story, other than to emphasize the purity of Mr. Guizac through juxtaposition: while the priest should ideally represent holiness on earth, he demonstrates a deluded sense of religion. While he is religious, he is far from spiritual, and his detachment from Jesus and the true meaning of God is evident. (I will get into this more, when I discuss the peacock as a religious symbol) Unlike Father Flynn, who demonstrates his faith through pious speeches and his appearance, Mr. Guizac exudes holiness. His integrity, like when he tells Mrs. McIntyre about the stolen turkey, and his comical appearance made him an even more appealing character and someone whom I came to respect.
O'Connor's portrayal of her modern-day Jesus was refreshing to me simply because he was realistic and easier to relate to; it seems very rare that an author humanizes a Jesus figure in their literature, and Mr. Guizac therefore is more believable and carries a strong symbolic significance. She describes Mr. Guizac as "shaped like a peanut", and socially awkward in the eyes of American society; many Catholics could consider this depiction of Christ as blasphemous, and it's surprising that O'Connor would portray him as vulnerable, dislikeable, and weak. To his observers, Guizac is a pathetic character, and his appearances enable others to look past his better qualities. O'Connor seems to be playing with the dichotomy of appearances and essence: I argue this through juxtaposing the Pole and the peacock, who also symbolizes a religious character, and whose fate is also determined by its appearance. The peacock, when it is first introduced, is "like a miniature god". Father Flynn is left awe-struck by its beauty, and remarks that, "Christ will come like that", as he watches its feathers unfold before him. In religious iconography, the peacock is associated with "the Transfiguration", which the Father alludes to. Unlike Mr. Guizac, whose personality makes him a symbol of Christ, the peacock is ultimately revered by the Father because of its appearance. This struck me as extremely ironic, because O'Connor is careful to emphasize that, although beautiful, it was extremely annoying and dirty. Their contrasting fates can also be attributed to their differing appearances: while Mr. Guizac dies tragically, the peacock is able to live its life being cared for by Father Flynn. It is his appearance, its "glittering green-gold and blue" feathers that ultimately save its life.
I feel that O'Connor is exploring the dichotomy of seeming vs. being in order to comment on racism. The peacock is privileged because it appears holy; while Mr. Guizac is the Christlike figure, his unusual demeanor, accent, and exterior prevents others from seeing his remarkable qualities. It is also set after World War II, when issues of racism and appearance were at the front debates. By making her Christ figure believable, and therefore perfection attainable, she is also commenting on how tragic racism is. She reveals that it is ultimately our fears of something that is different and "ugly", and not their actions, that often separate the revered from the crucified.

"The Displaced Person"

The ending of “The Displaced Person” seems to come to a definite conclusion more than O’Conner’s other short stories. The way in which O’Conner explains Mrs. Shortley’s obesity and her physiological stress right before she leaves Mrs. McIntyre’s farm prefaces her quick death. The same is true for Mrs. McIntyre’s rapidly declining health and her eventual inability to get out of bed. I also expected Mr. Shortley to leave the farm after Mr. Guizac is killed because of his clear opposition against the Pole. Either Mr. Shortley feels guilt because of the comments he made or he is worried that people might say he had a part in the foreigner’s death. Finally, the priest continues to see Mrs. McIntyre once a week and feeds her peacock, which he has had a fondness for from the onset of the story.

I liked this story because, while O’Conner focuses on the discrimination of the Americans, she remains true to the notion that most people do not change in regard to ideals deeply instilled during their lifetimes. I think that Mrs. McIntyre was possibly struggling with her “more obligations” to keep Mr. Guizac as a worker. However, I am also convinced that she had more trouble firing him because he is the best worker she has ever had. She is forced to look at the worth of her other employees and I like the strain that is created in her character as a result.

Emasculation and Power

In Porter’s That Tree, the main character, the journalist, struggles with the idea of power and emasculation. While we typically see women who are portrayed as “floaters” in Porter’s stories, the journalist (male) in this story assumes this role. In his relationship with Miriam, this role reversal is increasingly evident. Before Miriam’s arrival, the journalist lives with an Indian woman who becomes the mother of his child. When the woman finally leaves, she takes the child with her. The journalist thinks in response, “that’s mine,” … “perhaps,” thus implying that the narrator is incapable of standing up for himself and allows himself to be run by women. Furthermore, the Indian woman asks for furniture as a dowry for her future (non-existent) marriage, and the journalist gladly gives it to her. Therefore, upon Miriam’s arrival, the journalist owns nothing and shortly thereafter looses is job. During the course of their marriage, the journalist remains unemployed while Miriam teaches school. The journalist’s feelings of emasculation by Miriam are fully demonstrated in the restaurant scene, where his wife hides under a table when a man pulls out a gun, rather than using him (the journalist) as a shield. Already feeling emasculated by her, the journalist’s manhood is deeply offended by this act because Miriam has subconsciously demonstrated that even she finds him inadequate. Though there are many more things that can be mentioned to demonstrate role reversals and emasculation the final page of this story is crucial. After Miriam left him, the journalist (a former daydreamer and shoddy poet) realizes that he needs to find a powerful job. Consequently, he becomes a journalist and luckily he is successful. He marries twice more, wielding his status and profession over his spouses and they are subservient. However, the journalist is not content. He feels that he needs another chance with Miriam so that he can prove to her, as well as himself and the world, that he is indeed a man because she represents the male characteristics he so desires to have. Thus, he wants her to be subservient to him and run the marriage the way it should have been the first time (in the journalist’s eyes).

Where is the Love in "That Tree"?

Some parts of the text make me feel as though “That Tree” is the story of a mean joke. Maybe a joke is not the best word to describe it but, I feel as though the narrator is only taking Miriam back in order to prove he has some kind of control. Perhaps I am way off. The narrator is telling this story and I feel as though he is merely bragging. He is bragging to his friends about how his first wife, after five years, has decided that she wants him back. She has realized that her life is not good without him. When we first discover whether or not the narrator with get back together with Miriam he says “he was going to break down and do that very thing”; he was going to give her another chance (Porter 79). “Break down”, he was going to “break down”? And he also states that he will not remarry her; “If she wanted to live with him on these terms, well and good” but her was not going to marry her (Porter 79). If her really loved her, wouldn’t he marry her again? Apparently if Miriam is going to live with him, she has to follow his terms, “She was going to take whatever he chose to hand her, and like it” (Porter 79). I feel this is his reason for getting back together with Miriam; he only wants to control her lifestyle as a way of getting back at her for their previous marriage. It seems like revenge. Yes, for a brief moment it does appear that the narrator still has feeling for his first wife, Miriam, because he ends his second marriage because his wife mocks Miriam and calls her “a mousy little nit-wit” (Porter 68). I still feel as though he wants to prove his worth; I feel as though he wants to show Miriam he is the boss in their new relationship.

Time in That Tree

This is going off of Sarah and Austin's posts:

I also thought the narration in this story was interesting, and something else that I wanted to add on to that, that Austin touched on, was the issue of time and how this adds to the story. To me, the time in this story seems very non-linear, and at points in the story, it is hard to tell if the story he is narrating is happening in the present, or if it is happening in the past. I think Austin is on to something, and I think that this varied time adds to the idea that the artist is spinning his wheels. The story starts out with the artist sitting under a tree, then it jumps to the reasons why he decided to get his act and gear, and get out from under the tree and become a journalist, but then from there the time shifts back and forth from the past to the present. For instance when he is narrating the story of when he first got married to his wife this is told in the past tense, but then he goes further into the past and narrates how before his wife had arrived he had been living with a Native American woman. These time shifts show to me how the artist is living in the past and spinning his wheels, not sure of what to do or where to go next.

Marriage

I've noticed a common theme among many of Porter's stories, that being the somewhat adolescent male figure caught between the desire for excitement and for marriage.

In "Theft," all of the men have mistresses that are more exciting than their wives. In "Maria Concepcion," Juan ping-pongs between Maria Concepcion and Maria Rosa (one providing the sustenance of chicken, the other the indulgence of sweet honey). And in "That Tree," our protagonist bounces between married life with the prim schoolteacher who functions more as a mother figure and an exciting life of poetry, art and unattached Mexican women.

What's interesting about "That Tree" is that Porter, for the first time, is giving the male's side of the story. While it's no more flattering than the others, it does offer a different perspective on this thread that runs through many of Porter's stories.

In all of these stories, marriage is an undesirable end for the male figures, perpetuating a timeless stereotype. In "That Tree," the protagonist is so noncommittal that he talks himself out of paternity of a child. The single life for these male characters is something exotic, fulfilling. Marriage is a necessary evil, and time and again wives are seen not as romantic interests or life partners but as replacements for mothers.

Braggioni keeps a wife at home to wash his feet, but prefers to play music to Laura. Married men buy purses for their mistresses, not their wives. Juan relies on Maria Concepcion for food, but runs off with Maria Rosa.

As for our protagonist in "That Tree," if his stated motives are to be believed, he ultimately chooses life with this mother figure, though that doesn't seem to be his true desire. She is the character that comes in and improves his living conditions, encourages him to break ties with his slacker friends and pushes him into journalism, garnering "the kind of success you can clip out of newspapers and paste in a book, you can count it and put it in the bank..."

I wonder what Porter's ultimate conclusion is on this topic. Is this theme prominent in her work because these are her observations? Or is Porter, whose romantic life appears to be more aligned with these male figures in her stories, working out her own issues?

Love in That Tree

The narrator in That Tree has a fascinating view of love that he doesn't seem to fully recognize. For the narrator, love is an idea of comfort, support and adulation provided by the "other" in a relationship. Miriam does not conform to his idea of what she should be: she does not adore his hobbies or his "artistic lifestyle," she does not clean for him with a smile on her face, and she is apparently not very interested in sex. It seems to me that what this narrator expects from love is a mother figure he can also fornicate with. The brief reference to his mother's cheery disposition and uncomplaining take to housework enforces this idea for me, as it is fairly near the discussion of Miriam's virginity and "frigidity" in the narrative. However, this works both ways. It would seem that Miriam (though we only understand her through the narrator's perception) also has a well formulated conception of what love should be, i.e. a romantic escape from the boredom of her Midwestern life among beautiful, cultured strangers. Miriam's vision of love and marriage are clearly perturbed by the realities of her husband's life (and Mexico in general). Is Porter saying that love is a joining of separate, ultimately incongruous personal visions wherein the participants seek a selfish satisfaction of wish-fulfillment through one another? If viewed this way, love is not selfless, giving or kind (as it is popularly thought of in hallmark cards, movies, etc) but rather self-serving and, at worst, delusional; at best, an attempt to find a person who most wholly conforms to one's internal vision of a partner and companionship.

That Tree Post

In this post, my intention is to analyze why the marriage between the Journalist and Miriam failed. The marriage, in my opinion, collapsed for the following reason. Miriam did not need the Journalist as a husband. She took on financial obligations and saved up her money from her first job for three years, and they ended up living off those savings, her birthday checks, and Christmas money which eventually “melted away and they got nothing for it.” Miriam was forced to occupy the role of the husband, the usual breadwinner of the family, and her doing so emasculated the Journalist, causing him to rely on defense mechanisms— denial, projection—to defend his position of the starving artist. He denied that his poverty of artistry was laziness, and he projected his own opinions onto those Mexican artists surrounding them, saying “these men went ragged and hungry because they had chosen once and for all between the seriousness of their souls and this world.” Miriam pointed out that all of his Mexican artist friends ended up finding careers and making money. Because Journalist remained steadfastly tied to his poetic licenses, he chose to relieve all the responsibility for making money to Miriam, who could not do it alone. By the end of her marriage, she had become “shabby and thin and wild-looking.” Miriam additionally did not need Journalist to challenge her intellectually. Her education threatened Journalist, and he believed her job as a teacher “was the most deadly occupation there was.” It stripped her of her “prettiness” and sparked the understanding that working and learning produced a certain happiness and a content lifestyle. She, however, could find no mental challenge in the housework “she despised and resented.” Miriam must have felt constrained to a submissive lifestyle where she should feel satisfaction from cooking and cleaning for a man who works just as hard as her to bring home food to his family. Except, he felt no family duty calling his name. So, Miriam was left academically static and unneeded as the role of the wife as challenged a challenged equal partner. Because he never gave her one, Miriam had no opportunity to need the Journalist to stimulate her intellectually or challenge her role as a wife. Furthermore, Miriam did not need her husband sexually. She did not challenge his virginity—most likely, because she suspected the truth and never wanted to breach the topic—but she also had “no curiosity” about sex, nor was she “palpitating to learn about life” in the way that her husband believed she would. He thought his job as a husband was to “play the role of a man of the world educating an innocent but interestingly teachable bride.” Her lack of interest in learning about sex hints at the idea that Miriam was not a virgin herself, but remained sexually unsatisfied by her husband. He believed she was merely uninterested, but perhaps she had just known what it was like to really have intimate moments with men and could not feel the chemistry with her husband. In their marriage’s intimate moments, “her mind seemed elsewhere, into some darkness of its own, as if a prior and greater shock of knowledge had forestalled her attention.” To restate: her mind wandered because her mind was preoccupied with a greater knowledge. She knew what she was missing. She did not need Journalist to satisfy her sexually. He could not satisfy her sexually. Finally, Miriam did not need the Journalist to be her savior. At the dance when the generals pulled out their guns, all the Mexican women pulled their husbands to their bodies as shields to save their lives. Miriam, however, saved her own life by running under a table. The Journalist, again, was unneeded. She expected them to be equals when he believed he should be the protector and provider. Only when the Journalist realizes that Miriam left because she did not need him in his life, does he seek revenge in the form of a career. She usurps his idea of utopia, refuses to fit the mold of a subservient Indian woman and blatantly disagrees with his ideology of poverty. But only when the Journalist realizes that Miriam really doesn’t NEED him, as society really doesn’t NEED him—he has no purpose, no existence—does he use her exit as an excuse to make something of himself. Miriam, then, could be the metaphor for “the chalk line” in life. She draws it down as a reminder that the life led right now is one that could totter into purposeful poverty or purposeful success. Living on the chalk line is like living under “that tree.” It’s a life that isn’t real and can easily be erased.

Narrative Structure in "That Tree"

In response to Sarah Petrak's post:

The narrative structure in "That Tree" struck me first for sticking it to convention, and second for being the third story of Porter's (that we've read) that does so. Where stories like "Flowering Judas" and "The Jilting of Granny Weatherall" employ narrative flashbacks, and "Maria Concepcion" indulges in gentle exposition, "That Tree" - along with "Theft" and "Magic" - are all examples of unconventional - at times non-linear - storytelling.

"Theft" begins with the protagonist fresh out of the shower, noticing her purse missing. Most of the story is concerned with the nights of the event previous (when she had her purse) and getting her purse back from the janitress.

We discussed "Magic" as a dramatic monologue in class - an idea I stand behind - though, for the sake of my discussion of "That Tree," I'd like to put forward my own pet theory here. Because of the way the story is formatted, where the hair-brusher's words are all put forward as the be-all, end-all narrative, and with Mme. Blanchard's interspersed dialogue in quotation marks, I think "Magic" is a retelling of the narrator telling Mme. Blanchard this story in the first place.

(I especially find this theory compelling because of the implications of that suggestion in class that the narrator - now armed with Mme. Blanchard's hair - is threatening her new employer with casting the very same spell that was used on Ninette. Further evidence for this idea - the fancy house madam "always hit people over the head with bottles, it was the way she fought" (39); Mme. Blanchard's only has one action in the entire tale (beyond saying something), and that is to close her perfume bottle (41). Could she be arming herself for the coming conflict, the climax that the retold telling of the tale is leading towards? This is thin ice, I know, but isn't it just like Porter to give us a taste of a hint to let our imaginations run wild.)

In "That Tree," the narrator seems to be paraphrasing the words of the journalist to his companion, quoting him directly to spice up the story or reground it in the cafe. The scene is after three marriages, and before Miriam's return.

"Theft" is the working model for my argument. What happens in the moment that Laura stands outside the shower - the opening of the story - is an opportunity for change. She spent the night previous being walked all over, thinking of other people's feeling before her own. With the theft of the purse the protagonist finally has a chance to stand up for herself, but instead gives in, and it's the janitress' own weird pride that gets her the purse back.

So what if these first present moments (the woman standing outside the shower, the narrator brushing Mme. Blanchard's hair/telling of how she brushed Mme. Blanchard's hair, the journalist in the cafe) stand as a crux between how it has been and how it will be, which are nearly identical? What if these present moments represent, instead of a turning point in people's lives, a portrait of a wheel in a rut? So often Porter's stories are the tales of unhappy people stuck going in some direction they never wanted to go in the first place, and unable to get themselves back on tracck.

Some evidence of this "wheel in a rut" idea in "That Tree": Miriam seems to have a new outlook on the journalist in her letter begging for him to take her back; "she regretted, oh, everything, and hoped it was not too late for them to make a happy life together once more" (79). Contrast that with Miriam's letters before their marriage, and that breathy, hopeful tone pops up for the first time; "she longed to live in a beautiful dangerous place among interesting people who painted and wrote poetry" (73-74). Miriam has different desires but seems to be setting herself up for much the same disappointment, especially considering that that happy life she wants to have "once more" never existed in the first place, much like she doesn't find the painters and poets interesting the first time around.

And, of course, there is the problem of that tree. The journalist opens his story to his companion in that way, noting he "had really wanted to be a cheerful bum lying under a tree" (66). And despite all of the alleged changes he has gone through - Miriam's abandonment, becoming an authority on revolutions (moments of real change, mind you), two more marriages - "that tree" persists throughout the story as some impossible ideal. The journalist has spent his adult life proving to Miriam that he "was not just merely a bum, fit for nothing but lying under a tree," when lying under a tree, "writing poetry and enjoying his life" is exactly what he wants to do (78). What the journalist wants hasn't changed, and Miriam doesn't seem to have changed, and when they both get back together - though no one can tell for sure - change doesn't seem to be on the horizon. In fact, the journalist makes a point of saying that things are going to be the same: "She was going to live again in a Mexican house without any conveniences and she was not going to have a modern flat" (79).

In brief, my theory is that Porter uses the unconventional narratives to spice up what could otherwise be a boring story. By telling them non-linearly, or from a strange point of view, she captures the humdrum in an exciting way, adding mystery and a sense of possibility to lives going nowhere (and of course getting all literary in the meantime). Maybe someone can beef this argument up for me, or tear it on down?

That Tree

While I was reading, “That Tree.” I thought it was very interesting that the narrator not only defended Miriam but took her back at the very end after all of her pettiness. The whole story he focuses on her faults rather than directs his attention towards his second wife which he admits he ended his relationship due to her comments about Miriam or he could have been with another person. It seems that he always wants to be with Miriam however, he just does not want to admit that he truly does want to be with her, why else would he take her back in the end?
It was also interesting me his connection with the tree and how he only describes the tree as an oasis in which he is able to be artistic and just worry about his poetry rather than worry about anyone else or what they think about him or his poetry. The tree is his own escape which he gets to disappear into his work.

Re: That Tree

I don't know if he really takes her back or he actually wants to be with her. I think it's more about the idea. He says that he defends her to others that criticize her, but the entire story is pretty much how snobby she is... basically how she NEVER ever would have fit into his lifestyle. He was always dreaming about other things, and he never listened to her until she left.

She was the same way too. The reason that they got together in the first place was because she said she wanted something different than the boring life she had back home. This poet offered her a fantasy... however the fantasy ended up being a nightmare for her. To him, living a life of constant struggle gave him excitement, and it wore her out because she worked her butt off so he could live in his fantasy.

When she finally leaves, he doesn't have the tension anymore. He also doesn't have the financial support, which makes him go get a real job. When she leaves his life, his muse is gone. The muse of struggle and tension and turmoil that a bad relationship offers - not her necessarily.

In the end when he "takes her back," it is all on his terms. No marriage, no compromise, no washer/dryer... She must spend the rest of her life repenting for leaving him. There must be some co-dependency between these two, and I do not think that a second time around is going to make anything better. It sounds like they will just continue to be miserable.

I also think it is important to note how he states their break up. Even though she is the one who leaves, he says she kicked him out. Why is that? Especially when the story emphasizes that she hated Mexico, so it is implied she wouldn't stay.

That Tree: Narrative Viewpoint and Semi-Eclipsed Characters

I've found my sympathies shift each time I go back to this story, and I think Porter designed it that way: even though the story is presumably told from the journalist's point of view, there are telling slips in the narrative viewpoint that create little breaks in his character. Through these little breaks we see the journalist as he sees himself, as his "guest" sees him, and as Mariam sees him. While Mariam has some very unattractive qualities as a person--sexually and emotionally cold, uptight, a bit racist, lacking in curiousity--we are forced to reconsider her as a character precisely because we are clearly getting one man's side of the story. This narrative construction is, in my opinion, one of Porter's most interesting and brilliant thus far. I found myself considering sympathy with an unappealing woman because I was forced to work harder to get to the meat of her character through the slippage in her ex-husband's narrative.

The fascinating part of this narrative construction is that we don't know exactly how much the journalist is admitting to his "guest" --(and I think the guest him/herself is one of the most intriguing characters in Porter thus far, as well)--while we might presume that the third person narrative is being relayed in the first person over drinks, intervening sections of first-person, quoted dialogue destabilize this assumption. In third-person, the text remarks that "Miriam knew better. She knew they were looking for the main chance" (76). Then, the journalist jumps into dialogue, without even breaking the paragraph saying, " 'She was abominably, obscenely right." (76) So even in moments when we think we see a bit of self-reflection, we're not sure how much the journalist is actually admitting in conversation. This slippage in the one-sided quality of this man's narrative constantly frustrates our attempts to get at Mariam's character.

She seems terribly unlikable, a bit prudish, and too serious as the journalist paints her--he even makes her seem cowardly in the dancing scene when she dives under the table to avoid the fallout of a potential gun battle. Yet we get little lines from her: her self-preservation instinct "had nothing to do at all with him," and she "had no intention of wasting her life flattering male vanity." Of course, the journalist is upset she didn't have the presence of mind to use him as a gallant human shield--she embarrassed him by her lack of faith in his masculine chivalry. Yet can we really blame her? After all, he's been living with another woman, and really makes very little effort to support her. (If he could get around to committing himself to the real effort of writing his poetry--of finding "that ideal tree he had in his mind's eye"--instead of "trying to live and think in a way that he hoped would end by making him a poet," he might get somewhere). His aspirations of giving her a sexual education are likewise fraught with ambiguous sympathies: in limited third person, we learn that he intended "to play the role of a man of the world educating an innocent but interestingly teachable bride" (73). Yet Mariam is "not at all teachable" and takes "no trouble to make herself interesting" (73). She comes off as emotionally stunted in some way: no imagination, no romantic spirit, no sense of curiousity or humor or adventure. But from a feminist theory perspective, that doesn't necessarily make her stunted as an intellect or as a woman. Tough luck if she isn't interested in sex or his poems. Tough luck if she doesn't want to play into his romanticized notion of masculinity. There is more to Mariam then this man can ever relay fairly to his guest, since she is often in a world of her own altogether: when they were together, "her mind seemed elsewhere, gone into some darkness of its own, as if a prior and greater shock of knowledge had forestalled her attention" (73). Even in the end, when it seems that Mariam is running back to financial security as a fair-weather friend, the very presence of the ambiguous, obscured guest as an audience to a one-sided tale alerts us to the possibility that there may be more to this woman than there appears.

What Tree? Under the Table and Daydreaming

I have just a few quick observations about this story, "That Tree."  Once again, we have a story about the starving artists and about what it's like to be living in a foreign country, but out of all the Porter Mexico stories, I think this one presents the clearest sense of American response to and prejudices of the Mexican people.  We can see this view in the character of Miriam.  We know from the very beginning that the journalist wanted to come to Mexico to chase the romanticized dream of becoming a poet there (pg. 67), but Miriam really does not want to be there.  We see the racial view from her eyes.  "She would not have an Indian servant near her" because "they were dirty" (75), those Mexican girls "had only one idea in their heads" (71) to her, and she cannot understand the customs of his Mexican artist friends (76).  Miriam and the journalist are on opposite ends of the spectrum here, but I wonder where is Porter?  Maybe this story best captures the essence of what she was feeling:  both drawn to Mexico on one hand and also reacting in shock to some customs that differed from her own?  This story was very difficult for me to find someone to root for.  We think we are learning everything from the journalist's perspective, but later on the character of Miriam becomes more dominant.  What do we make of this ambiguity?

Also, I was wondering if any of you had a similar reaction to learning of the journalist's affair with the Indian girl.  I found it so emotionally alarming for its lack of emotion:  Porter nearly states the affair with such dry nonchalance and indifference.  We do not get any sense of moral judgement, and more importantly, we do not get any feelings from the journalist himself about it.  No guilt, no pride, hardly anything.  We only get that he had an "odd feeling" when he thought the baby may be his (72).  The skill in her narration here, I think, is that this is told without giving us anything to go on in terms of how we are to feel about it, and in turn how it should make us feel about the journalist overall.  I wonder if I just missed something or maybe that's her point, but what could it be trying to achieve?

Flowering Judas

This story may be the most complicated and also the most beautifully written story we have yet read from Porter. My initial question when reading “Flowering Judas” was: who is Judas? Laura, Braggioni, Mrs. Braggioni…humanity? My other immediate question related to the importance of the allusion to the Judas tree. I looked up the Judas tree online and found that it is not native to Mexico, but originally seen in Southern Europe and Asia minor. The myths say that Judas, the betrayer of Jesus, hung himself on the Judas Tree. At the beautiful ending of this story, Laura, in her dream, takes the flowers of the Judas tree and eats them, only to discover she is eating the bread and blood of Eugenio, the imprisoned, dying revolutionary. One could argue, then, of Laura as the Judas figure. She is a “murderer” perhaps by association with Mr. Braggioni. The political tension of the setting is blurry to me. Is this an allegorical story of the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920? I assume that both sides of the revolution believe Laura to be on its side. The wonderful part of Porter’s plot is that we never find out who she really sides with. Her Catholic roots allude to her allegiance but the ending dilutes even that interpretation.

Despite all my questions and confusions about the setting and the relationship between Laura and Braggioni, I found myself enamored by the imagery of this piece, especially in the contrast between Braggioni and Laura and in the ending. Phrases like “every sea shall be merely a tangle of gaping trenches” or “his eye sockets were without light, but she ate the flowers greedily” turned this political tale into a poem, a song. I also was enthralled how Porter shaped the entire text to be a foreshadowing of Laura’s death—or as I interpreted it, her spiritual death.

Flowering Judas: A Story of the Betrayal of Ambiguities

Flowering Judas is a story of betrayal. While the reader assumes this betrayal to be one of a physical nature, Porter’s intensions are otherwise. In this story, there is no “faith” that is not betrayed in some way or the other. I use the word faith loosely because the many “faiths” upheld by the characters in this story do not necessarily stem from a religious perspective. Take, for example, Braggioni. He is the leader of a revolution that fights to redistribute wealth to the general populous, yet, he indulges himself in fine luxuries. In contrast to these “faiths” is Laura, who, loving both her Roman Catholic faith and her political faith cannot divorce herself from either, though the revolution she supports has rejected Catholicism.

Not only is the idea of betrayal prevalent throughout Flowering Judas, it is also ambiguous. Unable to make opposing beliefs coincide, the characters find themselves lost and ultimately unable to achieve their different ideas of self-actualization and are, in turn, lost in a sea of ambiguity. Likewise, the flowering Judas tree serves as a symbol for the ambiguity experienced by these characters. We first see the Judas tree when Laura rejects a suitor by throwing a flower from the tree at him. The flower, traditionally a sign of love, is, of course, misconstrued by the admirer as a token of Laura’s affection. In addition, this tree, in it self aesthetically pleasing, stands for ultimate betrayal. In her nightmare, Laura eats the sensuous flower from the tree, similar to the way in which Eve eats the forbidden fruit. The flower is a beautiful disguise of personal intent from both receiver and giver alike. Thus, Laura is blinded by her beautiful faiths and cannot understand why she is unable to achieve the perfection she so desires. Furthermore, the name “Judas” refers to the name of Jesus’ disciple who betrayed Him and led Him to death.

(Deep Breath: THE END!)

Laura's Self Betrayal

(my previous post was blank, sorry.) While reading Porter's "Flowering Judas," I found myself assuming, along with some of the class, that Laura would suffer betrayal in the end. However, I've decided that Laura brings fear of betrayal on herself, without Braggioni's influence. Laura lives her life in fear, letting no on in, but at the same time, surrounding herself with people who give off the impression of betrayal. She feels out of place when she is awake, and when she is sleeping. She walks down the street in fear, and turns down love when it hits her right in the face. The story captures the idea of living life, anticipating the worst, and never letting love or happiness in. Each night, Laura comes home to Braggioni, dreading the aggressiveness that he is portrayed as having, and anticipating him coming towards her, in which case she will timidly say no. She imagines this happening each time she comes home, but it never does. Laura robs herself of happiness, leaving nothing for her to live for, and it is her own fault for blocking out both the threatening people in her life, and the ones reaching out to her, looking for love.

Another thing...what is the symbolism, if any, for kneeling, and "knees" in general? It kept popping out at me, and I think it represents vulnerability...what do you think?

Re: Re: The Tree of Betrayal

Brad makes a great point regarding Laura's stoicism (and her parallel with the protagonist in "Theft"). There is this unexplained resignation within her. But why?

The Mexican revolutionaries follow Braggioni for one of two reasons: a) They don't see the real person, only the image he's projected, or b) Like him or not, following him is the best option for their quality of life and possibly survival.

It can't be b) for Laura, as she has a home elsewhere and as far as we know would be able to return but chooses not to. It's certainly not a) because she knows the true Braggioni and seems to despise him.

You bring up a great point: What led her to this stoicism?

Flowering Judas

While reading “The Flowering of Judas,” I kept waiting for the theme of betrayal which I assumed would be obvious; however, betrayal seemed to be how Laura felt not an obvious act. To me it seemed as if Laura felt that she had betrayed her own beliefs in religion. I think her secretly doing “Hail Marys” shows her struggle with the catholic religion as well as the title of the story. It seems to me that Laura does not know what to do in her specific situation with Braggioni and it consumes her thoughts and isolates her from the world around her.
It also seems as if Laura believes she betrayed Eugenio, due to her dream where she asks for his hand and all he does is gives her the blossoms of the Judas Tree, and when she eats them and he then calls her a “Murderer” and states that it is his “body and his blood”. So Laura not only feels guilty as if she murdered Eugenio the only person she does not isolate herself from but also uses the Christian theme of taking the Eucharist as an expression of betrayal due to Judas’s actions during the last supper and his betrayal to Jesus.

Political Narrative

I think the pervasive Biblical references in "Flowering Judas" suggest the overwhelming importance of narrative in political movements. As was pointed out, Braggioni's wish washes his feet as though he is Jesus. It seems difficult to accept Braggioni as a Christ figure, given what we know about his morals and manners. Yet, in order for any revolution or political movement to have life, there must be a supporting narrative to convince followers (and leaders) that they are justified in their beliefs and actions. (When Laura admits she won't wear lace made by machine, an idea counter to the revolution, it is called her "private heresy," framing political ideals is clearly religious terms) (92).

Braggioni frames himself as a prophet--perhaps a Christ figure--but unlike Christ, Braggioni is a "professional" who "will never die of it"(98). Yet, in the teleological narrative of the revolution, there is an expected apocalyptic endpoint: Braggioni claims that "Some day this world, now so composed and eternal...shall be merely a tangle of gaping trenches, of crashing walls and broken bodies" (100). If he is a prophet or a Christ figure, he must see himself as one of the few surviving "elect spirits destined to procreate a new world" (100).

In the driving political narrative, I had to wonder about Laura's place. She only half-heartedly buys into Braggioni's prophet character. But does she still accept and believe in the teleological pseudo-religious narrative of the revolution? She seems enamoured with her own role: she enjoys playing the spy, the go-between. Certainly, it's glamourous. I think this is the core of her betrayal of Eugenio. As an expat, she doesn't have a vested interest in the revolution in the sense that she doesn't have to put herself in these dangers for the sake of her home country. Yet real patriots like Eugenio are committing suicide in prison. Reading the reference to cannibalism in here, I think Laura can be considered a cannibal in the sense that she is feeding off the narrative of a revolution which is not her own.

On a side note, something to consider for the second part of the course: Did Porter have anxieties about "feeding" off of Mexico? Did she have anxieties about living the glamourous life of an expat and using the stories of the people of a country which was not originally her own?

Flowering Judas

Looking at Porter's plot lines, "Flowering Judas" in particular, I get a real sense of un-resoltions through all the way to the climax, then a slight resolution that instead of staying resolved, ends in an unexpected place. "Flowering Judas" is a prime example of this, the repetition of Laura's beauty, her revolutionary efforts and he suitors all point to a woman who is happy and yet her reactions are so static that we wonder about what is wrong with her. She is seemingly unmotivated by any of the things she encounters, and goes along not trying to change her situation. It almost reminds me if Judas would have lived instead of hanging himself, loosing meaning and love in his life, and yet cannot apply himself towards anything. Laura does so much and yet is uncommitted to any one thing, none of it gives her joy, which, more than anything, dis-empowers a seemingly powerful character. Porter is a master at paradox, especially by introducing biblical themes, and contorting them.

Re: The Tree of Betrayal

My initial reactions after reading this story seem very much like Jessica.  I immediately was drawn to all the Christian symbols and themes.  I agree that betrayal is an important theme here, but I am wondering if it was as simple as Laura betraying Eugenio.  I think that Porter may also be hinting that Laura is betraying herself on a different level.  For whatever reason, Laura has adopted a strong sense of stoicism.  She senses that "violence, mutilation, a shocking death, wait for her with lessening patience" (93).  Even at the end, in her dream, Eugenio is taking her to her death, and she does not protest or fight to live.  It sounds as though she will accept the invitation as long as she can hold his hand (102).  Why has Laura seemingly given up on life?  I think that this is another betrayal:  giving up on herself and her right to live and just continually existing in a detached state of stoicism.

On a side note, I could not help but drawing huge parallels between Laura and the woman in "Theft."  Like the woman in "Theft," Laura is denying herself intimate, personal connections with people, everyone around her "remain strangers to her" (97).  Both women seem to be sabotaging themselves.  I wonder if this view of a woman is what Porter may have had in mind or if the connections just seem so apparent only because "Theft" is so fresh in the mind, only having read it last week.  Did anyone else get a sense of these women being similar in how they view life?

Laura "Hannibal" and loss of faith

I think the line where Eugenio calls Laura a cannibal stuck out for me more than anything. After reading this, I started drawing correlations with the Bible, and this one has really got me stumped! I'm going to go on a controversial limb...

I understand why he calls her a murderer. It is the connection with the Judas blossoms and Judas betraying Jesus, which lead to his death. Since I don't actually know what the connection between Laura and Eugenio is (there was a line about love, but I read it over and over and I cannot seem to grasp it!) I'm not really sure what the value of the murder line is here. I just understood the connection.

Now the cannibal line... I connected this with the loss of her Catholic faith. How I read the story was that she used to be Catholic, but life and especially the revolution has jaded her, and she doesn't really have faith in anything. She is walking this path that she has chosen for herself, but even though she's not fond of it anymore, she doesn't really care to change it. As I understand, during communion, Catholics take and eat and drink the actually blood and body of Christ. This is a literal view of the last supper where Jesus offers these things to his disciples. Can this be where the cannibal comment came from? Or have I just royally offended people by taking such a literal view myself? I guess we can take this more figuratively. The definition of cannibalism is one that eats others of its own kind. I didn't really see Laura as a life sucker of any sort, rather, just a good woman making the steps of the right path yet not really believing in any of it.

I would love to hear comments on this. Possibly from those that have more knowledge on either Catholicism or cannibalism.

The Tree of Betrayal

The use of Christian imagery in “Flowering Judas” was very interesting. Not only is the image of Judas brought about from the title, but the Tree of Knowledge, the infamous last supper and also the image of Mary Magdalene washing Jesus’ feet are all referenced. It is very rare that the name Judas is not associated with Christ’s betrayer. Simply upon reading the title “Flowering Judas”, I knew some sort of betrayal would take place. After Laura eats the blossoms from her Judas tree she is given some kind of knowledge, she is now awake. Before she eats the tree blossoms Eugenio calls her a prisoner and this is why she must eat them. Just as the Tree of Knowledge frees Adam and Eve from their prison like state, this Judas tree will free Laura as well. After she eats the blossoms Eugenio calls her a murderer because she is eating his body and his blood, which bring about images of the Last Supper. She sees that she has betrayed him. I am a little confused of the order in which these events are presented especially when compared to the biblical references. Judas first attends the last supper, where he breaks bread and drinks of the wine and then he goes on to betray Christ. However, in “Flowering Judas” Laura first betrays Eugenio then eats the Judas blossoms, which make her realize her betrayal. Can anyone clarify this for me? Is the order important?

The image of Mary Magdalene washing Jesus’ feet can be seen in the actions of Braggioni’s wife washing her husbands feet once he has returned to her. She sits as his feet with a basin of water just as Mary Magdalene did with Jesus.

Why Mexico?

I sympathize with Vince’s questioning why Laura is in Mexico. I find it strange that Laura has, for no stated reason come to a strange country, and finds herself unable to leave: “Uninvited she has promised herself to this place; she can no longer imagine herself as living in another country, and there is no pleasure in remembering her life before she came here” (93). Laura seems to have disconnected herself from her past, yet she mentions that she learned to ride horses in Arizona even though her gentleman friend does not ask her where she learned to ride. I think Laura likes her anonymity in Mexico. She has the ability to walk wherever she wants because she has no connections, which also allows her to be connected to everyone. I wonder if Porter, who calls herself an expatriate, is relating what it means to have forgotten or decided to leave behind where one comes from and to live wandering from place to place without any real motives or obligations.

Also, I find it interesting that Porter emphasizes, again, the gluttony of her character Braggioni. I think that Porter is once again alluding to Diego Rivera, who is also very politically motivated, and considered an important leader. Other similarities include that Braggioni is insulted by Laura when she is not willing to sleep with him. Also, he indulges in American perfumes, women, and food.

Eugenio

After reading "Flowering Judas" twice, I am still a bit uncertain of the connection between Laura and Eugenio. Accepting that Porter is giving us all the information about their relationship, it's easy to see him as a manifestation of her subconscious both accusing and warning her of her involvement with Braggioni.

It is clear to Laura that Braggioni is using the revolutionaries for his own profit, and she assists Braggioni in playing the Polish and Rumanian agitators against one another. And though she provides some refief to the prisoners she visits, she is well aware that Braggioni is doing nothing to help them get out. Laura is living well off of Braggioni's money and influence, drinking hot chocolate and enjoying a good job, while the prisoners "entertain themselves with counting cockroaches..." (94).

Laura acknowledges her complicity on page 93: "'It may be true I am as corrupt, in another way, as Braggioni,' she thinks in spite of herself, 'as callous, as incomplete,' and if this is so, any kind of death seems preferable."

So when Eugenio, who is assumed to be dead, appears in her dream, leading her to death, and calls her a murderer and a cannibal, this is her subconscious manifesting its guilt over bringing the prisoners drugs in lieu of real help (and in fact possibly making things worse by offering false hope) and the fact that she is living well in cahoots with Braggioni while they are suffering for his profit.

However, I am suspicious of an even deeper connection between the two. Of all the men Laura interacts with, from her suitors to the agitators to the prisoners, only Eugenio is named. Earlier in the story, Laura's virginity is brought up but never fully explored. I doubt that Porter would make mention of this without it bearing some significance on the ending. So I can't help but wonder if there is some deeper connection between Laura and Eugenio. We never know why Laura is there, in a foreign country, with these people, and Braggioni suggests it is either that she loves someone, or someone loves her. And for all the men that Laura visits in prison, why is Eugenio the one that brings her guilt to the surface?

Not sure if there's something to that or if I'm making connections that aren't there, but I'm very curious about the connection between Laura and Eugenio.

The Martyr

Ramon recorded Ruben's last words as "tell them I am a martyr to love. I perish in a cause worthy the sacrifice. I die of a broken heart" but I believe Ruben died not because he loved Isabel, but because he loved food. I read this story as if he died of a heart attack because of his unhealthy lifestyle habits. Ruben convinced himself that he ate because Isabel nicknamed him "Churro" or he wanted to revist the restaurant they often frequented so he would miss her less or stay transfixed with his love for her, but truly, I believe his obsession with Isabel merely covered his obsession with eating and refusal to give up self control. Isabel as a "lover" was merely a distraction and her absence only allowed him to self indulge guiltlessly, blaming his lack of self control on a woman. "Layors of fat piled insidiously upon him" and he killed himself by not listening to the doctor's orders or his friends' pleas. His epitath, would, then, read: I am a martyr to the love of food. I die of a broken, unhealthy heart attack. Perhaps Porter argues that self indulgence only leads to death. Death of the spirit. Death of happiness. In the case of Ruben, physcial death. He would rather die than change his lifestyle and respect/love himself.

Also, after our class discussion about Porter's disdain to the idea of the suffering artist, I realized that another association with artists is the "starving artist," and I couldn't help but chuckle at the idea of Ruben as a starving artist. The humor and irony of the story, then, would reflect not Porter's antipathy toward society's view of the artist as genius only in his suffering, but her mocking sentiment toward people who believe that view. 

Maria Concepcion

I don't remember the last time I read a short story like "Maria Concepcion," a short story that causes me to actually detest every character. This tale reminded me very much of what I am learning about in my physical anthropology class: the roots of human violence, natural selection, primitive instincts, etc. Each character emulates some kind of animalistic nature, the bestial part of human nature. Juan devolves back to the primitive animal state when he refuses to control his sexual longings. Maria Rosa knowingly ruins a functioning marriage. Maria Concepion slits the throat of Maria Rosa then steals her child. Even Givens and Lupe refuse to acknowledge the concept of justice, a civilized and democratic principle, by, respectively, bailing Juan out from prison and announcing out Maria Rosa’s murderer. Irrationality motivates each person, especially Maria Concepcion, who ironically goes to church daily. When she finds out about the affair, her purpose in life becomes “to sit down quietly and wait for death, but not until she had cut the throats of her man and that girl.” Her rationale is that Rosa is a whore with no right to live and eventually builds her anger solely toward the adulteress. Does that truly turn Concepcion’s revenge into a rationalized revenge? I know that revenge, in Christian views, is never rationalized. It all comes down, therefore, to this primitive desire in all of us for survival. Concepcion numbs herself to the surroundings; she can slit the throat of a fowl without flinching and cry no tears for her own dead infant because she knows that the fowl is merely an economic token and asset to prevent starvation and because her child will hinder her new purpose. By the end of the story, Maria Concepcion kills everything her husband loved because he betrayed her. She takes the life of Maria Rosa to increase the likelihood that Concepcion’s family will prosper. I noted too, that the quick resolve to violence is a primitive emotion in humanity as well as in our animal relatives. Chimpanzees, for example, become extremely violent when threatened and studies show they have been observed in enjoying violent actions. Maria Concepcion revealed the inner beast, the barbarism within ever animal threatened with reproductive survival and isolation.

The Human Inability to Reduplicate Christ's Suffering in Perfect Form

In both Maria Concepcion and The Martyr, we see the suffering of individuals. In both cases, these sufferings are induced by others, but are internalized by the afflicted characters in different ways. The afflictions faced by the characters Maria and Rueben parallel Christ’s own suffering. However, both of these characters are human and thus, imperfect, and cannot suffer in the same selfless manner of Christ.

Maria Concepcion’s suffering more closely resembles Christ’s than does Rueben’s. Maria suffers the loss of her newborn child after her husband’s betrayal, but rather than curse him and openly bemoan her pitiful state, she secludes herself and attends church with increasing frequency. However, when Reuben is abandoned by his sitter Isabella, he suffers openly, making his burden the burden of his friends.

Though Maria Concepcion suffers nobly, her downfall is ultimately her desire for vengeance. When Maria Rosa returns with Juan, Maria Concepcion’s husband, Maria Concepcion’s jealously and pride erupts and she murders her husband’s lover. In contrast, Rueben’s downfall is his own self-hatred. Rueben outwardly portrays this hate by eating absurd proportions of food, though he can see how this habit is affecting his health. Ultimately, this gluttonous, self-hatred kills Rueben.

While Maria’s flaw may seem worse than Rueben’s, these characters are judged differently by their peers. After the murder, no one speaks out agaist Maria Concepcion, although they all know she killed Maria Rosa. Furthermore, they do not protest when Maria Concepcion claims Maria Rosa’s baby for her own. In the villagers minds, this action seems just, and Maria Concepcion’s pious life seems to right this immense wrong. In contrast, though Rueben’s suffering harms only himself, no one seems to truly remember him. Rather, one man decides to write a book that will ultimately profit the author, and says that he will truly remember the tamales, Rueben’s favorite dish.

Thus, both Maria and Rueben commit fallacies. While Maria suffers inwardly, Rueben suffers outwardly. Maria’s suffering ends in murder while Rueben’s suffering ends in self-inflicted death. Maria’s peers stand up for her, while Rueben’s merely forget him. Thus, both characters cannot suffer silently for other and are ultimately blinded by their own human desires.

Immaculate Conception of "Maria Concepcion"

I found the word play of “Maria Concepcion” interesting. Before reading this story the title brought to mind the immaculate conception of Mary. As the story progressed I was losing the connection between the title and my original thought considering that Maria Concepcion has a child by her own husband. After the story was over however, I realized that there was somewhat of an ‘immaculate’ conception. Maria Concepcion takes Maria Rosa’s baby as her own after she has killed her. Maria Conception did not conceive this baby, it just happen to come upon her. (I may be stretching a little bit, but I feel as if there is some connection between the title of this short story and biblical references.) She says, “He is mine” and takes the child with her (Porter 20). She raises a child whom she did not conceive, so, to me that appears as if it could be considered an immaculate conception.

There are also times when Maria Concepcion is referred to in such a way as the Virgin Mary would be. When the police are questioning the townspeople, they defend Maria Concepcion saying, “She is a woman of good reputation among us, and Maria Rosa was not” (Porter 19). Maria Concepcion, just like Mary, had a good reputation because she was a virgin and had not sinned, unlike Maria Rosa.

Maria Concepcion is robbed of her husband and her child and therefore she takes Maria Rosa’s life and her child as her own. Does she take Maria Rosa’s child simply because she was deprived of her own? Why does she not kill the child along with his mother, since he was conceived by her husband and another woman?

"The Martyr"

The title of this short story confused me as well at first, being that Ruben didn't sacrifice anything for Isabel, to deserve such a title. I came to the conclusion that Ruben spent a majority of his time convincing his friends that he was worthless, only able to eat and drink his sorrows away. I think Ruben forced the title of "The Martyr" upon himself, desperately reaching out to Isabel, wanting her to know how she broke his heart. He says on page 35, "I have a pain in my heart that will kill me. There is no woman like that one." His friends all viewed his behavior as being stupid, and Ruben went on to prove to them, and everyone else that he did, in fact, have a pain in his heart that would kill him. I think the title of the story comes more from Ruben's perspective than from Porter's. Without the character's view of his broken heart, the title, "The Martyr" feels forced.

O'Connor's Reference: Black lawn jockeys

Class: this image was prevalent in yards throughout the South well into the mid-1960s and often beyond. The black lawn jockey is what The grandfather and son see:
http://www.lawnjock.com/images/blackjockey1.jpg

It probably should have dawned on me that many (all?) of you would never have seen statuary such as this. We have come some disdance after all.

Puzzled over "The Martyr"

"The Martyr" left me with a few questions, and I was wondering if anyone else noticed the same things. On pgs. 35-36, the narrator hints that Ruben's friends know the "true cause of his pain," which does not seem to be Isabel, which he himself does not know. What is this about? Is Porter hinting that he is really not grief-stricken over Isabel, but that something else could be the cause of his pain? In a strictly psychoanalytical reading, could it maybe be his shortcomings as an artist which he uses Isabel as inspiration to conceal?

Also, the end of the story left me wondering about Isabel: what happens to her, her reaction (or lack of one) to Ruben's death, etc. I wonder if Porter is purposefully not giving us closeure on that one to make a point or merely because the main thrust of the story was about Ruben and not her.

"The Martyr" title

I was confused as the title of “The Martyr”. I do not get why Ruben calls himself a martyr to love when he has sacrificed nothing. Usually when I picture a martyr I think of someone who has given up something of great importance, like leaving a family, or even giving up ones life, for a cause that he or she truly believes in. The term also has strong links to religion. I think Ruben is stretching the use of this concept. I think he wallows in his own self-pity and he chooses to indulge in food. Obviously, when he uses the term he is trying to hold his resignation from work and reality with high regard. I think that Porter might be making fun of artists who believe that their work relies heavily on a muse, or something outside of themselves. Or perhaps she is making a comment on the arrogance of many artists in general.