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.