Word Choices - AP English Literature - Blog

Faulkner Screwed Us Over

After reading such a detailed and complex novel like "Light in August", I was extremely dissapointed in the ending.  Our final LIA quiz asked us if we thought that the last chapter of the book tied in with the rest of the story and whether it was a fitting end to the novel.  I was ticked off by the ending of the book because it almost seems as if Faulkner screwed us over.  When I talked to fellow classmates about what they thought of this question, they all seemed to think that the final chapter went well with the novel because it provided parallel structure to the first chapter.  Yes, it did provide parallel structure, and yes it did tie in with the book, and yes it does make us wonder about the outcomes of Lena, her baby, and Byron... but it just made me think, is that all you've got Faulkner?  After being enthralled and captivated in the novel and having to follow every turn of events with complete caution, I expected a huge and awesome ending.  The end was basically the same as the beginning, as we see Lena on the road again in search of her "baby daddy".  The only thing different in the end is that Lena is accompanied by a baby and a man, and a whole bunch of people are dead.  Basically, I now see "Light in August" as one big circle.  It might be fine for a less eloquent novel to be shaped like this, but one so complex and intricate as "Light in August" should really have a more suspense filled ending making the reader hungry for more.  

Light End August

the final chapter of Light In August provided a meaning to me that consisted of both an anticlimactic and fitting nature. It resolved with me in that it symbolized the fundamental differences between Lena and Joe Christmas, and to me made Lena into sort of a hero or ideal figure in the story. Joe is plagued by his conflicting identity in accordance to society and refuses to accept it, upset with his constant need to wander. Lena, on the other hand, freely accepts her destiny as determined by other people, symbolized by the narration of her actions through a stranger's retelling, and is content to keep moving, refusing to be pinned down by social desires and expectations. the ending makes all of the tension in the story seem ridiculous and unneccessary, giving the story an unexpected and quiet end.

Black/White

    SInce we did not discusss our motif in depth. I thought i would be cool to open up a discussion on my group's topic, white/black. My group stated that Joe Christmas was alienated from society because he could not identify with either black and white. This alienation makes Joe try to find out who he really is, which leads to tragic and illusive results.  

    I believed this was an interesting topic to open because to a certain extent I and probably other people in the class can relate directly or indirectly to this motif. Me coming to Oak Park from Puerto Rico, helped me understand this motif a little better. At the beginning of my first year of OPRF, I was not among the people that were influenced by American culture. To some extent, I  could see the difference between white and black students and their separation from each other. As a result, I felt like Joe, unable to indentify with any group and it greatly depressed me. I could go on for a long time about how I felt alienated from both whites, blacks, and other minorities. But I wanted to hear from others an instance where they felt separated either by culture or values from the people around them.

 

The Mysterious Bobbie

For me, one of the most interesting characters in the book was Bobbie, the waitress and prostitute that Christmas has an affair with. She is constantly described as dark and small with big hands and a head that seems to always be facing downwards. I think Faulkner uses these descriptions over and over again to highlight the role that Bobbie plays for Joe.

Before meeting Bobbie, Joe has had very limited interaction with girls, especially girls around his age.  His contact with them had been through church and has given Joe a very innocent view of women highlighting the "Virgin" end of the "virgin/whore" binary. When Joe meets Bobbie, this image of women is challenged and eventually changed. Bobbie is the first woman Joe is involved with romantically and his experience with her marks Joe for the rest of the book. I think Bobbie is portrayed with an emphasis on black, darkness, smallness, and weakness to highlight the way Joe's view of women changed through knowing her. I think that even through her masculine name, Faulkner is trying to create a strong contrast with the way Joe thought of women before meeting Bobbie and then afterwards.

Happily ever after?

So even though we already finished Light in August. I have a few concerns with the ending. Do you think that ending was suitable for the book? Should Faulkner have put Byron and Lena together without a destination? Do you think if he wrote a sequel they' ll find Lucas?

The Circle of Lena

Lena has gone through interesting events in this book. However, in the beginning and the end of the novel she is travelling to an unknown destination. At the beginning she is walking down the street when Armstid decides to help her and give her a ride to Jefferson. When she arrives in Jefferson she continues on her adventure to find Lucas Burch or Joe Brown but rather runs into a fellow named Byron Bunch.

In the end of the novel Lena is again on the road and travelling to an unknown destination. She is getting a ride with the owner of the furniture store. She is again leaving without a man because she  does not want to have Byron involved in her situation and decides that it isn't fair Byron to be apart of her controversial situation. When talking to Hightower, she realizes that Byron is a good man and that she is putting him in a unfair area because she knows he loves her but the baby is putting a big burden on the two because it is not Byron's child.

We has that discussion in class on whether the ending of the novell was fitting to the book. I found it to be a circle of Lena because she started off on the road travelling to an unknown destination and she is finishing the novel with the same scenario. What do you think of this? What will Byron do? Will Lena leave again without a man?

Lena, Lena and more Lena.

In the beginning of the novel, the reader comes into the story seing Lena, a young girl in search of her man, travelling barefoot and alone. Personally, I thought she looked kinda desperate. Faulkner created the typical young girl in love—vulnerable and starry-eyed—that was willing to do anything for her man, no matter what. Even though her little love story doesn’t turn out how she intended, she ended up back on the road, with someone who actually cared for her, and with a little passenger tagging along. In the final chapter, we come across Lena about two or three weeks after the birth of her baby. Yes, she’s with Byron, but is she really happy? I feel bad for her. She has a man for protection, but does she have any substance? Unfortunately, her life is in major lack of stablity, hence the constant traveling without a set agenda. At some parts, I think Faulkner is creating an image of a free-spirit—young, beautiful, and naïve—but then again, her naïve personality can be taken as ignorance, thus making her look bad. When the furniture man recalls his admiration for the young lady, it’s weird to me. Just like Byron, he’s got that ‘woah, is she really with him? ‘ thing going on. What is it about this girl that  seems to drive men wild? Even though she may come off rather simple, I think Faulkner created her to display the complexity of a woman. Not only does she have the youth and the vigor for life that seems so intriguing, but she’s got an air about her that just makes her a mystery. Perhaps the furniture man was so fascinated by the fact that she was so non-chalant but not carefree. Although Lena has a child now, she’s completely not happy, and for Faulkner, I think that’s saying alot. Yes, she’s a woman, but she’s not really paying tribute to the basic social constructs of women anymore. In the beginning, she seemed to be the desperate girl in love, uncomfortable with herself without Lucas, but now, I feel like even though she hasn’t gained much, she’s grown up, she’s evolved. At first, I thought the last chapter was just the cycle being repeated, but now, I’m pretty sure it’s a continuation of the journey that she’s yet to complete. 

 

It's All About Perspective

Having finished Light in August, I feel that one major element of Faulkner's writing that struck me throughout the course of the novel was how easily he transitions between countless points of view for telling the story through. While this did confuse me at times, I thought that overall it was a style of writing I had never seen so excessively used before yet was still really intriguing. In doing this, I think Faulkner effectively makes a statement as to how much perception, point of view, and personal bias and opinions play a major role in how things play out in daily life. He forces the reader to see the same situations through several points of view, which then leads the reader to consider what is actually true and what is fabricated or exaggerated by the views of others, especially society.

Personally, I thought that was a very interesting and effective tool for Faulkner to use in writing this particular story.

The Grimm Fate of Joe.

Grimm, showing up at the very end of the book, really baffled my sense of storytelling. I mean, the man shows up and then kills Joe, the survivor of unbelievable things such as identity crisises, crazy father figures, and his own twisted hate for himself, after about 10 pages? That's insanity. Faulkner shook me up with chapter 19, taking everything I knew and believed would happen and threw it away. I really didn't understand how such a... dull character could get away with killing a complex one like Joe. A white supremacist, military molded, blindly obedient, and not-so-intelligent character. 
In fact, I think Faulkner might have dropped the ball with this climax. I mean, I know he was trying to keep it interesting, but couldn't something or someone else kill off Joe? This man shows up, a complete foil to everything around him, and just ruthlessly slaughters him! I don't know if I'm just venting or not. I guess the anger finally got to me...
What do you think? Do you think this was the best way to have Mr. Christmas die? Or, do you believe that it could've been done better?  

Joe and Joanna

Although I am not in the group that tracks the importance of names throughout the book, I have recently started to think about Faulkner's choice in giving Joe Christmas and Joanna Burden similar names. They are, on the surface, entirely different characters and greatly represent the dualities that Mr. Heidkamp was talking about in class. Joe is a man, and Joanna is a woman. Joe sees himself as black, Joanna is white. Joe is southern, and Joanna is a yankee. They are almost entirely opposite people, and the reasons behind their love affair are unclear and not readily understood. Yet, Faulkner makes the decided choice to make their names sound phoenetically similar. Why?

My best guess as to why Faulkner makes this choice is so that he can focus the reader's attention on the few ways that Joe and Joanna are the same over the ways that they are different. I think that he wants the reader to understand Joe and Joanna as two misunderstood, largely conflicted characters who are rejected by society, and that is what brings them together. Ultimately, the fact that Joe is a southern black man and Joanna is a northern white woman is irrelevant, because although they are opposites in these ways, they are both equally shunned by the rest of society. Their names only serve to reflect how  two seemingly different characters can share a common characteristic that links them together.

The fact that the town passes judgment against two seemingly opposite people also shows the arbitrary nature of prejudice and how it is really a lack of knowledge and understanding that leads to these prejudices, and not the superficial labels of gender and race.

Satisfied?

Earlier this week, we discussed whether we thought the end of Light In August was fitting. Despite what I heard from others, I thought that the ending was appropriate in many aspects. The final chapter continued ideas from other parts of the book and left room for interpretation.

Chapter 21 brought back ideas from other scenes in the story. For example, Faulkner brings back the relationship between Byron and Lena. A few chapters before, Lena talks with Hightower about keeping a distance from Byron. Byron obviously is attracted to Lena throughout the book, and Lena always pushes him away. The last chapter repeats this pattern. When Lena is sleeping, Byron tries to get beside her, and Lena tells him to leave.

A theme is also brought back in chapter 21. There is a constant theme of the road and travel in Light in August. By the time we reach the end of the book, Lena is on the road, traveling to some unknown destination. This creates somewhat of a circle ending. Lena starts out the book on the road, and she ends the book on the road.

The final chapter leaves room for readers to use their imagination. We are able to discuss what we think Lena will do next. Will she build a closer relationship with Byron? Will she continue to search for Lucas? I wonder what choices she will make as she continues to travel.

 

Without Reason

I think one of the most powerful (and graphic) scenes in the novel is when Grimm murders Joe Christmas.  We talked a little bit today in class about hoe no act of violence occurs in a novel without reason.  I think that Faulkner had more than one purpose for adding this climactic scene into the book.  But one of the more peripheral issues that is involved with this scene is the issue of religion as a blinding and driving force in society.  I don't mean the power of a specific religion in the novel, but just religion as a concept, or religion as a way of turning a blind eye to reason in favor of bigotry and prejudice.  After Grimm discarded Hightower during his pursuit of Joe, Faulkner described his voice as a "young voice clear and outraged like that of a young priest."(pg. 464)  First off I think Faulkner is alluding to a younger Hightower when he was in his early years as a minister in Jefferson.  His staunch faith and beliefs are what blinded him to the spiritual need and aggression of the townspeople towards him.  Much like the younger Hightower, Grimm is a man who is driven by his racist hatred of blacks, and his almost religious belief in the inferiority of blacks to whites is what blinded him to the actual savagery of his actions.  I think that overall, Faulkner seems to paint any kind of ideology that is not based on reason as a way of blinding people to the reality of their actions.

The Gray Area

When a character is alienated from society, they are unable to cope with nonconformity and end up dying.  In both The Stranger and Light in August, both of the main characters die primarily because of the way society portrayed them.  Meursault killed an innocent man and got the death sentence, and Christmas kills Ms. Burden.  So, with that being said, I think that this class is trying to convey the point that socially institutions are able to completely shape identity and the future.  For Meursault, he didn't have a future, and Joe just gave up.  Society led Meursault to realize to the extent of what his action meant.  And society twisted Joe's identity so far to the point where the conviction from Gavin Stevens is based entirely on internal "blood" or race.  And as for Meursault, his conviction was largely based on why he killed the man, and because he didn't have any motives, the conviction was thereby decided.  Do you readers see any other similarities?

The Appeal of Destruction..?

Last year, I was in a play called The Sparrow in the LT. The show included many themes, but one question we asked ourselves stuck with everyone: why are humans so drawn to destruction? We seem to be seduced by destruction-- almost entranced. Destruction and death are everywhere we turn. Destruction cannot be escaped and even though we try to avoid it, we are hypnotized by it. 

Light in August is not short on destructive content and destructive scenes. There are fires and murders and rapes and at every crime scene there is a gossiping mob accompanying it. People talk and whisper and stare, but their gaze cannot be broken. The people in the town, similar to humans in real life, are drawn to disaster and cannot look away. Even the most disturbing images do not faze them. Instead, the images draw them nearer and make them more intrigued. 

Why is this? Why is destruction so appealing? Perhaps disturbing events make life more interesting and give people something to talk about. Is this how boring our lives are that we need a plane crash or a rape or a fire to keep us interested? And maybe it is not a "bad" thing that this is the way people are. Perhaps, it is simply "human nature." But I would like to think there is another explanation to this other than human nature. Any thoughts?

Faulkner and Fate

While the plot of Light In August is filled with conflict and power struggle the end of the novel is both amibiguous and offers little progress in its characters. Joe Brown is once again fleeing his prior life, Lena continues on her seemingly hopeless search for Joe, Byron finds himself in a position of inferiority, and both Joe Christmas and Hightower are dead, doomed forever to be known as outsiders to society. Faulkner make it seem as though his characters have made almost no progress at all despite their traumatic experiences.

In this way it can be seen that Faullkner is commenting on the role of fate in society, and to what extent it determines ones life. Faulkner's characters paths are influenced by external forces, either some larger force or even society. Faulkner attributes the final demise of his characters not to their actions, but to something larger, out of their control.

When Will It End?

The way Faulkner ends this novel is very interesting to me.  I think that he ends the book three seperate times, not just once.  He ends it when Joe dies, when Hightower dies, and when Lena goes to Tennessee in search of Joe Brown.  Each of these endings gives the reader a different perspective on that specific character's relationship with society.  

Joe's death seems unavoidable throughout the entire book.  He spent his whole life degrading people so he can feel power.  In the end he learns nothing about his racial identity and never creates a meaningful relationship with anyone.

On the other hand, i think that Hightower learned many things about himself at his ending.  He realized that his wife's death was his fault, that he was not the best preacher because of his obsession with the Civil War, and that he was selfish.  It is not an easy thing to admit these kinds of things to yourself. Unfortunately, this new found enlightenment came to late for him or society to benefit.

Finally, the "official" ending to the book.  I think that Faulkner is making a commentary on the American family, binded by responsibility and ethical choices.  Joe escapes this responsibility physically, while Hightower escapes this mentally.  On the other hand, Byron does not run.  He stays with Lena.  

Faulkner's Reasoning For Starting And Ending The Novel With A Traveling Lena

The book begins and ends with Lena traveling in search of Joe Brown. In many ways, the start and finish of Light In August are very similar.

I think that Joe Christmas is the main character of the novel. It seems up for debate -- every character has a purpose and a complex past that is revealed to the reader.

Before we began the book, I asked my sister what it was about, and she responded, "It's about a man who is part black, but he looks white." Clearly her casual summary did not capture the essence of the novel as a whole, but I think Christmas's struggle is central to the book.

So first and foremost, do you think that Joe Christmas is, in fact, the main character? And why do you think that Faulkner sandwiched Christmas with Lena Bread?

Stereotypes Shmereotypes

Throughout the novel Light in August, Faulkner evinces many stereotypes, which he usually ends up criticizing one way or another. For example, the stereotype between white and black is shown through the portrayal of whites as dominant and pure individuals who can do no wrong, while blacks are savage and barbaric that are a danger to all of society. Another example includes the stereotype between men and women. Faulkner demonstrates the dominant male figure as strong and controlling, on the other hand, the females appear inferior and acquiescent. 

However, Faulkner establishes contradictions to these stereotypes by giving examples that do no follow the expected values. For instance, the relationship between Joanna and Joe illustrate switched gender roles, so he shows how women can control relationships. In addition, in Joe's trip into Freedman town, blacks are portrayed as normal human beings when Joe runs into a few blacks.

Faulkner uses his writing to reflect that stereotypes should not be taken into consideration. What about society today? Does society carry out these stereotypes to this day, or are we in the process of moving on from these stereotypes? 

New Characters

I found it interesting that Faulkner decided to introduce new characters throughout his novel, Light in August, and proceed to write them out of his story. These cameos, performed by such characters as Grimm or the blonde behind the couter at the restaurant Christmas frequented, provided important insight into the thoughts of the people in town.

Grimm was introduced solely for the purpose of hunting down Christmas. Although Grimm held the same prejudices as the townspeople, he acted on his attitudes to an extreme that the citizens would never mimic. Grimm was introduced into Light in August in order to act out the private thoughts of the townspeople. Although the townspeople would never act on their prejudices in the extreme way that Grimm did, their prejudices were so passionate that they believed Grimm's actions to be necessary. Grimm acted in such a vicious way towards Christmas because the townspeople wished it to be done.

Gavin, who?

Faulkner's decision to add Gavin Stevens into Light in August leaves me a bit confused. When I was reading chapter 19 and came to the first introduction of Gavin Stevens, I thought it was odd that Faulkner chose to introduce a character so late into the story. The first statement we learn about Gavin Stevens is that he had a "different theory" as to why Christmas had fled to Hightower's house before he died (444). Faulkner then goes into a paragraph long description of Stevens and his deep family roots in Jefferson. The reader is then introduced to a college professor, a schoolmate of Stevens' at Harvard, who sees Stevens send the Hines's off on the train. Sending off Mr. and Mrs. Hines on the train is one of the only concrete actions the reader experiences when reading about Gavin Stevens.

What kept me wondering, was what is the significance of Gavin Stevens's character? The beginning of chapter 19 is told from Stevens's point of view and it is through this point of view that the concept of Joe Christmas's "black blood" and "white blood" is introduced. I found this passage to be persuasive and eye-opening, but was it necessary for Faulkner to tell this through Gavin Stevens instead of a character already in the novel? Maybe so, since Faulkner might be trying to get a new perspective on Joe Christmas's death. It leaves me wondering what Gavin Stevens's significance is to the novel is as a whole and why Faulkner chose to introduce him so late into the story.

Small Characters Say A Lot

Faulkner develops characters over hundreds of pages, devoting whole chapters to background information for a single character.   Examples of this style include Christmas, Lena, Byron, and Hightower.  But Faulkner also uses characters in a very different way.  Both Gavin Stevens and Percy Grimm only appear for part of a chapter.  Faulkner seems to use these characters not to show character development, but more as tools: tools of societal pressures.  This is true especially for Grimm, who's blind and raging racism, although possibly exaggerated, still represents the sentiments of many at the time and in the area.  What other characters could possibly fit into this category?

Faulkner's Sandwich Thoughts

For the whole time we've been reading LIA, we have been interpreting motifs, deciphering Faulkner's messages about life in America, expanding our "nascentforming" (as Faulkner would describe it) vocabulary, and making our own discoveries about various aspects of the story. Yet, the most interesting part of the book for me, in regards to Faulkner's syntax, was the use of italics.

In order to explain the italics, I thought of each character's subconscious as warped in layers, like a sandwich. But it's a squiggly line, because the thoughts are connected in a stream of consciousness. The words in italics are thoughts that the character experiences, but are quick, and almost immediately subconscious thought-reactions to what's going on. The thoughts in quotations, then, are thoughts that the character consciously, deliberately thinks, and are more of internal discourse or literal contemplation. If anyone has ever seen a Hillshire Farms turkey sandwich, the italics are the turkey (placed in nice, loopy layers between the two pieces of bread). Then, the bread is the character's conscious thoughts. In order to understand this, refer to Figure 1:

   Figure 1

I'll provide an example. This is the scene in which Bobbie tells Joe she is menstruating:

Perhaps he did not need to understand. Perhaps he already expected some fateful mischance, thinking 'It was too good to be true, anyway'; thinking too fast for even thought: In a moment she will vanish. She will not be. And then I will be back home, in bed, not having left at all.

In this passage, Joe's conscious reaction to what Bobbie says is a tone of disappointment; however, subconsciously, his reaction is incredulous, showing traces of offense and embarrassment-- he seems to wish that he could escape the situation ("and then I will be back home...not having left at all"). The thoughts in italics, as Faulkner notes, are immediate, "too fast for even thought," and they are layered below the bread-- the initial conscious, deliberate thought sequence in quotations.

This is my simplistic explanation for the italics. If anyone else has any thoughts, they can respond too.

The War Within Christmas

My group worked with the theme black and white for our unessay and found that Faulkner constantly contrasts the theme through race and symbols. There are many binaries in Light in August, and the people of Jefferson like to classify society by them. However, when Christmas seems to fit to both sides of a binary (black and white) he becomes an outcast. Therefore, my group drew the conclusion that society expects people to fall under only one social construction.

Faulkner stresses Christmas's difficulty identifying with one race in many circumstances. When Christmas travels into Freedman Town, he finds himself torn between two roads. "He could see the street down which he had come, and the other street, the one which had almost betrayed him.." (116). Christmas standing in between the black and white towns shows that he is unable to choose one to relate to. Christmas is also always wearing a white shirt and black trousers. In the scene of Christmas's death, Faulkner describes the inner conflict between black and white that Christmas felt and describes them as finally at peace.

The Grey Area

In our discussions in class for the last week, the one passage that has greatly intrigued me is the one in which Joe Christmas comes to a decision about his identity.  It is only two paragraphs long but it is full of meaningful and important lines that reveal a great deal about Christmas.  Before Christmas was accused of killing Mrs. Burden and was forced to go on the run, he lived in a certain middle ground between white and black, begin of mixed race.  Neither group seemed to want to accept him and he himself did not seem to know which race he truly wanted to belong to.  It was something with which he always struggled.  

In the first part of the passage the turmoil around his identity is evident from the "white men" hunting him and forcing him into the "black abyss" (331).  The repetition of the color black and the description of him being drawn down into the "black abyss" show that the whites have made their decision that he is black, is guilty of the crime, and therefore can never be accepted.  Whether willing or not now Christmas is being forced into the "black abyss" by the whites.    

In the second paragraph Faulker uses words like "neutral" and "greyness" contrary to the use of "black" in the one before.  The general feeling of the passage is also much more relaxed compared to the one before.  What I feel this means is that Joe is finally in a place where he can accept himself.  In other words, the whites have made their decision about him that he is black.  Now Christmas does not have to worry about proving anything to others because society has already defined him as either black or white, black in this case.  Now he is free to define himself, for himself alone, as he likes.  The words "neutral" and "grey" both point out the idea that he has choses to define himself in this middle area, neither black nor white, but identifying with both.  He can do so now because he has nothing to prove to society.  In being given a definition by society he is set free by being able to define himself how he wants to, without worrying about proving something to those around him.  In trying to constrain him, society freed him.  

Faulkner to Camus: An Existentialist in Disguise

Faulkner has a hint of existentialism in him. After reading "Light in August," I could not help but connect characters such as Joe Christmas, Joanna Burden, Lena, with Albert Camus' Meursault. Faulkner's characters portray the same ideas of absurdity and the same notions of guilt and solitude as Camus' do. 

I investigated Faulkner's history as an existentialist. He doesn't have one. Faulkner does not appear on any list of existentialist thinkers and writers (at least any that Google recognizes as worth-clicking-on). I was bamboozled by Faulkner's absence, so I dug up some simple characteristics of existentialism and found an interesting list. 

I also discovered that existentialism emerged in the late nineteenth century and the radical school of thought was blowing minds at full force during the early decades of the twentieth century. (Faulkner was born in 1897 and published his first work in 1919.) Existentialism must have affected Faulkner, and I think its affect seeps into "Light in August." Sure, Faulkner does not lay out every existentialist principle, but he tinkers with social systems and constructs, flirts with solitude and individuality, keys in on the tragic aspects of life, and attacks society's perception of religion, ethics, and race head-on. 

My mind connected Faulkner to Camus before I finished page 507. Maybe Faulkner should not be considered a die-hard existentialist, but I believe the time period in which he lived and the surrounding philosophy in which he wrote rubbed off on "Light in August."

All is well that ends well

For a good part of the book Joe Christmas is the main character. A lot of the book is dedicated to his story and his identity, but why then does Faulkner start with Lena? I think Lena is an extremely interesting character who, even though we do not get an entire story for, is the real protagonist. We open and close the book with her, and she is woven in and out of the book. Unlike Joe she doesn't worry about what society thinks of her, or what her identity its. Joe did his own thing, but he also let other people define him through race and social expectations. Lena on the other hand is a young pregnant woman, with no husband, no home, and no income. She is a prime target for social judgement and yet she just keeps going. My group examined the motif of names and naming and we came to the conclusion that Lena does not name her baby because it is an alternative to identities, specifically negative ones, that are created by society. Do you think this is a possibility? What is Lena's significance to the story,and why do you think she opens and closes the book?

Is Joe Christmas a Cow?

I recently learned that the expression, "becoming light in August," is a Mississippian expression that refers to the birth of a calf.   Ignoring the motif of light, what is the significance of the title?  Does the cow that Mr. McEachren gives Christmas have any correlation to the title? 

I am not a cow expert, but the iconic cow is black and white.  If the title is based off of the expression of the calf birth, then maybe Joe Christmas represents the calf, and the black and white of the cow represents both the black blood and white blood in him.  Since all cows are females, maybe the cow also represents Christmas's femininity, and  lack of power throughout the novel.

Through the Portal

While reading Light in August, my group was assigned to track the motif of windows.  We were able to express a lot of our thoughts in our in-class poster, but there were still some things that did not fit entirely in with our theme that seemed interesting to me.

My group decided that there were three main reasons that windows had such a significance in this novel:  people escape through them, people enter through them, and people look through them but neither exit nor enter through them.  To keep this short, I am just going to focus on the first one.

I've always found "portals," for lack of a better word, interesting in literature.  Portals can be anything from windows to doors to something not as concrete.  They always seem to lead to either a very significant change or stagnation in the work.  The pattern Faulkner has developed with escaping through windows in LIA seems to show that the characters doing the escaping are taking an opportunity to change their life.  Characters often look through windows and may see a change that they could make in their life, such as with Hightower always staring out the window at the town that he prefers to observe from a distance.  Yet there are those who do more than look.  Lena escapes out of her bedroom window to get away from her brother and meet with Lucas (6).  Brown escape through the window to leave Lena and perhaps begin a new life free from the burden of his child (432).  Christmas initally enters Ms. Burden's house through the kitchen window (229).  All of these are interests where a character is actively changing his or her life by seizing an opportunity.

But another portal I observed was doors.  The significant instances with doors seem to leave a character in the same path that they are already on.  Christmas no longer climbs in through windows to meet Ms. Burden (excluding the week where she tells him that he must climb through her window).  He also goes through the door to see Bobbie after he has killed Mr. McEachern at the dance.  He notices the windows as he approaches the house, but he seems to be "attached to the door" (213).  The doors don't reveal a change in a character's life.

I think it's interesting how we can track the significant moments in each character's life through their interactions with certain motifs.  Obviously windows aren't the only defining points in a novel and motifs aren't the only important parts, but I like dissecting motifs to see their significnce, especially with a motif as interesting as windows.

Breaking Character

The scene in Light in August where Joe is talking to Mrs. Burden about her father and general Sartois who killed her brother is complex in an understated way. After Joe claims that if he were Mrs. Burden's father, then he would have killed general Sartois in an instant. After Mrs. Burden asks Joe if he had any idea who his parents were, Joe responded that he knew nothing "except that one of them was part nigger." Then Mrs. Burden asks him how he knows that, and he says, "I dont know it. If I'm not, damned if I haven't wasted a lot of time." (254)

For this brief moment, the entire story is suspended as if it is waiting for confirmation that it is still going. This scene reminded me of when actors accidentally lose character for a moment. These two situations are similar because for just one moment, reality shines through the facade of the story. Even when the story is one that is completely true and happened to real people in real life, that one glimpse of the actors' true identities presents the audience with an "oh right, this is just an act" feeling. This moment is as if Faulkner "lost character" for just a brief second and let his true opinion be known. The idea that Joe has is relatively insane for most because the idea that maybe it is a wase of time to try to fit into the whole "racial game" ruins the game for all those who buy into it.

Maybe Faulkner was thinking more simply when he wrote this passage, but I think that often times the simple things provoke the most thought.

What is the Meaning of Luck?

    When Lena leaves her home in Mississippi, she has no idea where she is going.  Lucas Burch/Joe Brown could be anywhere in the world and see just sets out with blind faith that she will find him.  She bases her traveling completely on word of mouth, following guesses by complete strangers to where Burch might be.  She doesn't have her own transportation, and has to rely on the fact that every ride she picks up will somehow get her closer to Burch.  And finally when she gets to a random town with a man named Bunch, she happens to find Burch who had already changed his name.  It was complete luck.  The coincidence of finding the person you are looking for also happened to Mrs. Hines.  Mrs. Hines also finds her grandson, Joe Christmas by complete luck.  After more than thirty years of him being taking away from her he just somehow pops up in the town she and Doc Hines were living in at that moment.  Again, It was all luck.  Both this events seem to be so unrealistic.  Faulkner uses many of the events in his book to comment on American society, but these unrealistic chances of luck don't really happen in society.  Did Faulkner purposely have the Hines and Lena find the men they were looking for to show that the characters' lives were all entangled? Did all of these characters have something in common that it was fate that they would all meet? Or did Faulkner just take the easy way out by having Lena find Burch and the Hines find Joe in a completely unrealistic lucky way?