In Kindred by Octavia Butler, the main character Dana is thrust from her South Carolina 1976 world into the 19th century plantation owned by Thomas Weylin. She is sent there to protect Rufus Weylin and Alice Greenwood from dying to ensure her own survival because they are her ancestors. However, though she is sent back many times, she still tries to maintain the qualities and boundaries of her 1976 version in the 19th century environment she is forced to live in. Throughout the novel, we see that these qualities and boundaries are repeatedly beaten and broken down, until in the end, Dana does truly seem like a part of the Weylin plantation.
When she time travels for the first few times, she challenges a lot of the white authority she encounters. When Rufus calls her the N word, she lectures him not to use that word and tells him he should, “do me [her, Dana] the courtesy of calling me what I want to be called” (Butler 25). Though these acts of defiance preserve her dignity, they also lead to her getting punished severely. When she finds refuge in Alice’s house and a white man approaches her, demanding who she is, she believes that talking back with command will make him back off and respect her. However, on the contrary, the man gets mad and becomes physically violent here. It is interesting that though her 1976 boundaries are what got her into this situation, it is also the thing that gets her out of it. Instead of taking the man’s physical attacks, she forces herself to hit him, which ultimately saves herself.
However, her 1976 boundaries start to break down the next time she goes back with Kevin. Here, they are forced to play master and slave, fitting themselves into roles that they swear to only be pretending to play. Dana starts calling people yes ma’am and yes sir, becomes a lot more submissive and works with slaves. Though she doesn’t register it, Dana starts to move in with the time, caring about the rest of the slaves as genuine people she wants to help. It is during this trip I think that she starts to become a part of the time period.
This is seen in her final few trips, where she really starts to fit in. She had remarked that the plantation almost felt more like home than her actual 1976 one did. When caring for Margaret and Rufus Weylin, she plays the “mammy” role. She starts getting hated, liked, respected, showing that other characters view her as a part of their time.
Though many times she tells herself she will be going back to 1976, that she doesn’t belong in the plantation, it becomes clear that Dana ultimately gets slotted into the 19th century time period whether she realizes it or likes it.
I agree with the sentiment that Doctorow mocks the upperclass, and capitalism as a whole, however I would disagree about the post-modernist evening out of the fields (so to speak). It seems to me, that in having Morgan absolutely befuddled at the literary comparison Ford makes to be a display as to how much the wealthy care about class. Ford acts as the postmodernist-enforcer in this case, however, as you said, Ford himself is treated with much irony-- an irony in which you often can't tell if his genius is true or a joke. This, to me, seems to show that while capitalism and class inequality is being mocked, the actual quality of literature and material is not equally valued as it still throws Morgan off. People are so affected by inequality that equality may not be a real idea. But then again, idk.
ReplyDeleteHi Renee, I thought it was really interesting the way you showed Morgan as emblematic of being born in his position versus Ford working his way up the ranks. For your argument about Doctorow attacking capitalism I think the scene describing poverty balls also contains a lot of useful details such as the rich pretending to be poor and almost glamorizing their struggles. I do wonder though about how the irony in depicting Ford could also potentially complicate the argument though.
ReplyDeleteHiii Renee, I like your way of pointing out irony in J.P. Morgan's and Ford's interaction! I think one interesting point to add to J.P. Morgan's narrative is how he is so wealthy, and he spends his time and money obsessing over intangible, mystical ideas (like reincarnation, destiny, etc.). I think that really shows how the upper-class people are wasting their privileges.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely see Doctorow's ambiguous irony moving in both directions here: Morgan is lampooned as an aristocrat with a god complex, while Ford is treated satirically as a simple-minded rube. But Morgan seems to get the worst of the ironic treatment, in that his extreme wealth is presented as a kind of "anti-American" or antidemocratic ideal--not free-market capitalism but monopolistic large-scale global capitalism. Ford's rags-to-riches narrative suits the conventional "American Dream" narrative and democratic values much better than Morgan's does, and Doctorow's irony is up to 10 when he describes Morgan as a "classic American hero, a man born to extreme wealth . . ." (138). The fact that it's somewhat reasonable for him to wonder if he indeed might be part of some supernatural race of pharoah overlords carries a pretty strong antidemocratic critique.
ReplyDeleteHi Renee! I think you make a really strong point about how Doctorow uses Morgan and Ford to embody and critique different forms of capitalism. I like the point about how Ford isn’t exempt from ridicule either; his obsession with efficiency and mechanical control of workers feels just as dehumanizing as Morgan’s mystical obsession with wealth and destiny, and making fun of both mocks the extreme capitalism. I wonder if there is some sort of comparison that could be made from Ford to Tateh if we knew more about the latter, because of his similar rise to riches.
ReplyDeleteHi Renee! I like your interpretation of the meeting between Morgan and Ford. I also found it interesting that, throughout their meeting, Ford continuously challenged Morgan's confident, elitist personna. Adding onto that point, I remember that in the chapter about Ford's success in car manufacturing, it was mentioned that he partly attributed his success to others' underestimation of his abilities. I think that played into his conversation with Morgan, as Morgan appeared to think that he possessed power over Ford, however Ford effectively embarrassed him in several ways. Great job!
ReplyDeleteHi Renee! I thought your breakdown of Ford and Morgan was super interesting. I like how you showed Ford standing up to Morgan and flipping the power dynamic but also pointed out that Doctorow doesn’t let Ford off the hook either. The part about him only giving himself sixty seconds to feel happy really shows how mechanical and dehumanizing the capitalist system can get.
ReplyDelete