Although I did not like the way in which Butler
progresses the plot/characters through the novel, I do think that she
“succeeds” at writing an extremely compelling look at a part of American
history that is too often repressed in many Americans’ minds. Many of the complaints in our class have been
that Kindred has followed a too
"traditional" and "popular" "boring" plot line
rather the much more post-modern divergences from literary
"normality" that the other books in this course have explored. I think that despite the “cliché” plot/character
elements, Butler really does bring history to life through fiction.
The one scene that
really stuck out to me was when Dana sees Alice’s father beaten:
I could literally smell his sweat, hear every
ragged breath, every cry, every cut of the whip. I could see his body jerking, convulsing,
straining, against the rope as his screaming went on and on. My stomach heaved, and I had to force myself
to stay where I was and keep quite. Why
didn’t they stop!
“Please, Master,” the man begged. “For Godsake, Master, please …”
I shut my eyes and tensed my muscles against an
urge to vomit.
I
had seen people beaten on television and in the movies. I had seen the too-red blood substitute streaked
across their backs and heard their well-rehearsed screams. But I hadn’t lain nearby and smelled their
seat or heard them pleading and praying, shamed before their families and
themselves. I was probably less prepared
for the reality than the child crying not far from me. In fact, she and I were reacting very much
alike. My face too was wet with tears. (36)
Butler
could have just written a story in the ante-bellum South about a slave’s
complicated relationship with her master, but it is far more effective to have
a 20th century-perspective narrating the events of the 1820s. It not only brings the reader closer to Dana,
but also gives the reader the feeling that they are ALSO being transported back
to the ante-bellum South. This approach makes the reader realize “wait this is
REAL, this really did happen.” Even
though Butler is creating a completely fictional story, there is no doubt that
there were hundreds of thousands (if not more) of instances where a slave would
be whipped brutally for not having a pass like in the scene above.
We, the 21st century
readers, are like Dana in that we have witnessed tons of violence in the
fictional sense, but never have to actually comprehend the consequences of the
reality of that violence. Kindred makes
us confront that reality and really forces us to understand “this actually happened”. We all know “slaves had no rights,” but what
is it like to actually live with no rights? In this sense, Kindred conveys more historical truth than any textbook would ever
hope to.
It really becomes a question of what you prefer. Everything you said is true, and although the novel gets cliché and really reminds me of a lot of books I read off the teen shelves at the library, it does a good job with a descriptive story that is easy to follow and understand while still carrying a deeper message. The 20th century perspective is really central to the meaning of the novel and is an interesting play on historical fiction, but I still don't think it stands out enough from the norm to be considered truly great.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the novel forces us to be with Dana and to critically think about what that position may look like. I feel like initially Dana was shocked and horrified by the whipping and general treatment towards black people. In the end, she seemed to generally accept it as a way of life. It goes along with having no rights. I agree with you that a powerful essence of the novel is how it makes us relate to Dana more because she is from the twentieth century as opposed to being born in the antebellum south. I think the comparisons between Kevin and Rufus and in general the nineteenth and twentieth centuries probe us to consider the injustices today and situations where black Americans are still denied rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the modern perspective that Kindred brings by driving the narrative through a modern women's eyes is quite significant in how the reader perceives what is happening. Dana can be seen as "one of us" and her encounters seem much more real that those read out of a history book.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is an interesting point. I never really related with Dana since we come from completely different backgrounds. But I see your point about us, the readers, being with Dana as she goes back in time. I don't know, however, if this book is better than all textbooks on this matter like you said. I think this is a very good book in the terms of one specific scenario. But, textbooks offer us that broad oversweeping view of the time period. They offer us different views, views which complements one another.
ReplyDeleteI’m not quite sure how valuable a historical perspective I felt this book provided. Having a 20th-century character narrate the experience of living in the Antebellum south is a great idea in theory, but I don’t think that Butler really executed it that well. Most of Dana’s reactions to the events that were going on around her seemed fairly predictable to me, and I rarely felt that she was coping with things in a way that provided more insight into what was going on that I couldn’t find for myself or that could have also been provided in a book from the perspective of a character from the time period depicted. Maybe I just didn’t find Dana’s character that engaging and couldn't relate to her, but for me the fact that she was narrating felt a bit more like a gimmick than something that provided a great deal of new, interesting perspective.
ReplyDelete