I've noticed in most of the stories we've read, the male characters are much more complex and "flawed" than a typical 19th century male character. From many of the books I've read, the descriptions of males are often emphasizing their handsome looks, talents, and strengths, whereas amongst the three novels we've read so far, the male characters all have these issues. Septimus and Peter in Mrs. Dalloway are flawed in the sense they are outcasts of society, with one being a shell-shocked war veteran who is slowly becoming mad, and another who was kicked out of Cambridge and is a reckless boy at heart. In Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, we see Jake, an emasculated war veteran who internalizes his feelings towards the woman he can never be with, and possibly harbors homophobic and racist sentiments. And while we are discussing Metamorphosis currently, Gregor is a seemingly kind-hearted, and yet incredibly naive man who blindly works hard under a family who cruelly exploits him. A recurring theme I notice is the lack of character details from the author themselves. Rather, we are provided with facts, such as actions the characters do, and from there, we can interpret who they are as people. And upon closer examination, we often realize the characters are deeply troubled. They aren't perfect, knight-in-shining-armor sort of characters, rather, more realistic people who are much more in touch with the darker aspects of humanity. Perhaps this is where the effects of the wars of the 20th century come into play within literature. The experience of those dark times of the era seeped into the literature, creating a large literary movement which shifted the typical, romanticized masculine ideals into something much darker.
Just like the rest of the characters we've met this year, Milkman, our protagonist, is a conflicting one. On one hand, his entire personality throughout the novel seems to be one of an adolescent in an adult's body, characterized by his immaturity and brattiness. Yet as the story progresses, the metaphor of a bird learning to fly seems to clarify, and we end with the baby bird leaping and finally flying. After learning about his family history, the change in Milkman is astounding, as he is able to let go of all his curiosity, trauma, and truly understand the implications behind his ancestry. Since this novel focuses on the lives of African Americans, I wonder how Morrison intends for us to interpret the ending of the novel. Initially, I thought the friendship between Guitar and Milkman was a subtle way of criticizing Milkman, of his lack of interest in black rights and equality. But the ending of the novel has proved otherwise. If anything, Morrison states that the power of kno...
I feel like most good authors let the readers get to know the characters, in the way we get to know people. They offer us objective facts and mannerisms, and it is through this that they communicate what kind of person these characters are. Perhaps the way we get to know them also contributes to their complexity - as we get to know them like we do real people, they may seem more real to us.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that these characters seem very complex, especially in comparison with characters like Mr. Darcy (I have nothing against him, but I feel as if he can be defined in very certain "hero" terms). The war might have emphasized the darkness of the previous generation's "heroism" - these men go out to war and become heroes of the country, but they know of the scars that the war put onto them. I feel like people have definitely stopped glorifying everything, especially heroic service/death (as is emphasized for a knight-in-shining-armor trope). Gregor Samsa's tragic "heroism", for example, is also easy to interpret as weakness and idiocy.
I'm really intrigued by your connection to how the war would have lead to characters like this being written. I had also noticed the rare humanity and emotion in the male characters in the novels but I couldn't quite put my finger on what was different. I think that it's really interesting to think about how the after affects of the war would have impacted the writing and other art that came out at that time. It's also interesting to compare these characters to the other stereotypical male "hero" type that was popular of the time and even of today I would say. What I would be curious to know more about, though, is how the general public reacted to these books when they were published. The general public had also been through the war and suffered through similar experiences. Were they able to empathize and understand these characters that have been damaged by the war, or were they uncomfortable and criticizing of these characters?
ReplyDeleteI definitely feel that the war prompted a shift in characterization. If everyone saw all the "heroes" get killed going over the top, again and again, for 3 feet of cratered mud, without much improvement at the end, what is the point of the "hero"? Is the hero really a hero, if they never accomplished anything? If the French army, and its Cult of the Offensive, the epitome of pre-War masculinity, died for nothing, then what is that masculinity worth? Was it ever worth anything?
ReplyDeleteWith the illusion of the hero broken then, we start seeing characters like Septimus, a broken veteran, and Gregor, obsessed with duty and providing for his family, yet only a drain in the end.
I like the thought that these people come out of the public realizing that war was a hopeless kind of affair and that the heroes of the 19th century and older, the ones who should survive, don't make it very far. I remember from previous units that the Modernist style of books was deep into the idea that all are doomed, which definitely was influenced by the war.
Delete