In Light in August, Faulkner creates characters with very complex backgrounds. He shows us the character Christmas, an alleged murderer who identifies with neither his black nor white heritage, and then explains his background. After walking through freedman town, Faulkner leaves Christmas holding a razor, saying something is going to happen. The next chapter delves into his unfortunate and turbulent childhood. What is Faulkner trying to say with this transition?
After seeing Christmas holding the razor, and knowing that Miss Burden was violently murdered with a sharp object, it is easy for the reader to suppose that of course Christmas did it, he is a violent person, But I think that Faulkner wants to show us more to the story. He explains Christmas' background in an orphanage, where he was ridiculed because of his ambiguous heritage. His childhood shows how Christmas used to view the world through innocent and unassuming eyes, yet turned violent as more violence was done unto him. Christmas accepted abuse as part of the necessary FATHER/son binary, regularly snuck out of his house, and fell in love with a prostitute. He entered his adolescence innocent and hopeful for love and happiness in his relationships, but left a murderer with no father, and no prostitute-wife. He no longer trusted the world.
But why does Faulkner tell us this? Is he trying to excuse Christmas' alleged murder of Miss Burden? Perhaps, but I think more likely is that he may just be recognizing that there are a complex set of problems that cause characters to act. His explanation of Christmas' background helps the readers sympathize with him, and perhaps understand a little more reasoning for his aptitude for violence.
I agree that Faulkner's use of Christmas' background story is important. I think it gave me a better understanding of him as a character. It may have caused me to sympathize with him a little, but not too much to the point where it distorts my entire perception of his character.
ReplyDeleteI think Faulkner has an agenda in mind, and my best guess is that he wants us as readers, but more importantly, as people, to hesitate before laying narratives over situations. He first shows us the situation as the town sees it: a black man holding a razor at the site of a murder. We most likely will lay the narrative of "the violent black man" over the situation. He then corrects the way we think by going back and filling in the backstory that negates the assumption we've made. In this way, we know to think twice before laying narratives over situations like these again.
ReplyDelete