I found it very interesting that the characters focus so heavily on the law as being (without a doubt) the point of reference, yet there are times throughout the novel where a different attitude towards the law is exposed. For example, on page 224, Mr. Darrell is conversing with Gasbang about who has seen a certain record. Gasbang states that he himself has seen the entry that was made by the notary. Darrell then replies: “Well the notary lies, that’s all.” There is more dialogue between the two and some others, and then Darrell states: “Then the Don lied, and I’ll tell him so.” This exchange made me think about the role that lies/accusing someone of lying play in this novel. On the same page (224), Mathews asks Darrell: “Are you sure that Mr. Clarence did not buy the land unbeknownst to you?” Here, (ironically) Darrell becomes super offended by this comment – he is shocked that somebody would think that his own son would put his father in a position like that, yet he himself (Darrell) had just previously made a comment about how he was ready to confront the Don and accuse him of lying. He previously accused the notary of lying as well. This then made me think about the role family plays – it seems to me that Darrell thinks that because Clarence is his son, he would never lie to him or put him in an uncomfortable position; however, with the Don and the notary, he actually accuses them of lying without hesitation.
I noted various times Clarence blaming his father for problems with his relationship with Mercedes. For example: “… because my father has lowered me. I am not the same Clarence I was two days ago. You cannot feel proud of me now.” (261). It’s interesting here that Clarence admits his father has “lowered him” or let him down; however, Mr. Darrell doesn’t believe that his son could ever do something to him that would “lower him”. It’s also interesting that Clarence himself admits that he is not the same as he was 2 days ago; he clearly then begins to question himself and his worthiness, and even suggests that he is unreasonable and that he should go. This scene (where him and Mercedes discuss marriage) was super dramatic, but it was Clarence who made it dramatic. Mercedes seemed to be the voice of reason here, while Clarence acted very insecure and confused. Here, we see the theme of blame quite clearly: Clarence blames his father for lowering him, which in turn supposedly (according to Clarence) leads to Mercedes no longer being proud of him. Clarence, very dramatically, continues to blame his father on the next page: “She must naturally hesitate to marry the son of a man who can act and has acted as my father did. I cannot blame her. I ought to respect her for it. / Farewell, happiness for me.” (262).
Yes, this is interesting. I am particularly drawn to the point about family: what’s expected of family members, and how the behaviour of other family members is taken to reflect on particular characters. I also wonder if we can extend this, to think (as with Sommers’s “foundational fictions” that I mentioned last week) about the national family, and how this novel envisages such a larger community as cohering, ideally or in practice.
I feel like the first part where you mention that there is a different take on the law is true. I do think that in this case each character interprets the law as he chooses. In example you mention, I think Mr. Darrell denies the authority of the notary for his own purposes. He assumes that “he lies” for that is what works best for him. He has the same attitude towards the “squatter laws”, for him until “The Law” says otherwise the land is there for the taking. So in one instance he refuses to listen to the law and in the other he protects himself with the law at his side. This shows his denial of the morality of the matter, and highlights his stubborn, blind, sense of pride. In the end accusing someone of lying is only a mechanism to protect one’s self interests, assuming that others are also protecting theirs.
This is a really interesting post! I loved seeing your train of thought and analysis of the novel, particularily with the themes you mentioned. I think this relates to what we had discussed in Tuesday’s class and the concept of privilege as a result of position in society. Mr. Darrel is a very good example of this – we see him undermine Mrs. Darrel and squate on the land against her wishes, we see it as he accuses the notary and the Don of lying, amongst others. It seems that he has a mindset of entitlement that I believe Ruiz de Burton purposefully did to illuminate race and hierarchy in this novel – Mr. Darrel is white and born in the US, which (in his eyes) gives him the power and right to take land that is not his and believe he is superior to others. Ironically, Mr. Darrel is man with no land and limited wealth while Don Mariano is wealthy and has plentiful land, yet Mr. Darrel still as more rights and more of a voice in society than the Don.