Does good exist?
What is good? Does it exist?
At first, I thought that Flannery O’Conner’s short story A Good Man Is Hard to Find was about decadence; decadence of a region of the United States, of the whole country, of a society, of a religion. I had thought the grandmother was a noble being, and that she was hated, that she was treated like a pest, by the new generations, the young, her own son and grandchildren. I saw the young as leaving behind, as disposing of the values, as destroying the heritage that was what made a good society, family, and individual people of them. The tittle of the story resonated very much with most of the male characters that in some way or another can be considered as ‘not good’; this bringing questions of gender critique into discussion. The son is not good because he doesn’t treat his mother with respect and neither does the grandson; there are the two individuals that con the gasman, and, of course, there is The Misfit and his gang. The gasman is interesting because he thinks that by saying that a good man is hard to find, that he is a good man; that because he got conned he is a good man; because he is a veteran he is a good man; because he is aligned with the grandmother and her time, her generation, her values, maybe even her class, he is a good man. So, a ‘good man’ is hard to find in these decadent days; these decadent days where there is no longer any pride for your land, for your state, or for your country. Even the language of the story is ordinary; it is decadent.
But then I read the story again. The discussion about Jesus, the ending, and the definition for the Misfit’s name made me rethink if there actually was a critique of new society, a love for The South, and discourse of decadence. The Misfit throws everything in this southern United States cosmos, and national cosmos overall, off balance. He says of his name, “I call myself The Misfit because I can’t make what all I done wrong fit what all I gone through in punishment.” This here alone proposes that there never has been any justification for the amount of punishment that he has gone through given the ‘crimes’ he had committed, if he had committed any crimes at all. He creates his name so he can have a signature, so he can have ‘his papers’, which are his proof. (Note: he does not create his name to describe himself as a Misfit of society.) He had been accused of killing his father but he says he doesn’t remember doing it; implying that he originally was innocent. But ‘they’ had the papers; and they never showed them to him. This leads to another one of his explanations. He says that if Jesus raised the dead then there would be nothing but to follow him. This brings the holy scripture (or holy papers for the purpose of this story), the bible, into reference for good subsequent behavior by man. Then he says that if he did not raise the dead then then one should go on killing and committing other aggressions. This moment now is crucial, when the grandmother says that maybe Jesus didn’t raise the dead. (We should note that authorship and truth are put into question here. The Misfit says he wasn’t there to see if Jesus did raise the dead, that he cannot trust a paper to be telling the truth, just as the papers they had on him were not telling the truth. He has his signature that he will leave at the scene of the crimes he committed; so that he is not over punished if he gets caught.) This moment was the turning point in the unraveling of my initial reading. This raises some questions: How can you find a good man if good never existed? How can a society be in decadence if it never was in an ascent? Where are you going to find good where only evil has existed? How can you define ‘good’ in this atmosphere? Truth is separated from non-truth. The grandmother’s subsequent change in attitude towards the Misfit, when she says that he is one of her children, illustrates her realization that her imagination of the past, her religiously preconceived notions of ‘good’ and what society is, are shattered. She sees the truth of life, of her country, of her state. The fiction clashes with the reality. There is a breaking of the simulacrum, the hyper-real that is trying to be lived. The old are no different than the new.
The grandma portrays a character that is trying to maintaining a benevolent imaginary of the past, of the past that maintained certain relations of property, a conservative fiction (the expression ‘the gold old times’ could be remembered here), but that conflict with the new situation, the new times. The old relations of property in this context (let’s remember her dream of the plantation which in itself is reference to slavery and ownership of Africans) denote many situations which were beneficial to that imaginary, that upheld certain values that indeed were, at the very least, questionable.
It turns out that the grandma is not a very good person; that her values are not very good or they were wrong. Let’s remember her obsession with being a lady (even if they were to have a terrible car accident) and her pressing The Misfit that ‘he wouldn’t shoot a lady’; she has ‘connections’ and not friends; she thinks the world is the United States or maybe just the Southern states; Europe is to blame for the loss of better times; she said she wouldn’t take her children anywhere dangerous and then she was the one that wanted to go see the house (she lied to the kids about the house so they would convince their father to go) and ultimately she did not say that they should turn back when she realized that it was the wrong place. The accident was no accident as the kids were yelling out in capital letters. Let’s remember although that she’s not the only bad one. The new are bad too. They are also wrong. They also live inconsistent lives (we should remember the granddaughter’s remark about painting the little black kids life that didn’t have what they did). Their irrationality is shown by the uppercase letters of the word THEY when the kids are trying to convince their father of going to see the house. The lady became good when she was about to die; when she was on her death bed she realized her mistakes. What then can be considered a good man? The one that tells and acts the truth? Or, does a good man need to be found? What about a woman? How hard is it to find a good woman? Does she have to be faced with death every minute of her life? But that’s no real pleasure in life.
Form’s All
A Good Man Is Hard to Find is a great tale whose artful use of language and form propel the reader towards an ambivalent end that demands reflection. This tale is a gripping example of art that requires no knowledge of its author or context. Of course there are references to the American South of the 50’s and earlier, the Mikado, and the Old Testament. However, even without these references, the story speaks to common human experience and questions of morality, and the role of the individual in society. Because I have written quite a bit, I have highlighted the major points.
The story begins with a negative construction regarding an individual’s WANT: the grandmother has no desire to go on a family trip to Florida, and she spends the first part of the story manipulating everyone so that she can go to Tennessee. At this point in the text, she is a harmlessly annoying old woman and the family appears to be caught up in the details of the mundane. We immediately get an image of a thin, elderly self-righteous mater familias (she is nameless) who claims that she is at peace with her conscience, unlike her son who she is effectively guilt-tripping to make him change his plans to suit hers. Her daughter-in-law and the baby are also nameless, but her son is Bailey (officer of justice?), her grandson is John Wesley (founder of the Methodist movement that encourages people to experience Christ personally), and her granddaughter is June Star (Venus, Light bearer, Lucifer and very Hollywood).
During the discussion about the vacation, the grandmother, father and children are reading the paper where the grandmother sees the story about the Misfit. The newspaper as a means of communication does not seem to encourage conversation between the family members. The minimal exchange that comes from the paper centers on modern life and its preoccupation with social hierarchy and wealth; the grandmother, say the son and daughter, won’t stay home “to be queen for a day” or “a million bucks.”
The grandmother refuses to stay home (to face herself?) but appears to have some redeeming features as she hides her cat, Pitty Sing or Pretty/Pity Thing (The Mikado), because she is concerned that he will miss her; however, we wonder who will miss whom? Her apparent concern for the cat is a mask for her selfishness. We soon learn that the grandmother is all about appearances. She is dressed like a lady in case she should die on the road. Her hat in particular represents her gentility, and her fear of being in an accident foreshadows the family’s tragedy (in which her hat is destroyed), as does the graveyard, the town Toomsboro, the “hearse-like automobile” and the “open mouth” of the woods where the wind later moves “like a long satisfies insuck of breath” (I love this line) when Bailey and his son are shot.
A key transition in the story occurs when they go from urban spaces to the country and pass Stone Mountain (Confederate sculpture and KKK base camp) about halfway into the paragraph. So we travel with the family through the billboards of American industry to a very colourful natural landscape. They are moving from society and all that comes with it, social morality, consumerism etc… to a world where these no longer hold sway.
This is a pivotal point because suddenly the grandmother doesn’t seem harmless anymore. They pass a black child and she wants to paint him as if he were a cow in a picturesque country field. The black boy is part of the natural scenery and hardly present. He does not “have things like we do.” He is physically outside the car, cut off from civilization and all things human, and she would like to keep him there in a painting. The grandmother now is engaging in a passive violence against the other that the reader finds unacceptable. The child waves at them, but they don’t acknowledge his existence and only open the window to dump their garbage.
The sighting of the child followed by a view of a plantation graveyard reminds the reader of the history of slavery in the US which has “Gone with the Wind,” a reference to the civil war that has become Hollywood entertainment, worlds away from the past and present realities of the oppressed. In other words not gone at all.
There is then a doubling effect when the children play a guessing game with the clouds. A cloud is first a cow and then a car. These images confound the black child with the children in the car who are now the observed. In other words, in this story, who is observing whom? The reader is part of the text.
The more the grandmother reveals her dependence on appearance, the more we realize that her idea of being a lady has nothing to do with being a decent human being. Her tale of Mr.EAT demonstrates how she equates goodness with position and wealth.
At the Tower (Tower of Babel which God shatters to create many languages out of one) they lament the lack of “nice” people these days. The repetition of the words ‘trust’ and ‘good’ render the terms meaningless, especially when used by Red Sam (American Communist?), his wife and the grandmother. Their goodness does not extend to the chained monkey biting fleas off himself as “as if they were a delicacy.” (Echoes of navel gazing?)
The superficiality of the modern world comes up again with the treasure hidden in the grandmother’s imaginary house. She knows that the tale of the lost silver will interest the children who have been brought up to value material wealth. Later, when they are lost, the only shame the grandmother feels is not due to the fact that she lies to her family about the house but that she will be caught out. Morality it seems is a question of what you can get away with while appearing to be an upright citizen of the world.
More Doubling
Pitty Sing snarls before he causes the accident as the Misfit does later when saying there is “no pleasure but meanness”. The cat is the Misfit’s double in that he causes the family’s destruction. But Pitty Sing is also the grandmother because she is the one who recognizes the Misfit so that he must kill them. In other words, the grandmother and the Misfit are one and the same: individuals outside goodness. She is a false ‘lady’, and he with his good manners is a false gentleman. (She asks him to pray but does not pray herself, and he responds that Jesus has upset the balance – the punishment no longer matches the crime). The Misfit appears to be referring to the Christian belief that we are all born sinners; however, I think the problem is that the system’s/man’s interpretation of right and wrong does not always mean justice. Anyway, the Misfit is beyond concepts of good and evil. For him the sky has no sun and no cloud. The grandmother and Misfit are individuals who have chosen their own morality outside of their community. Both are taking care of number one.
The juxtaposition of the mundane and the uncanny grotesque create an ambivalence, which at the end of the text reflects the switching of roles that the Grandmother and the Misft play. The condemning woman becomes the condemned and the condemned convict becomes an executioner.
In this ambiguity, space opens up for a new perspective on the world. The grandmother for once thinks of someone else, and the other is no longer at a distance as she reaches out to touch the Misfit. She dies looking at a now cloudless sky. Similarly, the Misfit no longer sees pleasure in killing. He removes his glasses and with defenseless-looking eyes ‘sees’ both the grandmother’s epiphany and that killing is “no pleasure in life.”
Form’s All
A Good Man Is Hard to Find is a great tale whose artful use of language and form propel the reader towards an ambivalent end that demands reflection. This tale is a gripping example of art that requires no knowledge of its author or context. Of course there are references to the American South of the 50’s and earlier, the Mikado, and the Old Testament. However, even without these references, the story speaks to common human experience and questions of morality, and the role of the individual in society. Because I have written quite a bit, I have highlighted the major points.
The story begins with a negative construction regarding an individual’s WANT: the grandmother has no desire to go on a family trip to Florida, and she spends the first part of the story manipulating everyone so that she can go to Tennessee. At this point in the text, she is a harmlessly annoying old woman and the family appears to be caught up in the details of the mundane. We immediately get an image of a thin, elderly self-righteous mater familias (she is nameless) who claims that she is at peace with her conscience, unlike her son who she is effectively guilt-tripping to make him change his plans to suit hers. Her daughter-in-law and the baby are also nameless, but her son is Bailey (officer of justice?), her grandson is John Wesley (founder of the Methodist movement that encourages people to experience Christ personally), and her granddaughter is June Star (Venus, Light bearer, Lucifer and very Hollywood).
During the discussion about the vacation, the grandmother, father and children are reading the paper where the grandmother sees the story about the Misfit. The newspaper as a means of communication does not seem to encourage conversation between the family members. The minimal exchange that comes from the paper centers on modern life and its preoccupation with social hierarchy and wealth; the grandmother, say the son and daughter, won’t stay home “to be queen for a day” or “a million bucks.”
The grandmother refuses to stay home (to face herself?) but appears to have some redeeming features as she hides her cat, Pitty Sing or Pretty/Pity Thing (The Mikado), because she is concerned that he will miss her; however, we wonder who will miss whom? Her apparent concern for the cat is a mask for her selfishness. We soon learn that the grandmother is all about appearances. She is dressed like a lady in case she should die on the road. Her hat in particular represents her gentility, and her fear of being in an accident foreshadows the family’s tragedy (in which her hat is destroyed), as does the graveyard, the town Toomsboro, the “hearse-like automobile” and the “open mouth” of the woods where the wind later moves “like a long satisfies insuck of breath” (I love this line) when Bailey and his son are shot.
A key transition in the story occurs when they go from urban spaces to the country and pass Stone Mountain (Confederate sculpture and KKK base camp) about halfway into the paragraph. So we travel with the family through the billboards of American industry to a very colourful natural landscape. They are moving from society and all that comes with it, social morality, consumerism etc… to a world where these no longer hold sway.
This is a pivotal point because suddenly the grandmother doesn’t seem harmless anymore. They pass a black child and she wants to paint him as if he were a cow in a picturesque country field. The black boy is part of the natural scenery and hardly present. He does not “have things like we do.” He is physically outside the car, cut off from civilization and all things human, and she would like to keep him there in a painting. The grandmother now is engaging in a passive violence against the other that the reader finds unacceptable. The child waves at them, but they don’t acknowledge his existence and only open the window to dump their garbage.
The sighting of the child followed by a view of a plantation graveyard reminds the reader of the history of slavery in the US which has “Gone with the Wind,” a reference to the civil war that has become Hollywood entertainment, worlds away from the past and present realities of the oppressed. In other words not gone at all.
There is then a doubling effect when the children play a guessing game with the clouds. A cloud is first a cow and then a car. These images confound the black child with the children in the car who are now the observed. In other words, in this story, who is observing whom? The reader is part of the text.
The more the grandmother reveals her dependence on appearance, the more we realize that her idea of being a lady has nothing to do with being a decent human being. Her tale of Mr.EAT demonstrates how she equates goodness with position and wealth.
At the Tower (Tower of Babel which God shatters to create many languages out of one) they lament the lack of “nice” people these days. The repetition of the words ‘trust’ and ‘good’ render the terms meaningless, especially when used by Red Sam (American Communist?), his wife and the grandmother. Their goodness does not extend to the chained monkey biting fleas off himself as “as if they were a delicacy.” (Echoes of navel gazing?)
The superficiality of the modern world comes up again with the treasure hidden in the grandmother’s imaginary house. She knows that the tale of the lost silver will interest the children who have been brought up to value material wealth. Later, when they are lost, the only shame the grandmother feels is not due to the fact that she lies to her family about the house but that she will be caught out. Morality it seems is a question of what you can get away with while appearing to be an upright citizen of the world.
More Doubling
Pitty Sing snarls before he causes the accident as the Misfit does later when saying there is “no pleasure but meanness”. The cat is the Misfit’s double in that he causes the family’s destruction. But Pitty Sing is also the grandmother because she is the one who recognizes the Misfit so that he must kill them. In other words, the grandmother and the Misfit are one and the same: individuals outside goodness. She is a false ‘lady’, and he with his good manners is a false gentleman. (She asks him to pray but does not pray herself, and he responds that Jesus has upset the balance – the punishment no longer matches the crime). The Misfit appears to be referring to the Christian belief that we are all born sinners; however, I think the problem is that the system’s/man’s interpretation of right and wrong does not always mean justice. Anyway, the Misfit is beyond concepts of good and evil. For him the sky has no sun and no cloud. The grandmother and Misfit are individuals who have chosen their own morality outside of their community. Both are taking care of number one.
The juxtaposition of the mundane and the uncanny grotesque create an ambivalence, which at the end of the text reflects the switching of roles that the Grandmother and the Misft play. The condemning woman becomes the condemned and the condemned convict becomes an executioner.
In this ambiguity, space opens up for a new perspective on the world. The grandmother for once thinks of someone else, and the other is no longer at a distance as she reaches out to touch the Misfit. She dies looking at a now cloudless sky. Similarly, the Misfit no longer sees pleasure in killing. He removes his glasses and with defenseless-looking eyes ‘sees’ both the grandmother’s epiphany and that killing is “no pleasure in life.”
Impressions on ‘A Good Man is Hard to Find’ by O’Connor
Five characters are not named in A Good Man is Hard to Find by Flannery O’Connor : the grandmother, the mother of the children, Red Sammy’s wife, the Misfit and the baby. While the Misfit is not named, his nickname is capitalised which in some sort gives him a proper name. Moreover, the absence of actual real names fits Fiske’s analysis according to which vilains tend to be deshumanised in stories (see Television Culture). The baby is practically left out of any action and mostly used as a prop. Hence, we are left with three unnamed characters, three female characters.
Names are intimately linked to identity and, by not having any, these three characters are somewhat deprived of an individual identity, of any individuality. In fact, these three characters portray three different archetypes of women as seen by many in the middle of the last century (to some, again today…). Firstly, there’s Red Sammy’s wife whose job at the restaurant is to serve while her husband’s seems to be to entertain the customers. When she replies to a comment made by the grandmother, she is quickly put back at her place by Red Sammy who ordered her to go get the Colas… The mother of the children, on her side, is portrayed as a passive woman whose role is primarely to take care of the baby whom she carries on her lap. The only decision she makes in the story is that of going find her husband in the forest, that is, to get killed like he did. This decision reinforces the image of the powerless woman who’s nothing without her husband. Finally, but not least, the grandmother. She is a woman with strong opinions and beliefs, but nobody listens to what she has to say. Moreover, the consecutive mistakes she does lead to the killing of the whole family.
It is also interesting to note that these women’s names (hence, identities) are defined in relationship to other people. Firstly, there’s the waitress whose identity is defined through her relationship to her husband ; a reality quite common in our patriarcal societies. Secondly, the two ‘mothers’ are defined in relationship to the kids, the children and grandchildren. It is also a reality that is common in our societies (but it seems it is less noticed than the first case). By calling the ‘mothers’ this way, attention is drawn to the children, who, interestingly, have coumpound names. But this is would be part of another analysis.
Finally, as one may see, the three models of women depicted by O’Connor are not necessarely flattering for women. These stereotyped women are not named in a story in which even the cat has a name…
A Good Man is Hard to Find
I will use this opportunity to mainly discuss the character of the grandmother and the ending of the story. I am unsure of the general impressions of most readers when considering the grandmother, but personally, I found her to be quite superficial and manipulative. She doesn’t strike me as this harmless “lady” that she appears to be. Her cry out for Jesus at the end of the story made me quite sick, not because I have anything against religion, but because it did not feel genuine at all. From the beginning of the story, she seems to create a lot of negative energy. She mentions that there is a killer on the loose and instead of sharing the real reason why she doesn’t want to go to Florida (she wants to go to Tennessee instead), she simply scares the family about alleged reports of this killer. She even hides the cat in the car knowing that Bailey doesn’t want her to bring it. Even when the family takes the wrong turn to go to the plantation, Bailey was initially skeptical but she found a way to manipulate him into going, precisely through telling the children interesting stories about it and making them want to go.
It’s also hard to ignore the countless references of the grandmother as a lady-like figure. She seems to consider herself as a very classy person and constantly makes references to “back in the day” when people were more respectful and trustworthy. So it’s pretty easy to get sucked in to her discourse and be convinced that she is a moral and honorable individual. These moments to me were seen as red flags, especially near the end. And by the way, has the grandmother never watched an episode of Criminal Minds. Her religious discourse is not going to help prevent the Misfit from shooting her or her family members. It was evidently an epic failure of reading the behavior of a criminal. I know that was random, but it needed to be mentioned. Now, if we think of the end, the grandmother’s narcissist attitude becomes more evident. She seems to be solely concerned with herself and apathetic towards the well being of her family. She immediately says: “I know you wouldn’t shoot a lady!” (131-132), thus showing that she is uniquely concerned about herself. Of course, some people would say, well, she does scream “Bailey Boy, Bailey Boy”, but does she really try to help her son? There is an ambiguity about her (her behaviors contradict one another), which makes it hard to decipher who she really is.
The end posed a lot of problems for me. I am unsure what to make of it. The grandmother is not someone that we seem to admire very much, but she is not painted as being a terrible human being either. But one quickly notices that she is not at all as perfect as we would think. Her supposed connection with the killer at the end of the story can be seen as a moment of metamorphosis where she becomes completely selfless. But one cannot forget that this only happens because she is in a situation where she needs to save her own life, thus we question the credibility of this moment. Knowing O’Connor’s religious background, she would interpret the end as a key breakthrough in the grandmother’s character since she comes to empathize with the Misfit prior to her death. In a way, she dies with no real regrets.
But although the Misfit states: “She would’ve been a good woman … if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life” (133), his last words regarding the killing of the grandmother are: “It’s no real pleasure in life” (133). This is deeply contradictory and we wonder what it really means? Has the grandmother’s newfound grace possibly affected the Misfit? Personally, I don’t buy this religious interpretation and I feel O’Connor is simply using the story as a religious motive. For me, it is the first part of this quote that most strikes me and that merits the most attention. It’s quite symbolic in the sense that the grandmother only seemed like a good woman and if everyone hadn’t always bought into it (like the Misfit, not to say that he is not a sadistic psycho), then maybe her true colors would have actually came out. For me, I remain skeptical about the grandmother and not very convinced neither by her “magical transformation” nor her divine influence on the killer.
Butler & hooks
Judith Butler
I understand in Butler’s essay Gender is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion how ‘gender is burning’ (through her look into the film Paris is Burning). This means to me that gender over all, is a construction; or a ‘fiction’ as is sustained towards the end of the essay. Furthermore, this means that there is no ‘true’ gender. The widely accepted notion that heterosexuality, and the gender identities, binary, it implies, is shattered, it is invalidated. Here then Butler presents the notion of hegemony to the category of gender. Here, there are all sort different divisions that become problematic. There is the masculine and there is the feminine; there is the white and there is the colored; there is the poor and there is the rich. This is very complex and it can certainly lead to, as Butler asserts, “constructions that belong to larger hegemonies of oppression,” in dismissal of the simplistic critique of ‘black male misogyny’ as was written in a critique made of the film. The problems presented in the film are indeed much bigger than just the problem of it portraying black male misogyny; or maybe not even reducible to that. This is where I have some doubts on Butler’s position on the ‘subversive’ aspect of the identity representations in the film. Perhaps I don’t have a problem with the notion of being rebellious, but I do with the explicit use of the notion of being subversive.
The represented identity may be subversion of a social norm, or more precisely a gender norm, but it loses all subversive intensity when it has been appropriated by the market, capitalist, system. Then it is normalized, but it has not affected the social conditions that are more pressing than gender identity (or at least the conditions that affect even the existence of such cultural formations represented in the film), the conditions that the capitalist system (society) is not willing, not able, to change, due to its nature of existence, which are that of poverty, domination, repression, exploitation, and others. Then it follows this appropriation/democratic subversion->Appropriation (Normalizing/defeated subversive). This is very explicit in the film: everyone’s desire to be a star. But there also is explicit in the film, which Butler (or the Hooks, whom she criticizes) something of the real problem: there is a character in the film that states that the real dominating condition is their economic situation; he/she says that if they had millions of dollars they would share with everyone they know to alleviate their poverty hardship (At least remember having heard it at some point in the film in that way). I’m not saying that if this happened, all the social problems would be solved; that is not true either. What I think is that the film exposes, yes gender matters, but much more pressing issues that correspond to a universal situation and not just the particular instance of black/latino gay men.
bell hooks
The tittle to bell hooks’ essay Is Paris Burning? says a lot about the character of the essay. It is obviously making reference to the tittle of Livingston’s documentary Paris is Burning, which is the focus and object of a very strong critique. Turning the documentaries tittle into a question has many effects. One effect is to question the overall project of the documentary. This documentary shows (exposes) the underground (is it redundant to say underground in this context?) drag culture of homosexual men in New York; more specifically of black and latino men. The life of these homosexual, outcasts most of them, is centered on the important events known as balls. These are competitions where the competitors try to be the best imitators of a certain fashion or social identity; most notably of women. Now there is glamour in this event and a remaking, or again imitating, of fashion presentation walk ways. The competitors walk and model their clothing, their appearance, their style, their makeup, and the work they put into their overall look. It basically is an imitation of high fashion, high culture trend and identity setting; hence the reference to the French city of Paris. But in this tittle, an affirmation, why is Paris burning? Because there is a satire of the fashion and glamour activity that takes place in Paris. The activities of these homosexuals, which is very much counter to the high class culture of Paris, makes a mockery of said high class culture and maybe even of the conditions that allow that high class cultural practice to take place. These obscure and low culture activity will make Paris burn with rage for the mockery that is made, by these racially subaltern homosexual men, of their highly cherished fashion and identity. So hooks questions this project. Has the documentary effectively made a critique (which is what a satire is) to that highly structured and exclusive world Parisian fashion and by extension to high class culture as well? Hooks thinks not. Hooks on the contrary, feels that film is in fact a mockery of black gay men, black identity overall, and even, most important to a feminist hooks, a mockery and further repression of the black woman. Even though hooks’ critique of the film is lacking in some areas, there are others that touch on very important points. The tittle in hooks’ essay is the first sign of a heavy critique to the film, but also a misreading of ‘why’ Paris would be burning.
Butler & hooks
Judith Butler
I understand in Butler’s essay Gender is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion how ‘gender is burning’ (through her look into the film Paris is Burning). This means to me that gender over all, is a construction; or a ‘fiction’ as is sustained towards the end of the essay. Furthermore, this means that there is no ‘true’ gender. The widely accepted notion that heterosexuality, and the gender identities, binary, it implies, is shattered, it is invalidated. Here then Butler presents the notion of hegemony to the category of gender. Here, there are all sort different divisions that become problematic. There is the masculine and there is the feminine; there is the white and there is the colored; there is the poor and there is the rich. This is very complex and it can certainly lead to, as Butler asserts, “constructions that belong to larger hegemonies of oppression,” in dismissal of the simplistic critique of ‘black male misogyny’ as was written in a critique made of the film. The problems presented in the film are indeed much bigger than just the problem of it portraying black male misogyny; or maybe not even reducible to that. This is where I have some doubts on Butler’s position on the ‘subversive’ aspect of the identity representations in the film. Perhaps I don’t have a problem with the notion of being rebellious, but I do with the explicit use of the notion of being subversive.
The represented identity may be subversion of a social norm, or more precisely a gender norm, but it loses all subversive intensity when it has been appropriated by the market, capitalist, system. Then it is normalized, but it has not affected the social conditions that are more pressing than gender identity (or at least the conditions that affect even the existence of such cultural formations represented in the film), the conditions that the capitalist system (society) is not willing, not able, to change, due to its nature of existence, which are that of poverty, domination, repression, exploitation, and others. Then it follows this appropriation/democratic subversion->Appropriation (Normalizing/defeated subversive). This is very explicit in the film: everyone’s desire to be a star. But there also is explicit in the film, which Butler (or the Hooks, whom she criticizes) something of the real problem: there is a character in the film that states that the real dominating condition is their economic situation; he/she says that if they had millions of dollars they would share with everyone they know to alleviate their poverty hardship (At least remember having heard it at some point in the film in that way). I’m not saying that if this happened, all the social problems would be solved; that is not true either. What I think is that the film exposes, yes gender matters, but much more pressing issues that correspond to a universal situation and not just the particular instance of black/latino gay men.
bell hooks
The tittle to bell hooks’ essay Is Paris Burning? says a lot about the character of the essay. It is obviously making reference to the tittle of Livingston’s documentary Paris is Burning, which is the focus and object of a very strong critique. Turning the documentaries tittle into a question has many effects. One effect is to question the overall project of the documentary. This documentary shows (exposes) the underground (is it redundant to say underground in this context?) drag culture of homosexual men in New York; more specifically of black and latino men. The life of these homosexual, outcasts most of them, is centered on the important events known as balls. These are competitions where the competitors try to be the best imitators of a certain fashion or social identity; most notably of women. Now there is glamour in this event and a remaking, or again imitating, of fashion presentation walk ways. The competitors walk and model their clothing, their appearance, their style, their makeup, and the work they put into their overall look. It basically is an imitation of high fashion, high culture trend and identity setting; hence the reference to the French city of Paris. But in this tittle, an affirmation, why is Paris burning? Because there is a satire of the fashion and glamour activity that takes place in Paris. The activities of these homosexuals, which is very much counter to the high class culture of Paris, makes a mockery of said high class culture and maybe even of the conditions that allow that high class cultural practice to take place. These obscure and low culture activity will make Paris burn with rage for the mockery that is made, by these racially subaltern homosexual men, of their highly cherished fashion and identity. So hooks questions this project. Has the documentary effectively made a critique (which is what a satire is) to that highly structured and exclusive world Parisian fashion and by extension to high class culture as well? Hooks thinks not. Hooks on the contrary, feels that film is in fact a mockery of black gay men, black identity overall, and even, most important to a feminist hooks, a mockery and further repression of the black woman. Even though hooks’ critique of the film is lacking in some areas, there are others that touch on very important points. The tittle in hooks’ essay is the first sign of a heavy critique to the film, but also a misreading of ‘why’ Paris would be burning.
A Good Man Is Hard to Find–O’Connor
How should we define a good man? A man who abides by the law and doesn’t commit any crimes? A man of regligion who believes in God sincerely? A man who has good manners and be responsible to his family? As a matter of fact, there does not exist a standard for us to define what the “good” is. The law and regulations are external constraints put on people’s social activities, to some extent, religion has the same function for people who have religious belief. Everyone has his hidden sins, A Good Man Is Hard to Find reveals that people are utterly ignorant of the nature of crime, at the same time, it really is a story of weird and darkness.
The grandmother tried to behave good-hearted and she thought herself of integrity and righteous with a sense of responsibility. In fact, she is a hypocritical and selfish person, a stupid grumbler. She hoped everything can lead to a result she wanted, to attain the goal, she even fabricated lies to bring her grandkids to the lure then forced her son to drive back to the old plantation which resulted directly in the tragedy. She reminded her son not drive too fast, she is law-abiding because she was afraid there were patrolmen hiding nearby. When she saw a little black boy standing in the door of a shack, she explained with a sense of superiority the reason that he had no pants and she had an aesthetic feeling that she would like to paint the miserable scene in a picture, the grandmother is actually a heatless person without the sympathy inside her. Her love for the life and her sincerity for God are just based on her benefit not being harmed.
The Misfit, the degenerate angel used to be a gospel singer, those unfair penalties on him made him disappointed with God and life. He looked well-mannered and soft-spoken, but he is cruel and he has a quick insight into character. He noticed the grandmother was indulged in her strong self-satisfaction and expansion that she needed some lesson at the cost of blood to sober her. “She would have been a good woman if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life.”(page 133) He thought more deeply about the religion and God than grandmother, although the latter was the one who persuaded him to pray and do not harm to her. The Misfit give himself this name, he is the incarnation of Satan, he said God made everything off balance, so did he. As to him, killing people makes no difference with stealing a type, the reason he killed people or set fire to others’ house is he wanted to testify whether God can raise the dead, he has confusion about the significance of religious beliefs. At last, he said “there is no real pleasure in life”, he didn’t grandmother’s death as fun, he knew clearly the meaning of violence and death, this makes him look a little bit reasonable, he was not a psycho, he was trying to help people realize their own sins. That’s another bizarre and satirical part of this story.
Another important point in the story is different values of three generations. The grandmother is a person with old-fashioned values, she tried to educate her grandkids with the declining southern traditional values, apparently, that doesn’t work. She focuses on appearance and external politeness, her exquisite dress has another function, “in case of an accident, anyone seeing her dead on the highway would know at once that she was a lady”(page 118). Those values are hollow and somehow meaningless. As for her son and her daughter-in-law, they are apathetic to their life, there is a lack of communication between them and their family, in the society of high-speed industrialization, materialism causes people to forget spiritual values, to choose an silent, insensitive attitude to their life. John and June, the third generation, judge things by the standards of money amount, “She won’t stay at home for a millions bucks.”(page 118), ”I wouldn’t live in a broken-down place like this for a million bucks!”(page121) and June said she would never marry a man that just brought her a watermelon on Saturday, etc.. Lacking of the sense of right and wrong, good and evil, they felt regretful there was nobody killed in the accident, material and adventurous desires are the biggest characteristic of this generation. The cohesion of family is destroyed quietly, the alienation and estrangement are obvious, the modern American society is in an ethical crisis, O’Connor tried to awake people’s consciousness from this crisis through the analysis of the essence of those abnormal phenomena and severe problems in her works.
A Good Man Is Hard to Find–O’Connor
How should we define a good man? A man who abides by the law and doesn’t commit any crimes? A man of regligion who believes in God sincerely? A man who has good manners and be responsible to his family? As a matter of fact, there does not exist a standard for us to define what the “good” is. The law and regulations are external constraints put on people’s social activities, to some extent, religion has the same function for people who have religious belief. Everyone has his hidden sins, A Good Man Is Hard to Find reveals that people are utterly ignorant of the nature of crime, at the same time, it really is a story of weird and darkness.
The grandmother tried to behave good-hearted and she thought herself of integrity and righteous with a sense of responsibility. In fact, she is a hypocritical and selfish person, a stupid grumbler. She hoped everything can lead to a result she wanted, to attain the goal, she even fabricated lies to bring her grandkids to the lure then forced her son to drive back to the old plantation which resulted directly in the tragedy. She reminded her son not drive too fast, she is law-abiding because she was afraid there were patrolmen hiding nearby. When she saw a little black boy standing in the door of a shack, she explained with a sense of superiority the reason that he had no pants and she had an aesthetic feeling that she would like to paint the miserable scene in a picture, the grandmother is actually a heatless person without the sympathy inside her. Her love for the life and her sincerity for God are just based on her benefit not being harmed.
The Misfit, the degenerate angel used to be a gospel singer, those unfair penalties on him made him disappointed with God and life. He looked well-mannered and soft-spoken, but he is cruel and he has a quick insight into character. He noticed the grandmother was indulged in her strong self-satisfaction and expansion that she needed some lesson at the cost of blood to sober her. “She would have been a good woman if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life.”(page 133) He thought more deeply about the religion and God than grandmother, although the latter was the one who persuaded him to pray and do not harm to her. The Misfit give himself this name, he is the incarnation of Satan, he said God made everything off balance, so did he. As to him, killing people makes no difference with stealing a type, the reason he killed people or set fire to others’ house is he wanted to testify whether God can raise the dead, he has confusion about the significance of religious beliefs. At last, he said “there is no real pleasure in life”, he didn’t grandmother’s death as fun, he knew clearly the meaning of violence and death, this makes him look a little bit reasonable, he was not a psycho, he was trying to help people realize their own sins. That’s another bizarre and satirical part of this story.
Another important point in the story is different values of three generations. The grandmother is a person with old-fashioned values, she tried to educate her grandkids with the declining southern traditional values, apparently, that doesn’t work. She focuses on appearance and external politeness, her exquisite dress has another function, “in case of an accident, anyone seeing her dead on the highway would know at once that she was a lady”(page 118). Those values are hollow and somehow meaningless. As for her son and her daughter-in-law, they are apathetic to their life, there is a lack of communication between them and their family, in the society of high-speed industrialization, materialism causes people to forget spiritual values, to choose an silent, insensitive attitude to their life. John and June, the third generation, judge things by the standards of money amount, “She won’t stay at home for a millions bucks.”(page 118), ”I wouldn’t live in a broken-down place like this for a million bucks!”(page121) and June said she would never marry a man that just brought her a watermelon on Saturday, etc.. Lacking of the sense of right and wrong, good and evil, they felt regretful there was nobody killed in the accident, material and adventurous desires are the biggest characteristic of this generation. The cohesion of family is destroyed quietly, the alienation and estrangement are obvious, the modern American society is in an ethical crisis, O’Connor tried to awake people’s consciousness from this crisis through the analysis of the essence of those abnormal phenomena and severe problems in her works.
Paris is Burning
hooks
Paris is Burning is indeed a controversial film. Every film related to “subaltern” or “non-dominant” culture, it is, in same way. That’s why it’s very interesting the reading of the film made by hooks. Especially, because he felt identifies with this kind of film for being a black and lesbian woman. As she said literally in her text, her first feeling about the film was disappointment. She was much exited about it, but the film didn’t reach her expectative. For me, her text is closer to a film critic text than to a criticism text. Her main concern, in my opinion, was the role of the director, Livingstone. We may say that hooks didn’t like a white/lesbian making a film like this, but, if she was exited about the film maybe this one was not the main reason because she didn’t like the film.
Her claim is about the role played by the director in the film. For hooks, Livingstone is an “outsider” in the world of ballroom, she definitely is. But, How does she approach to this case? That is hook’s problem. She says that Livingstone is trying to “not be” in the film, when of course, she is. The film try to have an effect of the eye watching what’s going on in this particular event without asking the role of the observer. Livingstone, and I agree with hooks about this, is not taking account her presence in the scene. She is interfering in the event that she is presenting to her audience. It is possible that someone “from the outside” doesn’t affect at the time he/she looks. In addition to that, jooks didn’t like, actually, what she saw in the film. She felt that balls were reproducing the paradigm of supremacy of the man/white/straight and “whiteness” in general. I think this is important to make a distinction between the “queer/scholar world” and the rest of the “queer world”. Being a black gay doesn’t mean to hate “whiteness”, doesn’t mean, necessarily, that they are subverting the established order. I think in most of the cases that is the “purpose” that scholars related to queer studies try to give to this kind of groups, but doesn’t mean that it’s like that.
Butler
On the other hand, Judith Butler goes deep about the analysis of this film. She rejects the idea that “just for been a drag you must be subversive”. She is more concerned about the unstable categories of “been a man” and “been a woman”. For her, the situation is much more complicated. When the man is dressed like a woman, he is not trying to “be” a woman. He is in a more complex situation that can not be reduced to the dichotomy man/woman.
She says a few interesting film about the different categories that we can find in the balls. The main concern of hooks was the “idol” figure of white woman. But, that one is just one category among the others. Then, appear some categories like “the army man”, the “Eyve League student”, etc. The main reflection is based on the concept of “the norm” and the “symbol” of this representation.
For Butler, this film is not about the misogyny of black gays. For her, it is, in some way, the coexistence of both spheres. The world of the balls and “the rest of the world”. According to her, the main idea is about appropriation of dominant culture. But, is not an appropriation in order to keep subordinated to it, it is a way of resisting to this exclusion.
It is very interesting for me the idea of legitimacy that is under both texts and the film. Who speak for the one who are in the film? Do they do it by themselves? They are selected, interrogated and edited by the film maker, Livingstone in this case, then, they are shown, in a cinema, and the, their “behaviour” (like if they were animals) is commented and critiqued by “others”. It is interesting, also, that all the “voices” that we hear outside the film are lesbian voices. In same way, we can say that are intellectual lesbians who are discussing about black/gay/poor issues. Why them? What give them the legitimacy to speak, show, and critic the other group?
