So what was the point of all that?
I finished Kindred with a strange taste in my mouth. While this was one of the more legible books we've read thus far (thank you, Octavia Butler), I had a hard time figuring out the "moral of the story" - the endings of Ragtime and Mumbo Jumbo just felt fitting for me, and each helped complete or at least supplement the threads woven throughout each novel. These themes also supplement each other well - the Mu'tafikah complement the main topic of Jes Grew by exposing the fundamentals of western culture, for example. Since finishing Kindred, I have spent some time thinking (and procrastinating) about the major takeaways the novel presents, and how they connect with one another.
1. Slavery was bad…
…but not in the way you think. A lot of Butler’s portrayal of slavery is underwhelming (“This place isn’t as bad as I thought it would be”), which makes its worst moments pack an even heavier punch. What stuck out to me most were the familial aspects of slavery, like how entangled the slaves were with the Weylin family and with each other through marriage. When I imagine stereotypical slavery, I think of whites ruling over black people, only interacting with them when strictly necessary (usually through instruction or punishment). But because the inhabitants of the Weylin plantation spend so much time together, they can’t help but form emotional connections with one another, which the Weylins exploit or misuse to their own benefit. These complicated ties lead to some of the novel’s saddest scenes, like Rufus suddenly selling off Tess.
2. It was a different time
A core feature of the novel was Dana’s miscalculated effort to help reverse as much potential damage he might have done as a slave owner by enlightening him to her late-20th-century values, which completely backfires on her. By the end of the book, it seems like the environment Rufus was raised in had much more effect on shaping his values and beliefs. Though he tries to take Dana’s advice, he can’t help but apply it in hurtful ways. This novel leans heavily on the nature side of the nature vs. nurture debate. Similarly, despite Dana’s strong late-20th-century ideals, she still finds it easier to “play along” with the “act” of being a slave than to try to make something more just or normal to her out of the situation. And over time, she begins to accept slavery as a lifestyle, realizing how easy it is to be taught to accept slavery.
So, how do these ideas connect? They both have to do with a lack of control. The slaves have no control over their community and human emotions. Many of them can’t help but feel sympathy for the Weylins, or make themselves more valuable to the Weylins by having children with one another. Similarly, no matter how hard Rufus tries, he can’t get over his status as a slave owner - he seems doomed to hurt people more than he helps them. Both of these examples demonstrate how deeply ingrained slavery was within the American south throughout the 1800s. It wasn’t just a thing that happened, or one chapter of a history textbook, it was daily life. Here comes the 1619 Project: Butler shows that you can’t understand the American south during the 1800s without recognizing the complex and deeply emotional consequences that slavery had. To categorize slavery as a separable part of American history is to ignore how thoroughly connected it was in the everyday lives of anyone living through it or perpetuating it.
I think a big purpose of Butler's writing this book was not so much to create another narrative detailing why slavery was bad, but get into the cogs of the system and the mental effect of slavery which made it so detrimental for an entire race. Through Dana's perspective we get a sense of what its like to feel in constant threat, and through her observation of those around her (particularly Alice and her having been essentially forced to approach Rufus), what its like to not have autonomy over one's own body. Dana grapples with the reality and trauma of her past and ancestors and as a whole, the book works to communicate the idea that slavery as a system was not as a far away as we might sometimes frame it and that the impact of slavery goes far beyond the antebellum period both emotionally and institutionally.
ReplyDeleteI think part of the reason as to why Kindred's so-called "moral of the story" is a little bit harder to identify is, in part, due to the unreliable nature of the narration. Dana's perspective is altered and corrupted as the story progressive, making it harder for us readers to easily spot the book's main takeaways without being influenced by the unreliable information that Dana provides us with. Still, I think this lack of objectivity is a takeaway in of itself; Dana's surprisingly easy transition into and acceptance of the system of slavery is likely a commentary on the racial injustice of the 1970s, and how it's difficult to see the corruption of a system when you've lived your whole life knowing nothing but that.
ReplyDeleteI think it's hard to pinpoint an exact "moral of the story" in a novel like this. Like Kelby said, I think a major reason behind this novel was to gain a deeper insight on the complexities of slavery and how ingrained it is in American society, and you make a good point at the end with how this history is inseparable from American history. We really see this at the end of the novel when Dana goes to visit the Weylin Plantation--although specific stories can easily be erased, the emotional consequences it has on generations and society is immeasurable. The fact that the Weylin Plantation was so small and that the slaves and Tom and Rufus were able to build emotional connections with them contributes to the emotional and psychological manipulation that fed into slavery. The slaves are already so powerless in this system and yet we see slave owners abusing their power as a byproduct of the society and system they live in. Nice post!
ReplyDeleteI feel like because of how much more focused Kindred is compared to Mumbo Jumbo and Ragtime, it doesn't have as much of a clear message about American society. Though I do agree that Butler's trying to use Dana and the time travel to make more of a connection between the 1970s and the 1800s and show how you can't understand American history without understanding the history of slavery and the effect it had on people. I also agree that Kindred is more focused on the mental effect that Slavery had on people, as well as how it perpetuated itself by constantly indoctrinating new people into the system.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about the lack of control the characters (both white and black, though of course the slaves more than, say, Rufus) have in the novel, and I do think it's an interesting overall takeaway that I hadn't thought about before. I also think, though, that there doesn't need to be a moral in Kindred. I saw the point of Kindred as trying to let readers in on the horrors of slavery, whatever those horrors may be. Because of those horrors, Kindred doesn't really have a satisfying ending, and I think it lacks a moral, too. I think of morals coming in nice, neat stories, and Kindred isn't that, so I think that there's a reason it doesn't have one.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kelby and Khuyen's point. As a protagonist, Dana isn't striving to fix society or free the slaves on the plantation. She's just there to make sure history plays out so that Hagar is born. Her existence in the past helps more to show the complexities of relationships and society.
ReplyDeleteThe perspective of Slavery told through this story was unlike the traditional story I heard in school growing up. But I also think thats the point of the novel, it shows a shorter story of just one plantation and the daily life of a slave on a personal level instead of a condensed birds eye view of the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteThis is also a nice articulation of why it's so crucial to Butler's project to depict the effects of slavery on "both sides" in the dynamic: we have both Dana and Kevin exposed to life in the past, and Kevin ends up spending a longer time in the past than Dana does. And as you say, we see the *interactions* between the people who live on the Weylin plantation throughout their everyday lives. I mentioned it in class, but the "friendship" between Rufus and Nigel is always baffling and fascinating to think about--they are "buddies" when they are children, but gradually they grow to a place where Rufus will *own* Nigel, and Nigel will be forced to *thank* him for not breaking up his family (even as he acknowledges that by even *having* a family, Rufus now has leverage over him). And yet, they still kind of ARE friends, and we see Nigel pelting Rufus playfully with a clod of dirt, joking about him--he takes liberties that are in some ways similar to Dana. And yet, everyone knows on some level that, at the end of the day, Rufus will do what he thinks he needs to do. If his father had "arranged a sale" of Nigel, he presumably would have gone through with it.
ReplyDeleteThe key line here is when Dana observes that slavery created "strange relationships"--her strange relationship with Rufus, she observes, is pretty similar to his strange relationships with the slaves who have to thank him profusely for allowing them to have a party, before trashing him when he's out of earshot.
Remember