How to Fit In

The presence of "Aristotle's building blocks of narrative" in Chester Himes' novel, "If He Hollers Let Him Go," help to bring to light a key theme of the story. One such "building block," the anagnorisis, or the self-realization of some some epic truth by the protagonist, certainly ties in with both the story's setting and protagonist. Set in pre-civil rights America, the novel's protagonist, Bob Jones, has a hard time falling into place. Now, I say "falling into place" because Bob is a black male, living in a segregated, racially tense society, and, that is precisely what his oppressors would think it ideal of him to do. Bob, however, is neither intent, nor content with this notion, as shown at the very beginning of the novel, where he states: "Race was a handicap, sure, I'd reasoned. But hell, I didn't have to marry it" (Himes 3). Unfortunately for Bob, though, it is later made apparent that he indeed did "have to marry it" (Himes 3), as his fate takes a turn for the worse resultant of his initial refusal to do so. Nonetheless, without said refusal, and reluctance, the anagnorisis would have not been activated, as per definition, the protagonist's "self-knowledge" comes too late, and after  a "twist" in the plot (known formally as the peripeteia).

After attempts at fighting against "the segregated pattern" (Himes 168) in which he lived, demonstrated by Bob's fantasizing about killing a white co-worker of his, who literally beat him down, and attempting to engage in forced sex with a female, white co-worker, Bob finally decides to give into said "pattern," resultant of his failure to follow through with said attempts. Bob "gives in" to his girlfriend, Alice's notion of "self-preservation" (for blacks), defined by her as "finding a goal that you [(i.e. blacks, Bob)] can attain within the segregated pattern in which [they] live" (Himes 168). It is this "light at the end of the tunnel," or, promising outlook for Bob's future, which calls to stage Aristotle's building blocks. It is at this near "happy ending" that everything falls apart for Bob. Suddenly, Bob's past catches up with him, as the white co-worker that he tried to engage in sexual relations with, but was jolted out of doing by her insisting on him "raping" her, to, surprisingly, no consequence, tries to finish what Bob did not. After being caught in a locked room with him, however, she completely reverses the situation, crying out, "Help! Help! My God, help me! Some white man, help me! I’m being raped!" (Himes 180). It is after this point that the anagnorisis is truly unlocked. Being falsely accused of rape, and beaten down both physically, and mentally, Bob realizes that he never stood a chance. This knowledge comes in his realization that "[the] whole structure of American thought was against [him]; American tradition had convicted [him] a hundred years before...knowing that [he] was innocent and that [he] didn't stand a chance" (Himes 187). This realization, of course, comes too late as Bob has already been convicted, and already tried to "stand a chance," despite being "convicted...a hundred years before" (Himes 187). It is the theme of blacks being "convicted...a hundred years before," as a result of "American tradition" (Himes 187) that connects Himes' novel with Aristotle's building blocks. Trying to "stand a chance" (Himes 187) was futile, as proved through Bob, with the only way out being fitting in, in to your individual "place," "[self-preserving] within [a] segregated pattern" (Himes 168).

Parasitic Love

In our continued readings of Fanny Fern’s, “Ruth Hall,” our class has discussed many themes occurrent throughout. Of those themes, the love of convenience displayed by Ruth’s relations, i.e. her brother, “Hyacinth,” proved , to me, to be an interesting point. One would nary imagine a dog in love with a flea, which plagues it so. However, such is the “love” displayed by Hyacinth, flea-like, parasitic in nature, with him latching onto Ruth at his own convenience, with no regard, nor gain, for his “host.”
Though “flea-like,” Hyacinth would only keep up with well-bred associations, initially rejecting Ruth’s “mongrel” company. Such an example is seen upon Ruth’s correspondence with Hyacinth, Ruth hoping to receive his endorsement to propel her newfound idea of “[writing] for the papers” as a means of making a living, him being “the prosperous editor of the Irving Magazine” (Fern 220). In his reply, Hyacinth  denies Ruth’s appeal, on account of her “[having] no talent that way, stating “that writing can never be [her] forte,” thusly refusing her the opportunity to contribute to his “esteemed” paper, let alone to be praised within its pages (Fern 221). However, at a later point in the story, after Ruth has achieved a considerable degree of success, under the nom-de-plume, “Floy,” Hyacinth, in an artificially nonchalant manner, slips into a conversation with an acquaintance that “Floy,” is indeed his sister. So apparent is Hyacinth’s “change of heart,” that his acquaintance marks it so, pointing out that “nobody knew that she was [Hyacinth‘s] sister, when she first published the pieces that are now collected in that book,” to the response of Hyacinth’s ignorance of his remark” (Fern 336). Thus, apparent even to outside parties, it is clear that Hyacinth held a love of convenience for Ruth, and in true “parasitic” form, only thought of his own selfish spoils coming out of Ruth’s well-being.

Works Cited

Fern, Fanny. "Ruth Hall." http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6989748M/Ruth_Hall. Mason Brothers 1855. 155 - 197. Web. 9 July 2012.

Walking on Hot Coals

For this week's blog assignment, we were asked to read the essay, "Anger in the House: Fanny Fern's Ruth Hall and the Redrawing of Emotional Boundaries in Mid-Nineteenth-Century America," by Linda Grasso. As well as read the aforementioned article, our task was to compare, and/or contrast the essay to "a moment from the novel."

Grasso's essay addresses the reception of Fern's "Ruth Hall," by different advocates of the women's rights movement. Grasso first presents the views of famous woman's rights activist, and abolitionist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, on Fern's story's reception. Stanton takes a stance for Fern, "[defending] the book against its detractors" (Grasso 252), who saw "Fern's vitriolic depiction of undemocratic men [as] a criminal breach of moral ethics" (Grasso 253). One such detractor, who saw Fern's presentation as so, was Caroline Dall, who "[found] Fern's depiction of her relatives an inexcusable offense" (Grasso 256). Dall's considering "Fern's depiction" as offensive was lent to the "institutionalization of aesthetic standards [, which Dall used to] invalidate an author whose vision threatened her own value system" (Grasso 256). Dall seems to latch onto the notion, presented by another women's rights advocate, Paula Wright Davis, that "[women] must pass through e'en the fiery furnace, and we can only pray that she come forth unscathed, with not even the smell of fire upon her garments" (Grasso 254). Stanton disagreed with this notion, however, stating that "it was not possible for women to 'come forth unscathed'" (Grasso 254), as seen in Fern's example. So strongly felt Stanton, about the "'severe' review in the Anti-Slavery Standard, [that she] contends that Fern's story should be read as if it were a slave narrative" (Grasso 255), calling a spade a spade, and a "tyrant" a tyrant, "whether [the] 'selfish male monster' [be] 'a father, a brother, a husband, or a Southern slaveholder'" (Grasso 252).
It is apparent throughout Ruth Hall that Stanton's belief, that "it was not possible for women to 'come forth unscathed'" (Grasso 254), is quite true. Ruth was indeed scathed while "[passing] through...the fiery furnace," and not solely by "'selfish male [monsters]'" (Grasso 252) but by the majority of her community. Such is seen upon a passing-by "Ruth's [current, lower class] lodgings," by old acquaintances of Ruth's, with one of them (Mary), stating that "if Ruth Hall has got down hill so far as this, I can't keep up her acquaintance  " (Fern 155). It was this fear of degradation of class that detracted not only Ruth's old acquaintances, but her family, as well. Exemplary of this is Ruth's "'cousin [John's]'" embarrassment upon Ruth's daughter, Katy, calling him so, in front of an esteemed acquaintance of his, while dressed in "the shabbiest old bonnet, and the toes of her shoe [being] all rubbed white" (Fern 187). Not only did members of the community, or of Ruth's family, fear a degradation of class by association with her, however, but their pompousness also helped in further "scathing" Ruth. Such is illustrated in an old acquaintance of Ruth's late husband, and Ruth's own cousin "[voting] against [her]," in her bid to become a primary school teacher, simply because Ruth was taught conversely from "[the] greatest gun on the Committee...[and they] always followed in the wake of great guns" (Fern 197). These examples make apparent the constant "scathing" Ruth faced, certainly contradicting Dall's ideal of "[passing] through...the fiery furnace...'unscathed'" (Grasso 254).

Works Cited

Fern, Fanny. "Ruth Hall." http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6989748M/Ruth_Hall. Mason Brothers 1855. 155 - 197. Web. 4 July 2012.

Grasso, Linda. "Anger in the House: Fanny Fern's Ruth Hall and the Redrawing of Emotional Boundaries in Mid-Nineteenth-Century America." Studies in the American Renaissance. (1995): 251-261. Web. 4 July 2012.