Miner 1
Jeff Miner
Ron Strickland
ENG 234.01
May 9, 2007
The Modernist Guide to Survival
Within the plethora of texts examined within our class, many address the correspondence of danger and survival as conjoined elements, of which the latter is dependent upon an action initiated by the former. Yet, upon examining the circumstances surround danger and their respective outcomes, it seems that very little about the outcome is entirely clear in regards to whether or not a positivity or negativity. Rather, the varying texts repeatedly offer extremely similar or identical situations in which the lack of clarity of the resultant forces one to question exactly what the modernist believes to be the best course of action when exposed to or presented with danger.
Beginning with Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God,one such instance of danger is introduced in a narrative statement that “common danger made common friends. Nothing sought a conquest over the other,” (Hurston 164). In its context, this narration highlights that all people, regardless of color, disregard societal differences and gather alongside potentially deadly animals to avoid imminent death, or to avoid the danger. Clearly, Hurston’s deduction is applicable to the context in which it is narrated, as creatures that would typically be found at bout were not so in the presence of a mutual threat. Yet, when Tea Cake provides this wisdom to a man who is afraid to jump down from a tree because a deadly snake is beneath him (165), there is no result given for having provided this wisdom. Thus, it seems likely that Hurston may have unintentionally omitted this information and, therefore, no deduction can be made, but, conversely, one cannot help but wonder if it is merely convenient for Hurston to have omitted this information. Upon further analysis, it is realized that the omitting of said information was convenient for Hurston, as her narration proclaimingthat creatures in the most desperate state of survival will peacefully coincide with creatures of a similar state should the element of danger be an equal threat unto both, does not seem to apply throughout the novel.
To this notion, one can look to the burying of bodies following the settling of the hurricane as another example of where Hurston’s view of danger and survival does not prove to be true. In such, it is observed that “miserable, sullen men, black and white under guard had to keep on searching for bodies and digging graves,” (Hurston 170). Regardless of whether the need to bury the dead was primarily due to stench, disease, disgust, or all of the aforementioned, such a danger would be equally harmful to all people. So, although the danger to all people is equal, the guards are not friends of the diggers. Effectively, the guards have conquered those who are digging in order to avoid greater exposure, either by means of physical touch or relative proximity, to the danger themselves.
Fortunately, Hurston provides alternatives to this narrative wisdom throughout the novel and one of these alternatives is apparent when examining situations involving the character Joe Starks. As the mayor of a black town, Joe assumed a role similar to a white overlord amidst slaves, as seen in Oscar Scott’s words, “you kin feel a switch in his hand when he’s talkin’ to yuh,”(Hurston 49). When coupled with the knowledge that “there was no doubt that the town respected him and even admired him in a way,” (48) the majority of the townsfolk, ultimately, perceived Joe as their common enemy, or a common danger. In other words, the power Joe gained through authority presents a formidable threat to those within the town and they have become common friends in their mutual danger. Unlike with the hurricane, though, there is no attempt to avoid the danger; the danger is submitted to and embraced by the mass, thus causing the danger to be continually present and no benefit is yielded. Granted, it could be perceived that the danger of the hurricane was also submitted to and embraced, but such a perception would be in ignorance of the knowledge that submitting to and embracing the hurricane entails passively dying, as opposed to avoiding the danger by gathering with enemies in a confined area of safety.
Another alternative provided byHurston is rooted within through Janie’s acquittal for killing Tea Cake. Ultimately, the reason for Tea Cake’s death was due toa partial adherence to Hurston’s proverbial wisdom, in that the dog he saved Janie from was a common danger, and subsequent disregard of the wisdom, as he attacked a creature equally threatened by the hurricane (Hurston 165-166). Upon further analysis, it is apparent that both Tea Cake and Janie chose an offensive action, as opposed to avoidance, to deal with danger. Yet, Tea Cake saved Janie’s life by taking action in a dangerous situation, but condemned himself in the process, causing Janie to later take action to deal with a dangerous situation, of which she survived unscathed, and was forced to take Tea Cake’s life. The crux of this situation is the exchange of one life for another, wherein the savior’s life is lost at the hands of the life saved merely as a result of the act of saving, or acting offensively in response to danger, and, much like the result of Tea Cake spreading proverbial wisdom to the man in the tree, the outcome remains an enigma since it is both necessary, in that it yields a positive outcome through the saving of a life, and unnecessary, in that it merely exchanges one life for another.
Sadly, it seems that Hurston’s methods of dealing with dangerresult in inapplicability, a lack of a positive outcome, or an indiscernible outcome. Deterred from the expectation that Hurston would be able to proved insight into handling dangerous situations, Marianne Moore’s “Bird-Witted” can, perhaps, be examined for a more definitive answer. This answer, however, is best discovered through an explanation of how the mother bird acted offensively and not defensively in response to a danger.
Within “Bird-Witted,” the mother of the birds sees a cat near the nest and was “nerved by what chills the blood,” (Moore, line 51). In other words, the bird perceived the cat as dangerous. Yet, the cat had clearly made no threatening action and, further, had even been accepted by the baby birds, for “unused to him / the three [baby birds] make room—uneasy / new problem,” (44-46). Should there be an inherent, rather instinctive, threat of cats to birds, then the baby birds, “with innocent wide penguin eyes,” (1) would have naturally been frightened, not merely uneasy due to being placed in an unfamiliar situation, and would not have made room for the cat in their nest. Subsequently, it is now made clear that the cat is simply reflecting the unfamiliarity of the situation in the way it “slowly creeping [creeped] toward the trim / trio on the tree-stem” (42-43) This is confirmed when Moore ends the poem by calling the cat an “intellectual cautiously creeping cat” (60), thereby indicating the cat was merely curious, or possibly even accepting the invitation granted to it by the baby birds. Moreover, the action of the mother bird is reinforced as offensive in the linesnoting that her voice has become harsher than it had been “before the brood was here” (38-40). Thus, the mother bird has become jaded, begrudgingly meaner, as a result of caring for the babies. When coupled with the observation that this was accomplished “with bayonet beak and / cruel wings,” (57-58) it seems that the mother bird, indeed, is acting offensively, as is explicated through the attribution of her being cruel when naturally capable of inflicting harm,to perform damage in her perception of a potential danger, although no danger was actually known beyond presumption. Therein, it is deduced that taking an action eliminates danger, but the elusiveness remains, fora sacrifice, the loss of natural curiosity and a potential friend, is also made, especially when considering the possibility that the danger was not even valid in the initial choice to take an offensive action, and no suitable definite conclusion can be drawn.
Unlike Moore and Hurston’s elusiveness, Frost’s “The Road Not Taken” indeed alleviates the elusiveness of offensive action in regards to danger. This issue is presented in the lines: “yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back,” (Frost, lines 14-15). These lines highlight the danger of finality in the choice of which road to travel; the decision, once made, can not be undone. Also, as one road “was grassy and wanted wear,” (8) the other road, the road more worn, is the one traveled by most, or the one where the end of the road is most predictable. So, this line highlights Frost’s decision is not only dangerous in its finality, but that the decision itself is about whether to take the path that is not dangerous, for the outcome is predictable, or the path that is dangerous, since its outcome is unknown. The decision Frost made is to take “the one less traveled by,” (19) and this affirms an offensive action in regards to danger; he chose to confront danger though the lack of a predictable outcome. Thereafter, his decision is reaffirmed as the correct choice by stating, “and that [the chosen path] has made all the difference,” (20). With the accomplishments of Frost in mind, this offensive method clearly provides an ultimately positive solution.
However, although the profession of Frost provides the most beneficial solution thus far, his view does not represent the modernist authors as a whole, as is derived from Moore’s alternate offering in the poem “A Grave.” Therein, Moore presents the idea that “it is human nature to sand in the middle of a thing, / but you cannot stand in the middle of this; / the sea has nothing to give but a well excavated grave,” (Moore, lines 3-5). Within their context, these lines highlight the tendency of people to expose themselves to dangerous situations that simply cannot be overcome. Yet, she further goes on to mention, “men lower nets, unconscious of the fact that they are desecrating a grave,” (13). In examining this line along with the aforementioned lines of her poem, it is apparent that people knowingly place themselves in dangerous situations, but avoid acknowledging the presence of danger, which is indicated by the use of unconscious instead of unaware. Therefore, Moore associates the act of placing oneself in danger, jointly knowingly and unknowingly, with a negative outcome. Most importantly, though, is the lingering idea that people are able to continue their lives undisturbed within this lack of acknowledgement, thereby subtly urging that the outcome is positive, as well.
To offer further insight into this conundrum, one can examine Frost’s poem “Mending Wall.” Initially, the title of the poem implies a defensive position, but there remains an ironic presence throughout the work that a wall can be both offensive and defensive. This is observed in not only the building of a wall in view of another person whom will then be prevented entry into a place, but also in the lines of the work clarifying what has remained imponderable:
Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense. (Frost, lines 32-34)
As these lines proclaim, the solution is not necessarily dependent upon whether or not the outcome of the responding to danger is positive or negative, nor does it depend on whether the action taken is offensive or defensive. Rather, the dependence is upon the consciousness of the decision being made in regards to a situation that proves dangerous, regardless of the consciousness of the danger itself, for it, at least, is perceived and reacted to in some degree merely by the act of formulating an action.
Thus, Frost has simplified the problems within each presented danger to thought and, accordingly, the seemingly flawed attempts by Hurston, Moore, and even Frost himself to present a solution to overcoming danger are now able to be perceived as entirely correct in their own respective situations. Further, one finds this view applicable to all texts of the period,one of which resides in Nella Larsen’s Quicksand when Helga Crane’s conscious thought leads to her defensive reaction in carefully analyzing the danger in and denying Axel Olsen’s marriage proposal (Larsen, 1578-1582). Assuredly, one can use this knowledge in any situation where danger is present, but the choice, therein, is a personal one.
Works Cited
Frost, Robert. “Mending Wall.” 1914. The Norton Anthology of American Literature. Ed. Nina Baym. Vol. D. 6th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2003. 1177-1178.
—. “The Road Not Taken.” 1916. The Norton Anthology of American Literature. Ed. Nina Baym. Vol. D. 6th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2003. 1187.
Hurston, Zora Neale. Their Eyes Were Watching God. 1937. New York: Harper Perennial, 2006.
Larsen, Nella. “Quicksand.” 1928. The Norton Anthology of American Literature. Ed. Nina Baym. Vol. D. 6th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2003. 1528-1609.
Moore, Marianne. “Bird-Witted.” 1941. The Norton Anthology of American Literature. Ed. Nina Baym. Vol. D. 6th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2003. 1330-1331.
—. “A Grave.” 1924. The Norton Anthology of American Literature. Ed. Nina Baym. Vol. D. 6th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2003. 1328.