So after finishing up Kindred, I was really interested in the concept at the end. We are built up to believe for the majority of the novel that everything is going to end up pretty much okay with Dana when she returns back to California (minus the whole arm incident…). Specifically, I was rather horrified with Dana’s loss of her arm. Although I knew that it was going to happen, I still was shocked and curious as to its purpose within the context of the rest of the novel. I want to try and piece the ending together so maybe I can find a real answer as to what the loss of the arm really means.
There are two possible routes I think that the loss of the arm could go, and we discussed them briefly in class today. The first is that it serves as a constant reminder of never losing roots and always having that little part of her in Maryland. While she does eventually escape this horrible past, the loss of her arm serves as a means of never being able to erase what has happened. This is a trope throughout the entire novel, I believe, as I think one of Octavia Butler’s themes in the book is that one cannot escape his or her past, as is the case with Dana, who is sent back to her roots so she can learn about where she came from. In this way, the loss of her arm is like her leaving a momento behind, so that she is always going to be somewhat stuck in this other life of hers. Although losing her arm was obviously unintentional, she will never be able to forget what happened to her.
The other explanation for the loss of her arm could be that it was a sacrifice. As we spoke about in class, the price of freedom is usually very high and impossible to bargain with. Dana, in order to save herself and the rest of the blacks on the plantation, must kill Rufus. While I do not think she knew she was going to lose a limb, I am pretty confident she knew something bad was going to happen by destroying a “relic of the past”. In this sense, Dana knows there will be consequences for doing what she does, but is willing to do whatever it takes to make life better for her and others. She is a martyr of sorts.
The bottom line is that I really am not sure what to make of this ending. There are two very different explanations for a somewhat bizarre conclusion. One involves her not being able to escape the past, while the other involves her sacrificing part of herself for the greater good of mankind. Both are feasible concepts, but I really want to know if there is a right or wrong answer to this question. I assume Butler has a meaning behind everything that goes on within her text, and an ending is no exception. There must be a right answer that she had in mind when writing. I think that I will research it for a little bit when I have free time (which is pretty much never) to see if she ever made any statements of intent. In the meantime, however, I want to know what you all think! We talked about it a little, but I know there is so much to discuss for this ending. Let me know what you all think. Is Dana leaving part of herself behind so she can never forget, or is she sacrificing? Or, is it somehow both? So many questions with so few answers. Please comment and give me a little insight! Lord knows I could use it these days.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have a hard time with the idea that the loss of Dana’s arm could be considered a sacrifice on her part. Although I understand that it could be viewed in the context that she must lose her arm in order to get freedom, that doesn’t sit well with me for some reason. Dana’s arm becomes stuck in the wall because that is where Rufus’ arm was holding her after she killed him and she traveled back to 1976. Her arm remains between the two times and places until the moment she pulls her arm and experiences “an avalanche of pain, red impossible agony!” (261). She really has no choice, her arm is literally one with the wall, and she has to lose it. Maybe my difficulty with this interpretation is in my own understanding of sacrifice, as I feel that in order for it to be a sacrificial gesture Dana would have had to make some sort of choice so as to consciously surrender her arm. Rather, I feel like the loss of her arm is inevitable. In the ‘Reader’s Guide’ at the end of my copy of the novel, Crossly included a quote by Butler that said that Dana simply couldn’t return whole, that such experiences and such a historical and social context necessitated the loss of something (I don’t have the book in front of me, otherwise I would quote it…). Because of all of the violence of the era and, specifically, Dana’s experiences, she simply couldn’t return to the modern era without some sort of permanent mark, some sort of incredible loss that would stand as a permanent reminder, as you said.
ReplyDelete