Author: nportz20

Over the course of the semester, the fundamental question of this class has been: what factors determine a “Great American Novel”. Whether a novel is great or not is subjective, but I believe there are a few decisive features that make a book worthy of this prestigious title. A truly great American novel must demonstrate a uniquely American experience or idea, and apply it to relatable characters. Just because a novel is set in the United States does not necessarily mean it is an American novel in the sense of this class. The American experience is necessary for a great American novel because it provides the significance and meaning. It is either a criticism or glorification of something exclusively American. The author’s goal is to make a commentary on a certain piece of US culture or history through the medium of a fascinating story. The story of a great American novel must be compelling and relatable to the American audience. If the story is not compelling or the audience cannot relate to it, the meaning is lost. While the story may seem like the most important aspect of any novel, in this case the deeper meaning behind the story is more important. If a novel contains an interesting story that is relatable and makes a meaningful and reasonable commentary on American society, it is in my opinion a “Great American Novel”.

As I Lay Dyingfollows the Bundrens, a poor southern family during the Great Depression. Addie Bundren, the family matriarch, has fallen gravely ill and is facing death. She decides that she wants to be buried in Jefferson which is a nearby town that the family will need to bring her body to once she dies. When she dies, the family honors her wish and takes her body to Jefferson, but along the way they encounter a plethora of difficulties that seem to take the few resources and resolve they have left. They even lose another family member along the way as Darl Bundren is put in a mental institution for burning down a barn to try to incinerate Addie’s body. His attempt to burn her body fails however and the family buries Addie in Jefferson. Right after burying Addie, Anse, her husband, finds a new wife. The constant misery suffered by the family seems to beg the question of whether the purpose of this book is to show resilience through adversity or to simply paint a picture of misery. In my opinion, this book was written to show just how miserable life can be sometimes. The context in which it was written was the Great Depression so this seems reasonable to me.

Ed Tom Bell, the sheriff in No Country for Old Men, seems to believe that times have changed drastically since he first became a police officer. He reminisces about the old times where sheriffs didn’t even need to carry any guns and how criminals still seemed to be human. Over the course of his career as sheriff, the crimes he deals with have become increasingly awful, leading him to believe that there has been a change in how people act on a basic level and that he was built for a better and more peaceful time, hence the name No Country for Old Men. He believes that human nature has shifted across the decades to become more cruel and violent. In my opinion, the main purpose of the book is to allow the reader to come to their own conclusion on whether Ed Tom Bell is correct or not. Personally, I disagree with Ed Tom Bell; I believe that human nature has never changed and will never change. Human nature causes people to commit the most disgusting and terrible of crimes and perform the greatest acts of kindness imaginable. History repeats itself for a reason, and Ed Tom Bell should understand that after his long career in law enforcement.

Day of the Locust follows a group of people desperate to find success in the film industry despite the immense hardship of the Great Depression. Nathaniel West paints a picture of the grim realities of the film industry hidden underneath the its shiny Hollywood exterior. The main characters of the book have been broken down by one failure after another until they have reached the point of giving in to their basic desires to seek out pleasure at any cost. This plot point seems to revolve around Faye, who seems to become the target of sexual desire for every man she meets. Her relationships are emotionless and she can never be genuine with anybody in her life. Faye’s desirability causes several fights throughout the book as men vie for her attention. They choose to fight rather than acting civilized because their failures have made them more animals than people. Nathaniel West uses Day of the Locust to comment on how things that look nice on the outside aren’t always good when you take a closer look. Therelevance of this message in the modern world is that it is still very much true. Hollywood still remains an excellent example of this as sexual assaults by people like Harvey Weinstein continue to be revealed.

After having read all of the novels assigned in this class as well as American novels that were not assigned, I’ve noticed that they tend to have a bleak view of the American dream and experience. I often hear people talking about how American literature portrays the idealized image of the American dream and thus has an overall positive outlook on life and the future. While I can understand how a book like The Grapes of Wrathcan be interpreted as a portrayal of American resolve through extremely difficult circumstances, the rest of the books don’t seem to have any convincing optimistic interpretations. For example, in both of the novels written by Cormac McCarthy that I read this semester, Blood Meridian and No Country for Old Men, the antagonist, who in both cases seems to represent evil itself, ultimately wins. Day of the Locustdepicts Hollywood degeneracy in graphic detail. While these books contain intriguing stories, they carry a heavy message that maybe the United States and the American dream isn’t what we thought it was. I think that it’s important to get this realism across to the audience because it shatters their previously held naïve beliefs and makes them better equipped for the real world. However, I do think that maintaining a certain level of optimism in literature is very important if the author’s goal is to bring about meaningful change.

While reading Blood Meridian, I began to notice a pattern that seems to be consistent across Cormac McCarthy’s novels. It appears that the characters and story exist as a means for a broader message to be delivered to the audience. This is a break from the usual formula that most authors use when writing novels; that is, they write a novel to tell an interesting story and nothing more. Their focus is typically on the main protagonist or protagonists as they overcome some hardship. However, McCarthy takes a much less active role in his story. Instead of driving forward a plot in which the protagonists overcome difficulty, he chooses instead to observe characters and how they naturally react to problems. In Blood Meridian, the kid joins the Glanton gang as it wanders the desert looking for Indians to kill for bounty. No Country for Old Menspends much of its story showing Moss’ attempts to evade Chigurgh, only for him to end up getting killed in the least climactic way possible. The Road, follows a father and son as they desperately wander a post-apocalyptic wasteland in search of food and shelter. In all of these cases, there is not a clear and forward moving plot. Unlike traditional novels, there is no mission for the main characters except survival. The characters continuously fight for their survival throughout the entire course of the book; this causes the plot to move in circles rather than a line, as the plot resets every time a character finds him/herself in danger. 

While this may sound like a boring style of writing, McCarthy’s novels keep the reader engaged and interested in the story. In my opinion, this is because the novels are designed to expose humanity’s darker side in a brutally realistic way that most audiences have never experienced before. The characters seem like relatively normal people which allows the audience to relate to them. So, when these characters commit, or are victimized by the intense violence that seems to characterize McCarthy’s novels, the audience is able to relate to it. By doing this, McCarthy reveals how the darker side of human nature is very much present in all of us, no matter how much we try to convince ourselves otherwise. This also provides a much-needed break from the traditional heroes of novels that have no flaws and are morally superior to the audience.

Cormac McCarthy uses his stories and characters as a means of getting his message across to the readers. The stories and characters are crafted specifically to be relatable and interesting to the audience so that the message isn’t forced. So, in a way, McCarthy’s novels are simply a creative and interesting approach for him to illustrate his perspective on the dark side of human nature. The characters and stories are interesting because of their realism and relatability, but they are replaceable. Moss for example, appeared to be the main character of No Country for Old Men, but he got killed and the story continued on without any problems. It’s not the characters or even the story itself that gives meaning to the story, it’s the message that it sends to the audience. This is the reason for the repetitive nature of his stories. If they had a linear plotline, they would distract from their true message and the audience would be left with another, likely mediocre, traditional novel experience. Also, the circular plotline demonstrates how humanity never changes or learns from its mistakes; it just continues on its journey for survival. As a whole, I believe that Cormac McCarthy’s style of writing is revolutionary and does an extremely effective job of sending a message to the audience.

In Blood Meridian, Cormac McCarthy shares his vision of the vast and dry desert frontier of the Southwestern United States. He depicts it as a chaotic and violent land where the rule of law is merely a suggestion, and a suggestion that is rarely followed at that. The only true law in this land is nature’s law of eat or be eaten. The examples of this law being put into action are plentiful in Blood Meridian, as actions that most people in our current society would consider excessively, and often horrifyingly, cruel seem to be commonplace on the frontier. There are no exceptions to nature’s fundamental law either. Every single character on the frontier is affected in some way by this struggle for survival. By far, the most common response to this struggle is violence, which can be seen especially in Glanton’s gang. Not only does the gang essentially act as a death squad for hire by hunting people and taking their scalps for bounty, but there is also intense infighting. The two Jacksons exemplify the infighting through their constant bickering and insulting of each other; eventually one of the Jacksons kills the other. When this happens, the rest of the gang hardly even reacts and continues on as if the second Jackson had never even been with them. I believe that Cormac McCarthy wrote Blood Meridian as a way to explore nature’s law and how it still very much applies to humanity. Essentially, McCarthy shows how in the absence of manmade law, nature’s law prevails.

The Grapes of Wrath follows the Joad family and their companions as they flee the Oklahoma dust bowl to seek work in California. The group is a mix of different people who all want the same thing: survival. What I’ve noticed about these characters is that they all seem to have an individual set of characteristics or actions that are fundamental to their personality and allow them to cope with the difficulties of their displacement. Even if a character wants to change, they seem unable to, no matter the effort they put into it. The struggles we watch the group deal with over the course of the novel only seem to emphasize each individual’s beliefs and actions rather than changing or diminishing them. Tom Joad is likely the most obvious example, as he tries to leave behind his violent past in Oklahoma, only to find himself more angry, frustrated, and violent than he was when he left. Uncle John tries to be a good man out of guilt for his past but ends up falling to drink several times during the story. Ma, who has always held the family together, becomes more forceful in order to prevent the breakdown of the family. Again, their common goal is survival and that’s what keeps the group together. When survival is what’s at stake, the true nature of each character is revealed. For example, Connie abandoned his pregnant wife because he knew she would be a drain on resources and he would be better off on his own. Connie had always been young and immature, but he was pushed over the edge when he realized his own survival was at stake if he took on the responsibility of both Rose of Sharon and their child. He embraces his immaturity and opts to simply leave, rather than face his responsibility. Tom kills the man who killed Casy which reflects both his protective instincts and his deep frustration with the dire circumstances he and his family can’t seem to escape from. Throughout the novel, it becomes very clear that the Joads aren’t the only ones returning to their fundamental personalities and instincts. This is happening across the country, as millions of people lose their jobs and livelihoods in the wake of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. The Joads, like most other small scale farmers in the area, felt a strong connection to the land they had inherited from their ancestors. They grew up, worked, died, and were buried on this land, just like their parents and grandparents and so on. The land was a massive piece of their identity and the loss of it to the large and uncaring bank has turned them into primal, selfish, and uncivilized shells of their former selves. I believe that the Joads are simply a representation of the displaced American farmer in the dust bowl. John Steinbeck created these characters and this story to reflect on and raise awareness about the things he saw during the Dust Bowl era. He saw that the banks were buying up and collectivizing all of the land while kicking the poor farmers out without even a single moment of hesitation. In The Grapes of Wrath, Steinbeck points out how the economic and natural disasters of the 1930s have caused everybody to act according to their basic, selfish instincts. This includes the bank workers who are afraid of losing their jobs and ending up just like the people they’ve been evicting. In a way, “The Bank” is a representation of the selfish and cutthroat attitude that seems to develop in the people of the United States during this era. “The Bank” seems to transcend the people that make it up as it selfishly forces desperate people off their land and allows them to starve for profit. I believe that this story reveals Steinbeck’s opinion on human nature. He believes that people are fundamentally self-serving and will revert to this instinct whenever trouble happens and they’re personally threatened.

From his soliloquies, Ed Tom Bell seems to see crime and law as two unstoppable forces of nature that always balance and never go away. He realizes that he can never get rid of crime, only control it. Bell seems like he’s seen everything and there is nothing that will shock him anymore. He notices a new breed of criminals like Chigurh and knows the police will have to adapt to deal with them. In the soliloquy at the beginning of the third chapter, Bell talks about how advances in technology don’t help the police because the criminals use new technology to counter it. It seems like a metaphor for his view on the struggle between criminals and law enforcement as a whole. From these windows into Bell’s thought process, he seems like a former optimist whose point of view has been warped by the terrible things he has seen. The Bell we see in No Country for Old Men has been hardened and simply accepts the grizzly nature of the real world with the knowledge that he has little power to change it. He longs for the older and simpler days of law enforcement where the crimes weren’t as brutal.