Scan barcode
A review by caitlin_89
The House Behind the Cedars by Charles W. Chesnutt
3.0
This book was ok. It was important in our discussion of naturalism as well as issues of race and sex. Instead of a review, I present my in-class response to this reading (spoilers):
I hope we eventually move on to some literature in which tragic death isn’t such a prominent occurrence. I was totally unprepared for Rena’s death at the end of this book. Even with the knowledge that I was reading naturalist literature, I didn’t expect the tragic ending.
When I flipped through to the end to count the chapters, I noticed the title of the last one, “A Mule and a Cart.” Before Rena leaves with her brother, Frank says, “Ef you ever wanter come home, an’ can’t git back no other way, jes’ let me know, an’ I’ll take my mule an’ my kyart an’ fetch you back, ef it’s from de een’ er de worl.” And so, when I read in chapter four Frank’s declaration of devotion, I assumed correctly that it was a foreshadowing of the end of the story.
However, I assumed incorrectly that it would lead to a satisfactorily happy ending. As improbable as it was for Frank to find Rena unconscious in the brush that morning, I couldn’t help but be relieved and glad despite the contrivance; my mind jumped ahead, picturing him
nursing her back to health and the two of them living quietly and peacefully, if not happily, ever after.
And then she dies. And it bothers me that although the story begins with John, and John is the instigator of the whole chain of events that eventually leads to Rena’s death, he is nowhere to be seen in the end of the story. John leaves Patesville on page 124, less than 2/3 of the way through the story, and is never heard of again. Then again, Rena’s death isn’t mentioned til the very last line, and her illness was sudden, but still it seems cruel that her brother is at least in
some way responsible for her great downfall, but completely absent for the repercussions.
Despite what I perceive to be John’s responsibility, no real blame is placed on any one character in the book; not the father of John and Rena for not providing for them; not John for taking Rena from safety; not George for his [socially normal] racism. This is exemplified in
Rena’s “argument of divine foreordination” during her last conversation with John, which gives voice to the naturalism in the story. What Rena calls “the will of God” is her fate, which even
she sees as obviously unavoidable since things fell apart when she tried to move beyond “her place.” Despite the number of people involved, and the number of their little faults, everything
ultimately just comes down to the misfortune of the way things are.
John isn’t really a likeable character. He’s pretty selfish and manipulative at times (particularly that scene in the beginning when he guilt trips his mother into letting Rena go), and despite his not being absolutely awful, I didn’t care for him at all. I wonder,though, if I can blame that on the naturalism as well. Is John just a product of his environment? Was that just his fate, to end up coming off more cool and detached rather than warm and connected, because of his becoming a self-made man?
I hope we eventually move on to some literature in which tragic death isn’t such a prominent occurrence. I was totally unprepared for Rena’s death at the end of this book. Even with the knowledge that I was reading naturalist literature, I didn’t expect the tragic ending.
When I flipped through to the end to count the chapters, I noticed the title of the last one, “A Mule and a Cart.” Before Rena leaves with her brother, Frank says, “Ef you ever wanter come home, an’ can’t git back no other way, jes’ let me know, an’ I’ll take my mule an’ my kyart an’ fetch you back, ef it’s from de een’ er de worl.” And so, when I read in chapter four Frank’s declaration of devotion, I assumed correctly that it was a foreshadowing of the end of the story.
However, I assumed incorrectly that it would lead to a satisfactorily happy ending. As improbable as it was for Frank to find Rena unconscious in the brush that morning, I couldn’t help but be relieved and glad despite the contrivance; my mind jumped ahead, picturing him
nursing her back to health and the two of them living quietly and peacefully, if not happily, ever after.
And then she dies. And it bothers me that although the story begins with John, and John is the instigator of the whole chain of events that eventually leads to Rena’s death, he is nowhere to be seen in the end of the story. John leaves Patesville on page 124, less than 2/3 of the way through the story, and is never heard of again. Then again, Rena’s death isn’t mentioned til the very last line, and her illness was sudden, but still it seems cruel that her brother is at least in
some way responsible for her great downfall, but completely absent for the repercussions.
Despite what I perceive to be John’s responsibility, no real blame is placed on any one character in the book; not the father of John and Rena for not providing for them; not John for taking Rena from safety; not George for his [socially normal] racism. This is exemplified in
Rena’s “argument of divine foreordination” during her last conversation with John, which gives voice to the naturalism in the story. What Rena calls “the will of God” is her fate, which even
she sees as obviously unavoidable since things fell apart when she tried to move beyond “her place.” Despite the number of people involved, and the number of their little faults, everything
ultimately just comes down to the misfortune of the way things are.
John isn’t really a likeable character. He’s pretty selfish and manipulative at times (particularly that scene in the beginning when he guilt trips his mother into letting Rena go), and despite his not being absolutely awful, I didn’t care for him at all. I wonder,though, if I can blame that on the naturalism as well. Is John just a product of his environment? Was that just his fate, to end up coming off more cool and detached rather than warm and connected, because of his becoming a self-made man?