Skip to main content

Physical Manifestations of Psychological Experiences in Kindred

     When we were discussing the end of Kindred, we discussed Dana losing her arm, and especially  how that was a reflection of her experiences throughout the book, and how she lost part of herself at the plantation. This general theme, of mental experiences and trauma expressing physically, is not only present at the end of the book, but throughout the whole book.
     In the first chapter, when Dana initially travels back, she ends up getting a gun pointed at her head, and while she doesn't actually end up getting injured, the gun represents a threat of physical injury, just like the travelling then represented only a threat of mental injury. As she keeps going back to the plantation, her mental state, as well as eventually Kevin's, gets worse and worse. This is reflected physically, in the injuries they receive. The following time Dana goes back, a white patrolled attempts to rape Dana, and Dana has the chance to gouge his eyes out with her fingers, but fails to take it. This is largely because she isn't mentally strong enough to do this, at this point in the book. Contrasting this, at the end of the book, she is able to kill Rufus, which shows her mental fortitude caused by her experiences over the course of the plot. Similarly, Kevin eventually goes back with Dana, and over his five years, he receives a scar across his face which represents the state of his mind. Since he isn't treated even close to as badly as Dana is, his injury is much less severe than Dana's lost arm, but it still leaves a lasting effect on both his body and his mind.

Comments

  1. MitchellApril 24, 2020 at 12:27 PM

    I like this reading of Kevin's scar as symbolizing some injury to "the state of his mind." We don't get enough with Kevin after he returns to the 20th century to fully gauge, but it does seem clear that he's abandoned his whole "this would be such an interesting time period to visit!" point of view after five grueling years in the past. You're right that his injury is less permanent and lasting than Dana's, and we see this difference in his willingness to go see July 4 fireworks, when she is afraid that she'll be pulled back into the past at any moment. It's easier for him to "move on," even with a scar and visible aging, whereas Dana will return to the present permanently marked and altered by her experience.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ZonaMay 11, 2020 at 12:10 AM

    You highlight a really interesting symbolic thing that Butler chose to do - giving physical reality to wounds that are generally only psychological. Especially the wounds that Dana has as a descendent in the 20th century, which some people may not even acknowledge as wounds simply because they're generational, and not directly hers. And I think by making it so literal, Butler wants to push against this idea that generational trauma is somehow "lesser".

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are Coalhouse's Actions Justified?

     In the past two days in class, we have been discussing the character of Coalhouse Walker, and his actions regarding his car and the death of Sarah. Whenever anyone talks about why Coalhouse did what he did, they always start with "I don't endorse violence or terrorism, but ", and I started to think about why everyone does this, and this brought me to the question: Is terrorism or political violence inherently bad?       First, I think we should start with the definition of terrorism.  The U.S.  Code of Federal Regulations  defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." I would argue that actions that fit this statement are not inherently morally wrong, and I think that most people would agree, at least with some actions. I think that nearly everybody would say...
3 comments
Read more

How Capitalism Corrupts Tateh's Art

     One major focus of our discussions in class has been Tateh and his transformation over the book from a street artist into the rich filmmaker Baron Ashkenazi, and how that is reflected on and changes his art. Some people in the class have made the argument that even though his financial status, and his position of power, have changed, this doesn't reflect on the intentions, morality, or validity of his art, and I disagree with this statement. The reasons why The Baron makes films are vastly different from why Tateh was making silhouettes at the start of the book, and the difference between these reflects on the art, as well as on Tateh himself, so much that it's almost like he is a seperate person by the end of the book.      I think that the fundamental difference between Tateh and his art at the start of the book, and the Baron at the end of the book is the type of art they make, and how they make it. Tateh starts out making silhouettes by himself, a...
1 comment
Read more