This way or another every piece of literary work reflects the society that the characters are destined to live in. One can hardly neglect the significance of the close interconnection between the characters and society. Various authors have in different ways revealed its essence with highlights made either on the way society influenced the characters or the way the characters shaped the society they live in. Both of these aspects of a complex interaction of characters and society are presented in Claude McKay’s Crazy Mary and Eric Walrond’s The Palm Porch.
The current paper is concerned with the investigation of the linking personality –society by examples of the main characters of the two works cited above. The research is aimed at comparing Claude McKay’s character of Mary and Eric Walrond’s character of Miss Buckner. The comparison is expected to be made through the following perspectives:
- Comparison of the personalities of the two female characters;
- Comparison of the role that the societies where the characters lived in played in their lives;
- Comparison of the possible causes that made the characters do what they did;
- Comparison of the attitudes that the readers can form in relevance to the characters.
In the long run, we expect to define what unites Mary and Miss Buckner and what makes them different. The comparison is also expected to identify the characters’ significance in the stories.
Starting with a general comparison of the two characters we should say that McKay and Walrond choose a different mode of presenting their characters: if in the Crazy Mary the main character is shown in her development, in The Palm Porch Miss Buckner is depicted as a steady character with well-established views and life principles. Thus, in the first case the reader witnesses how Mary’s character changes under the influence of society, whereas in the second case he or she is welcome to form an opinion about the woman whose character had been formed during the sixty years of her life.
Mary’s problem is introduced just as the story starts:
Miss Mary startled the village for the first time in her strange life that day when she turned herself up and showed her naked self to them. Suddenly the villagers realized that after many years of harmless craziness something was perhaps dangerously wrong with Mary, but before they could do anything about it she settled the matter herself (McKay 192).
In the case of the second story under consideration, the reader gets to know about the construction of the Panama Canal in terms of its causing “the gradual death and destruction of the frontier post.” (Walrond 134)
Though McKay’s work starts directly with the main character’s story and Warland’s one with a description of the environment in which the main character lives, in both cases the reader understands at once that the characters’ destinies are influenced by the rules according to which their societies live.
In Crazy Mary the reader can observe a drastic change in the main character’s life: Miss Mary has transformed from the respected sewing-mistress of the village school to the mad person whose behavior was hardly understood by society. After a series of events when her suitor, the village schoolmaster is accused of impregnating a student, of being betrayed by the lover and being humiliated by the villages she loses her mind:
Miss Mary got rid of her shoes […] and went about barefooted like a common peasant girl. Every day she gathered her flowers, and there was always plenty of red – hibiscus, poinsettias, dragon’s-blood. And she had a strange way of holding the bouquet in her arm as if she were nursing it. Sometimes she talked to herself, but never to anybody, and when anyone tried to talk to her she answered with a cracked little laugh (McKay 196).
Miss Mary’s madness results in the suicide she commits. We are inclined to think that both madness and suicide were a sort of response to the boundedness of her society. Though suicide is commonly regarded as an act of weak people we believe that in this particular case the position is not justified.
Miss Mary showed herself as a strong character when she made the student confess that the schoolmaster had not touched her and when she gave an account of Freshy’s confession. “Speaking quietly in her refined way and holding all attention with her pretty personality, she was almost convincing the whole meeting.” (McKay 195) Our point is that a morally weak person will not be capable of convincing others in one’s righteousness no matter how persuaded he or she is. The other thing is that Miss Mary’s strength was ruined by the pressure that society had on her. The writer managed to show how influential public opinion maybe when it is directed against a person not protected by anyone. Miss Mary was alone in her sorrow and no one attempted to help her. It seems that even a single loving or at least respecting heart could have saved her life.
When we consider the main character of Walrond’s story we will see that this is also a forceful woman, but, unfortunately, the strength of her character did not become apparent in some positively marked life situations.
Miss Buckner (what is notable is that the reader is never given her name throughout the text) is the owner of a bordello in Colon in which she employs her five daughters. This very occupation of hers speaks for itself. Not everyone is ready to start a business of this type and it requires the specific courage of the proprietor. In many ways, Miss Buckner is like her establishment. The Palm Porch is depicted as “opulent” but filled with “illusion” (Walrond 136), the same can be told about its owner. What strikes the reader is the two-fold nature of Miss Buckner’s character: on the one hand, even in her sixties she remained a woman of manners (her hair was in oily frills, she wore a silken shawl of cream and red, etc.), on the other, she was a woman of the murderous ruthlessness. The latter kept her business going and was thoroughly masked by her. Despite her “manners” and “proper” behavior, Miss Buckner finds it quite normal to be engaged in prostitution and murder. When she kills one of the unruly clients of her “house of lavish self-containment” she can easily talk about the type of dessert to eat for lunch: “In fact, Miss Buckner while Zuline sewed a button on her suede, was endeavoring to determine whether she’d have chocolate soufflé or maidenhair custard for luncheon that afternoon.” (Walrond 135, 142)
Though she is a mulatta from Jamaica, she is obsessed with colorism and despises the blacks that her two daughters have run off with. When she remembers how her eldest daughter had taken up with “a willing young mulatto, a Christian in the Moravian Church” she
almost went mad–groaned at the pain her daughters caused her.”Oh, me Gahd,” she had wept, “Oh,me Gahd, dem ah send me to de dawgs–dem ah send me to de dawgs.” He was but a clerk in the cold storage; sixty dollars a month—wages of an accursed silver employee. Silver is nigger; nigger is silver. Nigger-silver[…] Silver employee! Bah! Why couldn’t he be a “Gold” one? Gold is white; white is gold. Gold-white! “Gold,” and get $125 a month, like “de fella nex’ tarrim, he? Why, him had to be black, an’ get little pay, an’ tek way me gal picknee from me? Now, hanswah me dat!” Nor did he get coal and fuel-free, besides. He had to dig down and pay extra for them. He was not, alas! white. Which hurt, left Miss Buckner cold; caused her nights of sleepless despair. Wretch! (Walrond 139)
This monologue reveals Miss Buckner’s true nature and emphasizes her closeness to the people she despises. In this way, the author shows the paradox of her situation. Moreover, the author thus demonstrates how easily the accidental racism of the British Empire gained features of the American one.
But with all her crudeness and brutality Miss Buckner is just a mere survivor in a hostile world, this is a dehumanizing system that made her tough and predatory. We believe that no possible explanation or justification for her actions can be given even taking into account the brutal character of the world she lived in. Nothing can justify a willful murder.
In Crazy Mary, the main character found killing herself the best way out in the situation she occurred in. The author showed how a strong character can be defeated by the oppressive power of society which becomes unanimous in its lack of faith in one’s moral principles and his or her firmness of character. This often happens in a society that does not have any moral principles itself. The village was just “shaken as if by an earthquake” by the news about the schoolmaster, but they kept on listening to the subjective testimonies of both parties during the church meetings without making adequate conclusions analyzing the results of the doctor’s examination of the student (McKay 194).
Though the story does not contain any direct judgment that the author makes, the reader feels that McKay sympathizes with his character. When the church meeting decides to resort to the doctoral expertise the author’s tone sounds sarcastic:
How strange that nobody had thought of the legal course before! After all the church bickering and disagreement! The younger church members thought that that was the most excellent way of settling the trouble. A doctor’s examination and the decision of a judge (McKay 196).
The same tone is observed when the author talks of the student’s sexual experience years after the incident with the schoolmaster was forgotten: “Freshy had had three children for three different black bucks before she was nineteen.” (McKay 197) This author’s attitude contributes to the reader’s understanding of the character as well. We cannot but sympathize with Miss Mary in her grief. What deepens the problem is our realizing the fact that the character’s tragedy is not a rare thing in any society. The latter often initiates the hunt for a person who because of his or her individualism differs much from others. Without the needed help from people around this person is destined to lose his or her moral strength and fall defeated by public opinion.
Summarizing everything that was mentioned above we conclude the following. In both works, under consideration, the authors created bright female characters who were significantly affected by the societies they lived in. Miss Mary could not stand the oppressive power of the surroundings and committed suicide, while Miss Buckner managed to adjust to the brutal world around elaborating her ways to respond to the challenges life presented her with. Both characters are forceful. But in McKay’s work, the character uses her strength with good intentions taking care of the person she loves, whereas in Walrond’s story the character’s force becomes useful for her purposes only. In both cases society made the characters do what they did, but if Miss Mary could not control her actions Miss Buckner was aware of her conduct and, what is more important, never tried to change it because she never realized the necessity of the change to be made.
The character of Miss Mary evokes sympathy with the readers. As for Miss Buckner, this is a dubious feeling that arises. This is a sort of disgust towards her way of living and a strong desire to see some changes in her conduct. Realizing that nothing good can be expected from this character the reader sympathizes with the character’s doom to moral failure.
In both works under analysis, the characters play crucial roles in understanding the authors’ messages. The character of Miss Mary is a symbol of the devastating impact of the oppressive society and the character of Miss Buckner is a symbol of the burden one has to bear to adjust to this society. In both stories, the reader is encouraged to think of his or her attitude to the problem personality-society and work out a set of principles not to become a victim of the society he or she lives in. This is where the main significance of the two characters is rooted.
Works Cited
McKay, Claude. Short Stories. Kingertown, 1932.
Walrond, Eric. Tropic Death. NY: Boni & Liveright, 1926.