As a continuation of a class
discussion we had on Wednesday, I’d like to talk about Henry Forge and, more
specifically, how we as the audience are meant to view him. By all accounts, I
think, Henry is a rather terrible person for most of the book—he’s a racist,
sexist, incestuous, allows his animals to be abused, and cares nothing for
people who do not serve an immediate practical use to him. However, it is worth
considering the beginning and end of Henry’s story when evaluating his
character as well, lest we discard his entire arc.
Henry grew up under the “care” of
John Henry, who was every bit as horrible as him. He literally beat his son on
a slave pole, after all, and raped his wife, and that isn’t even to mention the
abhorrent ideals he instilled upon Henry. So, we therefore encounter the first
obstacle in analyzing Henry’s character: the theme of cyclical abuse. Are we to
blame Henry for listening to his father? Is it his fault that he had a racist tyrant
to raise him? This issue is very applicable to “real life”, as people often excuse
offensive actions (such as racism) by reasoning that, well, that person was
born in a different time/place/country/(insert reason here)—with the implicit
understanding being that they did not have a choice.
Henry did have a certain
amount of choice, though; he had the choice to, despite his ideals, not have
sex with his daughter. At the risk of simplifying the issue, I simply cannot
accept Henry as anything but a monster, even if he was taught to be one.
I don’t think the book can, either; Ginnie’s husband, Roger, does say that
adults should “take responsibility for [their] adult mind”, which to me seems like
a very blatant statement on Henry’s character (407). Even Henry himself, after marinating
upon his status as “a prisoner of another man’s ideas” admits that he can no
longer convince himself of that fact, implying that he is aware that his
choices were freely made (516).
However, saying this, we must
address the elephant in the room. After Henrietta’s death, it would seem that
Henry did finally begin to take responsibility for his “adult mind.” He
begins to love and care for Samuel, Henrietta’s black baby, even missing horse
races in order to stay with the child. He pulls Hellsmouth out of racing and
imagines rebuilding the farm as a place of “renewal and rest” (517). He even
seems to have some idea of how to help Allmon, if his request for a meeting is
any indication. So, amidst this redemption arc, are we to reinvent our image of
Henry completely, heralding him as a man who broke the chains of his father’s
ideas and faced himself head-on, ready to make amends?
Personally, I’m not convinced.
Henry Forge’s redemption is
inaugurated by the death of his daughter. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind
that, had Henrietta lived, Henry would have been utterly enraged at the
prospect of a black child in his family, and doubled down on his racism. This
is the man who had sex with his daughter to ensure the “purity” of his family
line, after all. So, it was not a change in ideals that led to Henry’s change—it
was the black body becoming explicitly related to him, literally by blood, that
made Henry realize that he may have to reconsider his thoughts (likely because now
that his daughter was dead, he had no other chance for offspring). His
redemption is thus tainted, in my view, by the fact that it only came about under
extremely specific circumstances for extremely specific reasons; he did not
learn to value others as much as himself, but rather to value them as long as
they had a relationship to himself.
As Penn puts it quite clearly,
Henry Forge’s new identity was “not fully formed” (466). Maybe that’s because
it was built on pillars of sand.
The idea that Henry's transformation should be tainted by the idea that he only makes these changes because Henrietta dies and his last connection to her is of his black grandson seems to find a problem with him changing for the sake of doing so. It is impossible to excuse Henry’s past behavior of racism and incest. Henry explicitly states, “’I love you, Henrietta … But I also love perfection,’” (362). Henry clearly shows that he loves his daughter throughout the novel, but he is willing to indulge in incest in order to produce what he would consider a perfect kid. Furthermore, Henry states, “’Hate you? I don’t even remember your [Allmon’s] name,’” (367). While removing Allmon from his farm and from having contact with Henrietta, Allmon questions Henry’s racism. Henry responds that he cares so little for Allmon, and black people in general, that he never even bothers to learn his name. He’s a racist man who has sexual relations with his daughter; it’s impossible to excuse Henry for these actions. However, in a moment of reflection, Morgan writes, “Again, he [Henry] reckoned with the enormity of the change in himself,” (467). Henry, by himself, recognizes this change in his ideals and beliefs, and he gains nothing in doing so. It is unfair to critique the man for changing under dramatic circumstances; often, dramatic circumstances are the only thing that can spur change.
ReplyDeleteI agree that dramatic circumstances are often the only thing that can spur change. However, in reality, if someone changes because of dramatic circumstances, it seems fair to me to wonder if they will keep that change outside of those circumstances. I think it is fair to apply that logic to fiction as well; especially a story that deals with reality as ambitiously as this one.
DeleteI am happy that he changed at all, though. It's definitely a step in the right direction.
Good post. To begin, I agree with Roger's argument that one must take responsibility for their adult mind. Often, we excuse our grandparents or family member's racism because "they're from a different time" but if they're here with us now, they're living in the same time. Therefore, despite his upbringing, at a certain point Henry is fully culpable for prejudice thoughts. While his growth is notable, I would not go as far to say Henry is no longer racist, just because he takes good care of his brown grandchild. I would argue that he probably still has prejudice towards other black people who are not related to him. In addition, Samuel's skin tone also plays a role in the fact that he is only a quarter black. If he came out darker, it would be much more difficult for Henry to overcome his prejudice beliefs. Also, while maybe Henry did not do a complete 180 change, it is important to note his progress as inherently good. His actions taken towards caring for Samuel are notable and he does display character growth. I would not go to the extent of saying he is by any means a good person, as this does not negate any of his previously noted actions above, i.e. incest. In addition, Henry shouldn't necessarily receive praise for finally becoming a less horrible person, but again, as readers we can accept his growth as a good thing. I also believe that readers would not be able to fully accept more change in him realistically. From where Henry started, how he was raised, how he acted as an adult, if he were to come out on day and no longer be prejudice at all, this would seem too unrealistic for readers to digest.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your conclusion that Henry Forge’s redemption arc is only fully realized with the acceptance of his mixed grandchild. His change was only possible with these extremely specific circumstances; had the novel taken another course, it is possible that he wouldn’t have reacted the same way. Furthermore, I find his change of heart to be a symbol of him growing up (finally) from a racist, naive child to a semi-realized adult. As you point out, Roger seems to speak the point of the novel into existence by stating that adults must “take responsibility for [their] adult mind” (407). However, Henry seems to not fall into the category of adult. His childish selfishness in obsessing over horses and purity seems to have taken up all of his time, leaving no room to grow up. Henry isn’t an adult, but rather a stunted child. Only with the birth of Samuel does Henry seem to finally grow up and become an adult, albeit a “not fully formed” one (466). His change was selfish, but it was change nonetheless. As you mentioned in class, he definitely shouldn’t be celebrated for doing the bare minimum, but it is still worth noting in the overall scheme of the novel.
ReplyDeleteSeeing as I agreed with your point about this in class, it’s probably wholly unsurprising that I agree here. More directly though, I want to focus on Henry Forge’s racism, and whether that specific part of him changed throughout the book.
ReplyDeleteObviously, Henry was raised by a deeply conservative, white supremacist father. This greatly shaped his opinions and can be seen as the direct cause of his racism that follows him as a grown man. You make a point I sincerely agree with about the quote from Roger, and one that I think C.E. Morgan really wanted people to take into account. I don’t think, as far as I can see, that C.E. Morgan wanted readers to view Henry as a victim of his father’s opinions. Like you noted, he even says himself that he was not in actuality “a prisoner of another man’s ideas” (516).
Towards the end of the book, we see Henry’s racism seem to ease with his acceptance of his black grandchild. But is this really a change in his racism, or proof of how much value he puts into his bloodline? I think one could argue that Henry finds value in Samuel in spite of his blackness, directly because of the blood he shares with both Henry and Henrietta. I think that the change we seem to see in Henry’s racism is more of a denial of race than an acceptance of it.