As I was reading Frank Norris’s McTeague, one element seemed to annoy and distract me more than any other: race. Many of Norris’s characters in this story are introduced by name and race. Norris also, seemingly with the racially biased mind of the late nineteenth / early twentieth century, describes these non-white others as being bestial. The further I read, however, the more convinced I became of Norris’s counter-cultural stance. Norris, while pointing out the races of some characters and highlighting how vile and base they can be, acknowledges the wickedness of those whom he, and his contemporaries, should have deemed as being a part of the superior race. Before diving into these examples from the text, one must first recognize Norris’s comments, that to us seem incredibly, racially charged, that serve to polarize the non-white others from the upright, Western peoples.
The two most prominent and reoccurring non-white characters are Zerkow and Maria. Norris’s introductory descriptions of these two are either racially charged, as is the case with Zerkow, or seemingly neutral, as is the case with Maria, who will be assigned negative qualities later on. Upon first being introduced to Zerkow, Norris notes that “Zerkow was a Polish Jew … He had thin, eager, cat-like lips of the covetous; eyes that had grown keen as those of a lynx form long searching amidst muck and debris; and claw-like, prehensile fingers” (28). Norris continues with Zerkow’s appearance through the eyes of other characters; he notes that "[i]t was impossible to look at Zerkow and not know instantly that greed--inordinate, insatiable greed--was the dominant passion of the man. He was … groping hourly in the muck-heap of the city for gold, for gold, for gold. It was his dream, his passion; at every instant he seemed to feel the generous solid weight of the crude fat metal in his palms. The glint of it was constantly in his eyes; the jangle of it sang forever in his ears as the jangling of cymbals" (28). Following the painfully long, and sometimes sexually charged (see Sarah’s post on Sexuality), description of Zerkow as a greedy Jew, Norris notes that Zerkow haggles and haggles with Maria over junk. Following his bargaining, his only desire is to hear and dwell upon Maria’s story of gold. During this time, Norris also addresses Zerkow as “the Jew” (29). Maria’s introduction is not one of tremendous import. She is introduced as “Maria Macapa, the Mexican woman who took care of the lodgers’ rooms” (13), but is then later addressed as “Spanish-American” (16) and being from “Central America” (121). Perhap this displays an ignorance on the part of the tenants? It is also possible that Norris sees no need to be consistent, or that he does not care about the cultural differences; Maria is of no import. What is important, however, is her relationship to Zerkow. As they continue to bargain and barter, Zerkow finds himself more and more entranced by Maria’s stories of past gold and wealth and his own avaricious nature. This ultimately leads to their proposed marriage, which, in the eyes of Trina and Miss Baker, a travesty. While they are rather disgusted at the prospect of marrying a Jew like Zerkow, the two women seem to understand Maria’s plight, they also acknowledge Maria’s lack of desirability. The aspects of this conversation that stand out the most are when they, listing out Zerkow’s disqualifications on page 121, note that he “is a horror, he’s an old man, and his hair is red and his voice is gone, and then he’s a Jew, isn’t he? (emphasis added)” My first response, which I wrote in my book, was “why does it matter?” For Norris and his contemporaries, all being familiar with biological determinism and naturalism stemming from the rise in evolutionary theory (see Devin’s post on Determinism and Naturalism), the roles of race and their attributes are important. Some races are, after all, closer to the animals from which humanity evolved, correct? This matter of anthropological study is one of import to the late 19th / early 20th century. Consider the way that the loss of Maria and Zerkow’s child, a seemingly tragic event, is described as wholly unmoving; Norris notes that "Neither Zerkow nor Maria was much affected by either the birth of the death of this little child. Zerkow had welcomed it with pronounced disfavor, since it had a mouth to be fed and wants to be provided for … This child was a mere incident in their lives, a thing that had come undesired and had gone unregretted. It had not even a name; a strange, hybrid little being, come and gone within a fortnight’s time, yet combining in its puny little body the blood of the Hebrew, the Pole, and the Spaniard" (135). While Marcus’ dog is given the name Alexander, this poor child is, much like a beast, refused the right to be named as a human. References to its blood-lineage is similar to that of a breeder’s jargon. It is not known for a name, quality, or parent; it is only given notice as being of certain lineages. Furthermore, the general distaste of Zerkow cements his baseness; his disfavor for his child stemmed from the child’s inability to produce goods for him. Surely this general racism against non-white, western peoples is simply a sign of the time in which Norris is writing? I disagree. Instead, I see Norris presenting a simple fact: humanity is evil. Contrary to popular opinions surrounding him, Norris seems to assert that all of mankind is equally capable of base acts; race plays no role here. McTeague, a man of Irish descent, battles this evil throughout the novel. His earliest awakening of this evil is seen when he confronts his sexual desires after knocking Trina out with ether (see Hannah’s post on Women). Norris notes that “[b]elow the fine fabric of all that was good in him ran the foul stream of hereditary evil, like a sewer. The vices and sins of his father and of his father’s father, to the third and fourth and five hundredth generation, tainted him. The evil of an entire race flowed in his veins” (emphasis added) (22). Norris, writing amongst the early proponents of evolutionary theory, argues for a single lineage for all of mankind; one which has equally tainted and infected all of humanity. Norris seems to advocate for a secular rendition of the effects of Original Sin. This acknowledgment continues as the overarching story evolves and the characters of white, western descent are proved to be vile. Consider the Sieppes, who “were a German-Swiss family” of Lutheran and Catholic (42) descent, and how they produce the character who rivals Zerkow’s greed: Trina. While it is not technically correct to call Trina a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP), as her religious affiliation can only be guessed upon from her parents’ faith, she most certainly has benefits given to her that non-WASPs would not be given. One example of this privilege is seen in how she can readily excuse her own avarice. After being called a miser by McTeague, Trina accepts and defends her niggardly conduct: “I don’t care,” answered Trina, beginning to laugh. “I guess I am, but I can’t help it, and it’s a good fault” (141). Why does she have the right to be so incredibly greedy, but Zerkow gets an entire two paragraphs describing him solely based upon his avarice? Norris is making a point: even the elect among the races are not resistance to the evils of mankind. While there are many other things that can be said regarding the way that people are described and how they act in McTeague, I do believe that Norris’s portrayal allows for a narrative that runs counter to the prevailing ideals of the time. Not only do they run contrary to the more racially charged ideals of Naturalism and Biological Determinism, but Norris’s ideas, as a means of more strongly presenting the story, seem to embrace aspects of both of these literary movements as a means of furthering the narrative and strengthening the story. I realize that I have presented a lot of information and I thank you for reading this far; I hope you read the other posts as well! I will end this lengthy discussion with these questions: how do you see Norris portraying race in this novel and how do you see it being portrayed differently than I have noted above? I look forward to reading your responses!
0 Comments
|
AuthorDawson Shannon ArchivesCategories |