For part of the class on Tuesday, we talked about who was to blame for Sutpen’s downfall. According to our two literary excerpts, the two main options were: Sutpen enraged the land which destroyed him, or that his sons were responsible for his fall from grace and ultimate death. I think that each of these theories is a contributing factor, but the main cause of Sutpen’s downfall is Sutpen, himself. His lack of moral character throughout Absalom, Absalom! makes him the ogre that Rosa often refers to him as. This view of Sutpen is supported by William Faulkner’s Nobel Prize speech.
We see that Sutpen’s moral character, or lack thereof, is shaped once he and his family arrive in plantation-rich Virginia (whether his character was shaped by free will or fate is different issue). As he progresses into adulthood, Sutpen’s actions convey his lack of a conscience to the reader; he buys off his Haitian wife, manipulates his sons, etc. So while the land or his sons may have destroyed him, it was Sutpen who provoked them to do so. Faulkner said that man would not exist as he does today with sacrifice, compassion, and pity. Sutpen was and still is a perfect example of this school of thought.
I agree with Worth when he says that Sutpen himself contributed to his downfall more than his sons or the land. However, he seems to be implying that Sutpen's lack of moral values caused this downfall in the form of bad karma. I believe that the Sutpen's character flaws stem from his obsession with his idea of the ideal lifestyle, similar to Captain Ahab's monomania. This deeply ingrained obsession with his idea of what he wanted his life to be, I would argue, drove him to disregard others and sometimes caused him to show a lack of compassion. So essentially, I would argue that Sutpen's lack of morality did indeed contribute to his downfall (i.e. in his actions towards his first wife and Charles Bon), but I believe that his obsessive drive towards his life's goals was at the root of these moral discrepancies.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Worth’s argument that Sutpen’s downfall could be more appropriately attributed to his own character flaws that to his sons or the land itself. However, he seems to be implying that Sutpen’s lack of compassion for others caused his downfall in a similar way that bad karma would. I would argue that Sutpen’s obsession with his idea of the perfect lifestyle is a deeper cause of his downfall. His monomania, similar to Captain Ahab’s, led him to disregard others in his actions towards his ultimate goals. This often embodied itself as a lack of compassion for others, so Sutpen’s obsessions are a deeper root of his downfall than his obvious lack of morality.
ReplyDelete