Author: bulbasaur

His voice was soft-soft, just like yours, and the way he used to talk, quiet and sing-song sing-song use to make Pappy crazy.  You know I can’t remember Randy face too good, but I still carry his voice with me.  I could hear it plain-plain, like if I had just talk with he this morning (Mootoo, 73).

 

Cereus Blooms at Night argues that one’s family will only associate one’s difference with that person.  For example, Mr. Hector states that he cannot remember Randy’s face, but remembers how soft his voice was.  A face becomes a grounding point for people to recognize others – “putting a face to a name.”  However, in this moment, Randy’s voice becomes his defining feature for Mr. Hector.  Indeed, for Mr. Hector, it is the only way he can remember Randy.  Because Randy’s voice indicated his own “queerness,” whatever that meant for Randy, his family associated him with his difference.  This is shown through Mr. Hector explaining that even though he has not seen Randy for a long time, as their mother forced Randy to move out of the house. Hector still remembers Randy’s voice, as if he had “just talk with he this morning” (73).  Randy’s voice becomes the one characteristic that Mr. Hector can remember.  In this one instance, Randy’s difference overrides his own personality and physical features.  Because of his difference, his brother cannot remember what he looks like, after Randy leaves.  Randy’s queerness is how Mr. Hector can remember him.

On the other hand, it is important to note that Mr. Hector does still remember his brother, despite his differences.  Another way to read this passage is that even though Randy was different, Mr. Hector was still able to remember him, when their mother forced Randy out of the house.  Mr. Hector’s tone is not judgemental.  Indeed, the fact that Mr. Hector states that he still “carry his voice with me,” implies a warm bond that Mr. Hector and Randy still have (73).  Furthermore, if Mr. Hector felt negatively about Randy’s differences, he would not have used the words “soft-soft” (73).  This implies that despite the fact that Randy’s voice makes him different, Mr. Hector does not think unkindly of him.  Even when Mr. Hector cannot remember his brother’s face, he can still carry his memory, because Randy’s voice was so different.

In conclusion, although Randy’s voice did set him apart in his brother’s mind, Mr. Hector was able to hold onto the memory of his brother, when he was able to physically see him.  Cereus Blooms at Night offers two readings of “queerness:” it becomes one’s defining trait, but it can also be a method of remembering someone when they are not physically there.

Throughout the novel, Geryon repeatedly retreats into his own mind to escape mental over stimulation or abuse.  When his brother asks him what his favorite weapon is, Geryon replies with “Cage.”  His brother retorts that a cafe “isn’t a weapon…Has to destroy the enemy” (Carson, 33).  Autobiography of Red explores the notion of entrapment as a weapon, through the use of words such as “tanks” or cages.  The repetition of these words are indicative of Geryon’s own feeling of being enclosed in a small space.  Because he suffered through his brother’s sexual abuse, Geryon feels entrapped and therefore retreats to his own mind; he has to keep this a secret from everyone.  He is unable to talk of what happened and therefore relies on other means to explain his feelings.

Geryon, therefore, created his own cage for himself; because he cannot explain his own emotions, even to his own mother, he relies on photography to express himself.  He cages himself and is therefore unable to fully articulate his own feelings.  Because of this cage, he is unable to express if a situation makes him feel uncomfortable, such as when Ancash forces Geryon to take his overcoat off, thus exposing his wings.  Ancash touches Geryon’s wings without him asking if it is alright, and thus Geryon “wonders if he is going to faint” (128).  No where in the passage does Geryon say it is ok for Ancash to violate his personal space and the moment is not brought up again.  Geryon therefore is unable to articulate how moments such as that make him feel uncomfortable, because of the self-imposed mental cage.

“Even in the race-sore seventies / on Chicago’s South South Side, no one minded / this one rupture, this one tear in the / taut dictates of order: that he was black / and I was white. But they wouldn’t tolerate / our queerness.” (Dordal, 22)

This quote correlates directly with Michael Warner’s analysis on what “normal” is; specifically, the idea of normality of marriage.  In “Sixth Grade,” Lisa Dordal recounts a “marriage,” that happened between her and another classmate, Bruce.  There is a sense of creating normality within the abnormal; although the marriage is interracial, the other kids in the poem do not mind, because Dordal and Bruce are creating a “heterosexual marriage.”  The important phrase to note in this quote is “this one rupture, this one tear,” as it correlates to the idea of normalcy for this town, between relations of black and white children.  The other kids forgive this “rupture,” because they are avoiding a much larger rupture in society.

Indeed, this poem asks society where it draws the line for abnormality.  The “marriage” is set up in such a way, that even the outfits both Bruce and Dordal wear are under scrutiny.  This importance to detail makes the event authentic, because it needs to be official.  Perhaps the children want this to be official, because then they will not have to wonder whether Bruce or Dordal are queer; the two did get married, so it has to be an official statement for who they are.  This may be why the next poem is about Dordal’s actual marriage to her ex-husband; why would she not marry a man later in life if, as a child, she married a male classmate?

“The most reliable Securicor, church sanctioned and state approved, is marriage.  Swear you’ll cleave only unto him or her and magically that’s what will happen.  Adultery is as much about disillusionment as it is about sex.  The charm didn’t work.  You paid all that money, ate the cake, and it didn’t work.  It’s not your fault is it?” (78)

In the entirety of the novel, the narrator never attempted to avoid blame; there was a sense of being at fault in the main character. However, in this moment, they blame someone or something else. Indeed, the narrator argues marriage created adultery, when they say adultery is as “much about disillusionment” (78). In other words, they are saying adultery itself is the disillusionment to marriage. In the context of the passage, the narrator is arguing marriage cannot work, because it is held up to be the end all be all. In their sarcastic fashion, they state if you make your vows to remain faithful to that person, then “magically that’s what will happen,” referencing the supposed result of marrying someone (78). There is also a sense of doing all one can, putting even less blame on Louise and the narrator. After all, she and Elgin paid “all that money, ate the cake, and [yet] it didn’t work” (78). Louise put all of this time and effort into her marriage, yet she still fell for the narrator. How then, the narrator argues, can it be either of their faults for falling in love with each other? Louise’s marriage to Elgin was bound to fail, because they both attempted to follow what the state and church ordered.

The passage, therefore, is about the narrator attempting to put the blame on something else, to ease the guilt of committing adultery. In relation to the text as a whole, this is the crux of the change in the relationship between Louise and the narrator, because there is now a hint of the narrator’s own hesitation to their relationship.