When Geryon learned to write, his mother asked his teacher at a parent-teacher conference if Geryon “ever [wrote] anything with a happy ending” (38). Hearing this, Geryon takes his paper from his teacher and adds a happy ending to his collection of autobiographical facts:
New Ending:
All over the world the beautiful red breezes went on blowing hand
in hand (38).
To me, this scene presented an interesting dichotomy between Geryon’s fascination with self-representation and the idea of retelling a story from the “villain’s” point of view. During just this first part of the novel, Geryon can be seen representing himself through art in many different ways. First there’s the tomato sculpture that he puts together on Tuesday night with his mom (35), then there’s the notebook from Japan in which he writes his “Autobiography” (37), and then there’s his photography (40). In all these ways, Carson gives Geryon, the “villain” the reins to tell his story and express himself. However, the scene I quoted from above shows a sort of filtering of the story, and like a lot of the other books we’ve read this semester, causes the reader to question the narrative.
In the parent-teacher conference scene, Geryon forgoes the ending he wrote to better conform to what was expected of him. I think it’s significant that he changes his story here to please his mother. One of the only people he seems to really love in the novel. That makes me wonder about how the rest of this book will go. We’ve just been introduced to Hercules, the only other person in the novel who Geryon loves. In her NYT review of Autobiography of Red, Ruth Padel talks about how Hercules ends up deserting Geryon and breaking his heart. Since Geryon loves Hercules so much at this point in the novel, will he feel a sense of loyalty that causes him to filter his point of view, or will Hercules try to convince him that his story is something that it isn’t? Seeing as Hercules is the one who helps Garyon escape his cage, that would be sadly ironic, but Padel does not paint a very favorable picture of Hercules in her review. She writes that the novel “is about knowing and loving a man who has a good time with you, but will never know you back. Geryon’s redness is his inmost being, his selfhood, but Hercules dreams about him in yellow” (Padel). Being at a point in the novel where I feel like I still don’t know Hercules very well, Padel’s synopsis is sort of foreboding for the future of Geryon’s story.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/03/reviews/980503.03padel2t.html
I think the reliability of Geryon’s storytelling is an interesting layer we have not yet discussed. While events are told in prose and thus intrinsically unclear, I hadn’t thought that I couldn’t rely on certain truths he stated more clearly. Similar to Written on the Body, it might be uncertain here whether the narrator’s perspective of the world is real or not. An occasion that comes to mind as similar to Written on the Body is the strange timeline of chapter XXXI, Tango, where he stumbles into a sort of recollection that happens in tandem with the present. Here, Geryon is not just making a connection to his past but rather fully exiting the present, almost unwillingly, and living through a adolescent event. It’s unclear whether this is a psychological event or literal time travel. Geryon often has little moments of “death” or “sleep” throughout the novel where his presence in the story is spotty. We might wonder whether this is something that might alter the truth of story being told. Additionally, we might wonder about why this idea of disassociating is found across both these novels. Perhaps there is a connection between the story of a person’s lived experience, and having moments when uncertain about reality.
Reading this blog post and Love’s reply made me think further about the reliability of Geryon’s narration. We often think of an unreliable narrator as someone who has malicious intent in not revealing the whole “truth.” Based on what we know of Geryon so far, I’m not sure that’s the case– he seems pretty harmless for a villain. Yet, as I read I do find myself wondering if this is how the world really exists for him– does he really live on an island? Is he even really red and winged? Also, like you mentioned, what about Hercules, who is he, really? What I then wonder is whether any of that actually matters. If this is to be an autobiography, this is how Geryon sees himself and his world. Does that not make it the truth?
I loved your point here about the idea that this is supposed to be from the “villian’s perspective”, as I have been grappling with this as well. the thing is, the supposed “villain” in this story is not really a villain at all, but instead a being that was not given the chance to tell their side. That is why I love this novel, because it provides another perspective. However, whether that side is entirely reliable or not is another matter, which you brought up. It is so important to keep that in mind, but for me it makes the tale all the more interesting. I like to look at it like a little game, where I can see certain scenes as up for interpretation and others as the hard truth. Which is which? I suppose we’ll never know!