Although
the ending of Paul Beatty’s White Boy
Shuffle was revealed in the beginning of the novel, I was not ready for it.
All the hilarious jokes took a terribly bitter turn, and while there were still
points that could be laughed at, mainly I was struck dumb by the horrors. The
question I asked myself is what is the author doing by depicting the events in
this way? I couldn’t answer this at first, so I found myself disliking the
ending with a passion. Our discussions in class, however, enlightened me about
the terrible ending’s purpose. At first glance, the hopelessness of the White Boy Shuffle’s end could causes
blindness of the important and cutting criticisms that it entails.
When
I read of Nicholas’ suicide, I was left numb. I did not know what to feel. This
is Beatty’s intent: while depression that can be seen through Gunnar’s actions,
that sadness is never vocalized because it cannot be. I would like nothing more
than for Nicholas to come back and for the happy trio of Gunnar, Nicholas and
Yoshiko to be reunited. In class we pondered the question why does their death
mean so much to us? It is because Gunnar and his friends were our entertainment.
Sure, we may feel something for them, but that is really just another part of
being entertained. In the book, the words and actions of even unrealistically
brilliant poets are simply enjoyed, but not acted on. Could it be the same in
our world? In this way, Beatty intertwines racial commentary with self
reflection and ideas about the point of poetry and written word in general.
So,
if a poet whose book is clutched by every American can’t make any change, what
is the point in continuing to thrash around uselessly? We might as well go out
with what little honor we have left. Did you guys have any different thoughts? I'd be glad to hear them.
I think that idea of honor is really important. Often times part of honor is transcending human need, (i.e. singly fighting for what you require to live), and I think this case ties in well with that because Gunnar seemingly rejects the idea of fighting hard for something. I get a sense that he sees it as playing into the system by letting himself get caught up in the oppression games they play.
ReplyDeleteThis is what Gunnar was saying after the Rodney King officers were acquitted. What good does a poem do when there are lives at stake?Would a poem have made Scoby want to live? Have poems ever really changed things?
ReplyDeleteI think the part where you mention the poet's words and actions are enjoyed, but not acted on is important. Poetry and art are meant to be enjoyed, sure, but in this context, where Gunnar is writing about these issues with justice and is participating in revolutions in Los Angeles, his poetry could be motivating other to contribute. What happens is when Gunnar begins to discuss suicide, people grasp on to that, and are motivated by his work to kill themselves as opposed to fight against the oppressive forces.
ReplyDeleteWe get to appreciate the life in poems and admire them for their rhythm, metrical feet, and smooth-speaking ways because they do not determine our life or our death. But the characters in the book who choose to commit suicide... how can can they sum up their lives in just 10 lines or less? It makes me think of the practical uselessness of poetry and yet also the the power that it holds.
ReplyDeleteMuch of the novel built up to Gunnar's realization that it was hopeless. From the LA riots and Gunnar feeling worthless to the mass suicide. Beatty built it up in an attempt to help the reader understand Gunnar's problems, but I will never be able to fully comprehend. I don't think that suicide was his only option, but what do I know.
ReplyDeleteScoby's death represents the first manifestation of the novel's fascinating turn-around onto the reader and our own enjoyment of the book: he's a "funny, cool guy" who seems so resilient, aware of American racism but not letting it define him, carving out his own idiosyncratic corner of American culture with his jazz obsession and his supernatural basketball skills. Like we don't want to see Gunnar go (or get so *serious* at the end), we don't want this friendship to end. Their friendship is one of the things that we'd say Gunnar has "to live for." The dynamic between Nick and Gunnar is one of the best, most naturally depicted examples of friendship among young men that I can think of in literature, and we enjoy reading the two of them together (as Gunnar puts it early on, Scoby is a "special motherfucker"). So we don't want to see him jump off the law school building, either. And this dynamic is reproduced at the end, when Gunnar is apparently eagerly awaiting the dropping of "Svelte Guy" on Hillside.
ReplyDeleteI think your idea that Beatty leaving us distraught and confused at Scoby's suicide, to intentionally or even unintentionally mirror Scoby's own feeling towards the Rodney King ruling, was kinda interesting. I hadn't really thought about it that way before.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your feelings on the end of the novel, but I also think that there are other ways to look at it. The mass suicide can be seen an act of courage against the racism that the characters experienced, not necessarily as giving up.
ReplyDelete