More on Rufus...

Originally, I put this in the comments, but it got so long that it seemed a bit ridiculous for a comment. So, I thought I'd make it its own entry. Feel free to respond in comments or start your own post about these issues.

Micah, thanks for reiterating that you think Rufus's capacity for change is what made him so intriguing to us. And thanks, Lauren, for reminding us to be cautious of using judgments like "good" or "bad" too simplistically.

I'm curious about this statement from Micah, though: "I was being too much of a rationalist, trying to avoid the idea of some mystical force working in Rufus...."

I'm not clear what you mean here, probably because this just typing, rather than face-to-face interaction. I think what you're saying is that Rufus's interaction with Dana is a kind of mystical force--even though you wanted to be rational and resist staying that, but in the end you were forced to concede that the book is decidedly irrational and mystical (which I also take to be one of the things that really disappointed you about the book). This is when classroom discussion is much better than electronic communication. It's sometimes hard to verify what other people mean when all we have is this typing.

But discussion brings up an aspect of the book that I'd like all of us to continue to think about. Is it because Dana's presence is bizarre, mystical, and almost supernaturally powerful that she changes Rufus? Or, does she affect Rufus so much because she is not afraid to present herself as smart and capable when she first arrives, making her the first assertive black person that Rufus has ever met? Or, do we think that if any young white person in the south had a meaningful interaction with a slave that s/he, like Rufus, would be capable of change?

To me, this isn't just a moot point or a question of semantics. It goes to the heart of the book. Dana acts the way she does, at first, because she really doesn't know better. She even judges the slaves around her for not being "stronger." As she gains more experience in the antebellum south, she realizes the complexity of slave situations and the very real and gruesome dangers that aggressive slaves face. Ultimately, this gives her more insight into why slaves feel and act the way that they do. (The most obvious example is when it comes to escaping, but I think there are others as well. I mentioned the "mammy" figure in one of my comments. In some ways, I do think Butler wants to redeem--or at least complicate--the "mammy" figure, which has often been derided as a kind of female Uncle Tom.)

So, I find this compelling because it seems that we are saying that Rufus is capable of more change than other whites because of his interactions with Dana. If Dana's interactions are unique because she is assertive, then Butler's novel provides important insight into the catch 22 of slavery. (1) Only smart, assertive, vocal slaves might be able to change people's minds and lives. But (2) most slaves learn that to stay alive, they need to act the part of a submissive even not too smart person--a part that will likely encourage whites to see blacks in the same condescending way.

Again, I don't think this is just an issue of semantics. I've found that many of my students, when we read slave narratives, seem perplexed that slaves don't escape or "demand their freedom" more forcefully. This response seems reasonable to me, in many ways. Obviously, I'd like to believe--as I suspect Dana wanted to believe about herself--that I would have demanded my freedom. But I think Butler's novel really helps us understand how that's a safe, abstract belief, when we're sitting in the US in the 21st century. Dana is forced to rethink her preconceived notions of slavery once she's actually placed in the situation.