. . . Ringo and I had been born in the same month and had both fed at the same breast and had slept together and eaten together for so long that Ringo called Granny 'Granny' just like I did, until maybe he wasn't a nigger anymore or maybe I wasn't a white boy anymore, the two of us neither, not even people any longer . . . .
from The Unvanquished (7)
Originally published in The Saturday Evening Post as a series of short stories, The Unvanquished tells the story of two boys born the same month on a Mississippi plantation in September 1849. What makes their story compelling is that one boy is black, and the other is white. Faulkner uses this novel to explore several issues in the Antebellum South including race, Christian morality, and Southern honor. When the novel opens in the summer of 1862, Bayard and Ringo are twelve years old playing war games in the back yard of the Sartoris house. The Civil War had been fought mostly in Virginia, but they are soon confronted with the reality of war when they learn that Vicksburg has fallen to the Yankees. In the absence of Bayard's father, John Sartoris, who is off fighting in the war, they decide that they must defend themselves from the advancing Yankees. Briefly describe the relationship between these two boys. Why does Faulkner choose Bayard to narrate the story? What effect does this have on the reader's perception of the story? How would it be different if Ringo had been chosen instead?
The relationship between the two boys, Ringo and Bayard seems very simple from the way that they are described playing in the yard behind the smokehouse in the summer that the novel opens. They are both frightened by Loosh when he comes over and messes up their map drawing in the dirt, both enjoy the game of war reenactment, and live in the same house with primarily the same rules and treatment. Their relationship is much more complicated than that though. It is very important to remember that Bayard is a twelve-year old white boy and Ringo is a twelve-year old black boy. Although they may not seem to care or react differently to each other according to their different races, it is extremely important in considering the time period and environment in which they exist. The reader would not expect that the family of a Confederate officer would have a black boy living in his house freely. What also makes the story more interesting is that the family owns slaves. The relationship between the two boys would seem at the time to be the relationship between two boys of the same race who go on constant adventures together such as following Loosh around; however, their relationship is much more complicated because one boy is white and the other black in such a time of racial struggle.
ReplyDeleteFaulkner chooses Bayard to narrate the story because he is ultimately what was thought to be the “superior” race of the time. Although this may be the case, he does not seem to see the difference between him and Ringo that most of society focused on leading up to and throughout the civil war. From Bayard’s eyes there seems to be no differences between the two boys therefore giving the reader the same view. Bayard’s point of view inevitably is naïve and blind to the times. The reader cannot see anything that Bayard does not verbalize. If the story was narrated from Ringo’s point of view, some of the differences or inequalities between the two races or boys might be more evident. The reader would also be able to get a picture of how Ringo, a black boy, felt living in the house with the white family in the south. For example, it would be very interesting to be able to visualize his reactions to some of the events such as the two boys shooting the Union soldier’s horse when the Union soldiers were fighting against slavery and trying to free the blacks in the south. The reader would get a much different perspective of the times through the narration of Ringo, unless he was as naïve as Bayard.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFaulkner stresses the intimacy between Bayard and Ringo right from the opening scene of the novel. In this scene, Bayard explains that not only are the boys great playmates that go on countless childhood adventures together, but they were also brought up together. It is clear that Bayard feels this fact makes them in some ways family despite their difference in color. Since Bayard’s narration alone controls the reader’s perception of the world around him, the reader is never given Ringo’s opinion on the matter. In Bayard’s opinion, his family is caring towards the slaves and Ringo is treated as his equal. Even though it appears that Ringo is content in his current situation, it would be very interesting to see if Ringo truly feels as though he is Bayard’s equal or if he is aware of the power Bayard holds over him both as a white man and his slave owner. Although it would be interesting for the reader to know this answer, Faulkner chooses Bayard to narrate the story so that these types of questions are left unclear to the reader. Bayard’s ignorant view of the world is the only perception expressed throughout the novel, and therefore, readers are left to form their own opinions on a great deal of details.
ReplyDelete-In response to Anna’s post, I agree that Bayard’s view of the world up until this point in the novel is extremely naïve. This ignorance is demonstrated by his continual ability to view the dangerous war going on around him as an elaborate game. Not only do Bayard and Ringo frequently play war, but when a union soldier approaches, Bayard still fails to see the danger in the situation and shoots at him. This situation clearly demonstrates that Bayard is ignorant towards the real dangers of war. He is further unaware of the realities of race at this time period. Bayard continually expresses his opinion that both Ringo and he are equal despite Bayard’s unarguable power over Ringo as his slave owner. Furthermore, in response to Loosh’s announcement that the Yankees are coming to set them free, Bayard becomes immediately excited and runs to tell his Granny. The combination of these events and ones like them in the beginning of the novel demonstrates Bayard is truly naïve when it comes to the realities of both war and race going on all around him.
ReplyDeleteBayard and Ringo's relationship are tight - as they are never separated at any part of the book so far. Although there is the element of both of them being a different race, I believe it doesn't matter to both of them. It is recognized by Bayard (p. 7) and most probably by Ringo as well, but it doesn't affect their relationship.
ReplyDeleteI think Faulkner chooses Bayard to narrate the story due to his direct relationship to his father, John Sartoris. A lot of what happens to his family is related to his father in many ways. The impressions from the troops they meet and their neighbors are drawn from his notorious presence in the war as a rebel.
If Ringo were the narrate the story, it would probably play less on the question of what was actually happening. The civil war also tackled the serious question of slavery during that time, and Ringo would probably have narrated it more along the lines of what was happening that affected his race. Although we see little of discrimination towards Ringo specifically, he need only to recount what happened to Loosh.
Concerning Anna and Kelly's comment on the naïvety of the two boys, I would have to agree, but at the same time I think they are not at fault for it. Its probably well established that their minds at their state are still premature. But, at the same time, they must have been subjected to some form of propaganda that the "Yankees" are bad. I do think Faulkner is trying to communicate a point here about how it felt for the South during this turbulent time. At the same time though, Bayard and Ringo have both been reinforced in their mentality towards Yankees by the war games they have been playing. This is also further emphasized when the man of the house (the owner of the slaves as well) is a key soldier for the Confederates.
ReplyDeleteKelly's point on Bayard's "ignorant" view on the world is also interesting. I think there's also a question of danger: just which groups during this time period (or this novel) are in danger? There is a sense that everyone is (due to the war) but is the white race more in danger than the black race? Surely, the blacks are the ones being discriminated and enslaved, but the whites seem to be more carefree and adamant. This is a good foundation for Bayard's apparent "ignorant" view on the world. Let's just hope he grows out of it. Or not.
Bayard and Ringo’s relationship seems like any normal relationship between twelve-year-old boys. They live in a world of imagination and games, and their worries are limited. There is a sense that the boys are inseparable and do everything together, and that they have grown up in this way. If their races were not specifically mentioned by the narrator, the reader may not even have realized at the beginning of the novel that the boys are of different races. This perception is brought on by the fact that Bayard is narrating the story. Bayard knows the boys are of different races, as shown by “maybe he wasn’t a nigger anymore or maybe I wasn’t a white boy any more” (pg. 7). Despite this, he does not seem to realize what this difference means and even thinks that the Yankees are coming to save everyone, including both Ringo and himself (pg. 23). By using Bayard as the narrator of the story, Faulkner makes it unclear as to how the slaves are really treated. This leaves it up to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. I also think Faulkner uses this to show the separation between the adult- and child-worlds in the novel, as Bayard is sheltered from what is really going on, both with the war and within the family. Additionally, I think Faulkner does this to create a sort of calm tone before conflicts later break out, as he sets the stage of the novel by showing a playful game and a world without concerns, from Bayards perspective. If Ringo would have been chosen as the narrator, this idealized view of the world may not have been portrayed, and the reader would perhaps have seen how the slaves were really treated. Faulkner gives hints that Ringo and Bayard were not really treated equally, as for example with the coconut cake (pg. 19), which Ringo probably did not enjoy because he ate in the kitchen. A more apparent view of this would have been given if Ringo were the author, and this is not the ‘obvious’ atmosphere Faulkner wanted to create.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Elon’s post, I didn’t previously think of the idea that the reason that Faulkner chooses Bayard as his narrator is to focus on Colonel Sartoris, but it seems to be a reasonable observation. In the first chapter, after John Sartoris comes home, Bayard focuses on Colonel Sartoris, and his descriptions of him certainly show that Bayard is fond of him. Bayard looks up to his father, as is shown by his view that his father is “doing bigger things than he was” (pg. 10). Although it seems as though Ringo also looks up to Colonel Sartoris, it is true that he would not have gotten as much of a focus if Ringo were the author. The idolizing of Colonel Sartoris through Bayard’s eyes also allows Faulkner to create a romanticized view of the war itself. So far in the novel, the brutality or death of war has not been mentioned, but instead, the war is seen as a source of pride and courage.
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between Bayard and Ringo is close; the boys get along well and obviously love each other as brothers. I think their lifestyle is atypical though, in the absence of a mother and often times a father the boys are watched over by the slaves and Granny, and are thus free to do as they please. I wonder if having a more normal family structure would change things. Regardless, their freedom and carefree ways have allowed them to foster a close relationship. There are however some differences between the boys that are subtly mentioned, one is that Ringo sleeps on a cot on the floor while Bayard has a bed. Additionally, at one point when Granny is reading to them about cakes it mentions that Ringo eats in the kitchen, not at the table with everyone else. I think that since Bayard is telling the story these differences are not as noticeable, because for him it’s not as strange. Perhaps if Ringo were telling the story these inequalities would be highlighted more. I agree with Elon on both his points, firstly when he says that if Ringo were the narrator there would be a much larger race component to the book than there has been. I also think that if Ringo were telling the story the focus of the war would be different because perhaps he would see the Yankees as liberators, and not as the enemy. I also agree with Anna and Kelly’s ideas about naivety. I think Bayard is very ignorant to the race and war issues around him. War is more of a game than a threat and while I think Bayard is aware the Loosh, Louvinia and Joby are all black slaves, I think he fails to see Ringo in this way. I am not sure what their relationship will be like as they grow up and become more aware, but I would assume that both will become more in-tune with their race, especially for Ringo when talks of freedom arise. Although Ringo isn’t treated like a slave, will he feel more connect to Louvinia, Loosh and Joby as they(potentially) gain their freedoms and move on, or will he want to stay with Bayard and Granny? I will be interested to see how their relationships play out.
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between the two boys signifies a stalwart friendship among different races. It is only subtly implied that Ringo is a black slave and by the way Bayard treats him the reader is led to believe that Ringo is his brother. The boys are inseparable as they play numerous games and embark on child-like adventures. I think Faulkner chose Bayard as the protagonist and narrator of the novel because he wanted the reader to see the progression of maturity and insight on the issue of racism through the eyes of white, male living in the south. Bayard seems more racist when discussing the Union soldiers than his slaves. He yells profanity and even shoots at a solider with Ringo, which is ironic considering that the Union soldiers are attempting to eradicate slavery, which would free Ringo and his family. Bayard’s narration causes the reader to view the Union army as the enemy, who is attempting to capture Bayard’s father. This is a unique perception since the Confederate army, in history, is seen as nefarious. If Ringo were the speaker of the narrative the reader would have a similar view of Bayard’s family. Ringo is extremely devoted to Bayard and truly cares for him as a companion and friend. I don’t think Ringo would berate Bayard, but rather serve as a more mature narrator that understands the conflict of that time.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFaulkner may have chosen Bayard to narrate the story because he represents the biggest opportunity for the reader to see transformation within one specific character. Such an intention could become clearer later in the book if Bayard’s personality or outlook with regards to certain aspects of the story, undergoes a major shift. Through Bayard we are also granted close access to his family members and other Southerners whose behavior is essential to the telling of the story at the heart of this novel. Though the perspective of Ringo could offer different advantages to the narrative and despite his presence around older characters, a story told by him would prevent readers from seeing the family unguarded and relaxed in a way recognizable to Bayard. Also, if we were told of the story through Ringo then many of his own characteristics would go unnoticed by the reader. Indeed, he would be able to speak of his own intelligence and good humor, but he would then appear arrogant. His personality as we see it is crucially the antithesis to what people would have thought of slaves during the era in which the novel is set.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt was not uncommon in antebellum southern households for an enslaved child and a white child to be nursed by the same woman, who herself was almost undoubtedly enslaved also. It was not also uncommon for a white child and a black child to be playmates for several years until one day the hierarchy of slave and owner was enforced. Faulkner hints at the social hierarchy between the two boys when Bayard says that, “...Ringo was afraid to come up in the bed with me, so I got down on the pallet with him.” (p. 24) Ringo knows that he is supposed to sleep on the floor next to Bayard, though, like his white friend, he is not fully aware of the terrible race relations that exist in the rest of society. To these to boys, who are best companions and friends, the separation may have no more severity than any other rule, like not swearing.
ReplyDeleteFaulkner narrates the story from Bayard’s perception because of his youth. He has heroic and fantastic ideas of the war, demonstrated by his and Ringo’s anticipation for his father’s stories after dinner. Bayard is young, but at twelve, he will inevitably come of age in the next few years and lose the innocence of childhood. Faulkner draws a parallel between Bayard’s coming of age and the Civil War itself in the first scene where Bayard and Ringo learn from Loosh that Vicksburg has fallen. Historically, the fall of Vicksburg (coupled with the battle of Gettysburg just prior) is recognized as the turning point in the war. Bayard’s grandiose perceptions of his father finally meet reality in the same way that the South is faced with the loss of not just the war and enslaved workforce, but of reality as they know it.
Bayard’s race, white, also represents the “Old South”. Had Faulkner chosen Ringo to narrate, a choice discontinuous with the “old order”, the sense of a passing age would have been shattered. Ringo would also have had a slightly different perspective than Bayard. Seemingly, in his willingness to shoot at the “bastud” Union soldiers, Ringo remains ignorant of the larger picture of the war and of the battle over slavery. Nevertheless, he would inevitably be more aware than Bayard of the divisions between white and black. He has been taught to sleep on the floor and live within boundaries, while Bayard freely crosses them by sleeping on the floor.
Bayard and Ringo have a very close relationship; however it is evident that Bayard is the leader of the two. Bayard is constantly deciding where the pair goes next and Ringo is always asking Bayard about what's going on. Bayard does not seem to consciously see Ringo as "inferior", in fact, Bayard says that "maybe [Ringo] wasn't a nigger anymore or maybe [he] wasn't a white boy anymore." But I believe that the racial hierarchy of the South has been engrained in his mind as he was raised. Bayard nonetheless seems like a very loyal friend to Ringo and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hannah in that Faulkner chose a young man to narrate the story. Bayard still sees his father as a grand, heroic figure and is still young enough to be playing with Ringo and to be looked after by Louvinia. The story would be completely different had it been told from Ringo's point of view since Bayard is a free and Ringo is a slave. Had the story been told from Ringo's point of view, one might have heard more about Ringo's family and how he viewed being best friends with Bayard. Ringo also has not enjoyed the same freedoms that Bayard has; for example, Ringo sleeps on the floor and is afraid to join Bayard in his bed.
Bayard and Ringo have a fairly typical child relationship. They are growing up in a time when there are huge tensions between the two races, and yet because they have both been raised around it and don’t know anything else, it is normal to them. This is demonstrated by the scene when Bayard climbs down onto Ringo’s pallet to spend the night. He doesn’t yet recognize that this is something a “white boy” doesn’t do; to him it is just Ringo’s bed. I don’t the thought has occurred to either of them that Ringo is being raised to become Bayard’s slave.
ReplyDeleteI think that Faulkner chose Bayard to be the narrator of the story because he wanted this book to be told from a different perspective than all the other books about the war and that time. I guess I’ll find out, but I think he chose Bayard to tell the story so that it could come from the eyes of an innocent person who didn’t really have a grasp on what was going on. Both of the boys, one black and one white, will get to see numerous sides of and perspectives of the war and will have to try and understand it as best they can. When Loosh comes back from scouting the other towns and the Army’s movement, the boys get to see the way he and the other slaves react to the news that the Yankee army is advancing and seems to be winning in that region. They also get to see the other side when they hear the stories that John Sartoris tells them about his fights. While I’m sure the perspective would have been slightly different if Ringo was the narrator, I don’t think it would have made too much of a difference. The boys are obviously close to each other and (at this point) share the same feelings about the war. This is demonstrated when they try to kill the Yankee soldier together.
Despite the racial differences between Bayard and Ringo in a time of racial conflict, these characters are able to form a genuine, tight-knit relationship that transcends their differences. To call their relationship tight-knit may actually be an understatement. The two are like brothers, having been born in the same month, and nourished by the same woman. Due to their youthful innocence, Bayard and Ringo are free of the prejudices and corrupted ideals that would normally stop a Confederate’s son from befriending a black boy. To them, there is nothing unnatural about their relationship.
ReplyDeleteWhile Bayard never condescends Ringo because of his race, Bayard’s narration contains several subtle hints that Bayard feels a quiet superiority over his counterpart. Bayard mentions that during their imaginary war game, he got to play as General Pamberton, the general of choice, twice, eventually allowing Ringo one turn. (7) Petty, for certain, but even childhood exchanges like these can provide insight. Bayard, due to a feeling of superiority, is able to play this game on his own terms. Bayard’s relationship to his esteemed father furthers his feelings of superiority over Ringo. During the scene in which Bayard’s father returns from battle, there is a moment when his father is standing next to his horse, looking at his porch: “He looked at Granny and me on the porch and at Ringo and Loosh on the ground.” (9) The stairs in this scene seem to provide a pecking order for this group of people, with Granny and Bayard, both white, standing above Ringo and Loosh, both black. He may just be standing on a porch, but perhaps subconsciously, Bayard is looking down upon Ringo and Loosh.
As to why Faulkner chose to tell the story through Bayard, I think his youth at the time of this war is a major reason. Bayard’s youthful ignorance allows him to tell a more un-biased tale about the events. Also, children have a clean-slate when it comes to their morality; it will be interesting to see how the Civil War and its aftermath mold Bayard’s morals. Ringo, due to his race, would most definitely tell a different story then Bayard. While Ringo respects ‘Marse John’ and actually opposes the Yankees, his race would make his narration a little more pessimistic then the highly privileged Bayard.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn a few posts we have discussed that Ringo would have a different perspective on race relations than Bayard even though he, like Bayard, perceives the Union soldiers as an enemy. We have chalked up this misunderstanding to his youth, but it is evident that the adult slaves are divided on their freedom and loyalty also. Loosh is the most adamant about his freedom. His wife, Philadelphy reluctantly follows him, and Louvinia chooses to remain at the Sartoris home.
ReplyDeleteThis uncertainty ties into Elon's question of danger. I would agree that everyone is in danger due to the war, but would not go so far as to say that the whites are at a greater risk. Certainly, they have more to loose, but as history shows, black people in the US did not completely gain their freedom, political or economic, instantaneously. Philadelphy's indecisiveness also demonstrates the uncertainty into which she follows her husband. Granny reproaches her, asking, "Don't you know he's leading you into misery and starvation?" (p.75) This statement could be interpreted as a threat to make her stay, or reminiscent of the deluded argument held by some slave holders that they were doing black people a "favor"; however, in reality, Loosh and Philadelphy will have their freedom and self possession and little else.
The relationship between Ringo and Bayard is one bound by the ties of childhood innocence. Although the novel takes place in the antebellum south, where a definite divide exists between black and white, the two boys are color blind to racial tensions. They have grown up together, shared the same caretakers, and been together for so long, that neither boy sees the other as a definite race or color. Ringo and Bayard's close relationship provides and idealistic example for how Faulkner believes races should coexist together regardless of color. Each boy sees the other as a boy and a friend, not a white boy or a black friend, and because of this, are able to share many of the same viewpoints and outlooks on their lives.
ReplyDeleteFaulkner selects Bayard to be the narrator for the novel because it gives the reader the opportunity to view the civil war through the eyes of a southerner that has not had ther view distorted by racial conflics.. While one could argue that Ringo could fulfill the role of a narrator, Bayard is more emotionally attatched to the war because it is his father that goes off to fight. If Ringo had been used as the narrator, it would not have been as effective or compelling to the readers. By having a young, white, and unracist boy as the narrator, Faulkner is able to put a different spin on a tale from the Civil War. While the white southerners involved in the Civil War are many times stereotyped as racist, self-interested bigots, by using Bayard as a narrator, Faulkner is able to put a new perspective on the war.
The relationship between the two boys I feel is more of a brotherly relationship. Although they are of a different race; something that played a large role in determining a person’s status, they always seemed to have an inseparable bond. I think this is mainly because they were brought up in a home that didn’t treat blacks as poorly as other households probably did. With the combination of this and the fact that they grew up together being the same age they weren’t too much aware of the issues of race.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Faulkner made the right decision in choosing Bayard to narrate the story because it allows the reader to be able to focus more on the actual story going on, whereas if Ringo was the narrative I feel he would focus more on the racism battles taking place. Overall I think by having Bayard as the narrator that Faulkner is able to steer the reader’s perceptions away from the racism and into the realities of war during the Civil War.
The relationship between the boys is very unique and interesting. Bayard sees ringo as a brother or friend who is always there. It is interesting to note that he realizes that the relationship Ringo has with the family is very unusual. However, this does not seem to bother Bayard who simply seems to be content to share make beleive fights with a playmate. Faulkner's choice of Bayard to tell the story allows the civil war to be interrpreted through the innocence of youth. The narrator simply recognizes that society treats white and black people differently but does not try to rationalize a reason. He is simply intent on cheering for the south as one might a sports team and content with Ringo as a companion. If Ringo were to tell the story it would like speak to some of the sympathies he may feel toward the other blacks in the family. He would likely be more confused but aware of tensions that Bayard does not concern himself with.
ReplyDeleteThis relationship between the two boys is great because they have not seen society at its racial extremes. They do not see themselves as separate races, they see themselves as brothers. They do everything together, and Faulkner shows that blacks and whites can not only get along, but also be best friends.
ReplyDeleteI think that Faulkner chooses Bayard to narrate the story because he will be more naive than Ringo in his narration. There are still some differences in the lifestyles of Bayard and Ringo, but Bayard is likely to skim over them. Ringo might have told these differences in more of detail. An example of this can be found on page 24 where Ringo refuses to get into bed with Bayard, so Bayard goes and sleeps on the pallet. Bayard tells this event in one sentence. Ringo may have given it a paragraph. He could have gone into maybe being told by Louvinia or Loosh never to get into the bed with Bayard, and if he had there would have been consequences. There would probably be more of these explanations if Ringo were the narrator. The story told by Bayard can give the readers more of a feel of camaraderie, even if there was not a large one.
In response to Anna's post (the first one) I would like to disagree on a number of levels. Yes the two boys are different races during the civil war but that does not mean their relationship is complicated. As Anna says, Bayard does not notice many complications. Although Ringo may be more aware of his color it seems unlikely that his relationship with Bayard goes beyond a normal friendship or brotherhood. I do not it any way feel that Ringo reserves feelings or treats Bayard any differently based on the fact that he is white. Admitidly he probably is less inclined to tell or start fights with Bayard in front of the white family. He also may feel like a less favorite child as he allows bayard to shoot the gun and play the confederate general two out of three times in the game. However, Anna also points out that Ringo may have a different perception of the shooting incident based on the fact that the Union soldiers intended to free the slaves. The older slaves only heard that they would be free if the North won a few days before the incident. Further, Ringo was obviously just as pro-Confederate as Bayard as they both wanted to be the Confederate general while they play fight. In addition, Ringo was yelling "kill the yankee' when bayard fired.
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between Bayard and Ringo seems very innocent. In the opening scene when they are playing with each other behind the smokehouse, there is the feeling that the boys are equals. Bayard holds no real power over Ringo other than being a friend and almost really like part of his family. They had been born around the same time, and basically grew up together. However, I feel as though being brought up in a Confederate house and by a family who owns slaves will maybe turn this relationship as the boys grow and are subjected to the war. I believe that Faulkner chooses Bayard to narrate the story because that is the perspective that Faulkner knows best. Being born in Mississippi and growing up in the south I feel like Faulkner was able to really connect and have credibility in his characters. If Ringo was the narrator the book would be completely different. There is a war that is supposedly going to set his family free and the story would be much more about growing up a slave boy rather than a son of a Confederate Soldier.
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious that the two boys are close, being raised together and always being next to each other. I like that Bayard moved down from his bed to be with Ringo, and also that they have strict rules for who gets to be what generals in their war games so that Bayard has more fun. They genuinely compromise for each other and enjoy each other, making for a solid friendship. However, the scene where Bayard's father rides up the driveway with Bayard in his arms and Ringo running beside the horse shows that they will both have very different viewpoints in this story. I think that the main plot could probably be told from either side, but I do agree with Bill above when he said that with Ringo as narrator the thoughts and reading would lean towards the subject of racial equailty, while Bayard provides a more apathetic viewpoint - as though the inequality was just how things were - and focuses more on the other passions in the story. This viewpoint will make the story more interesting, in my opinion, for the readers in our class, since we have shown by electing a black president that civil rights is not as big of an issue in our generation.
ReplyDeleteBayard and Ringo have a relationship that is unbiased and naive. Although the time that the book takes place, would normally warrant these two characters against one another, surprisingly the two are un-phased by their different skin colors. Since the book is told through the eyes of Bayard, we do not see any signs of racism. However, we oddly are presented with a family that own slaves, yet treats a "black boy" as though he were a son to them. In the beginning of the book we recognize the happy, carefree lifestyle that Bayard and Ringo have by the way they play outside in the dirt. However, while the boys are playing together, a slave named "Loosh" comes over and interrupts their innocent playing. He warns them that the Union soldiers are coming, however Bayard and Ringo do not exactly know what this means. In this book I can see the relationship between Bayard and Ringo slowly growing a part as the boys get older and face more of these "interruptions." I feel as though their relationship will change for the worse when they begin to understand the racism that exists in the world they live in. When this occurs, both Bayard and Ringo will come face to face with reality and will need to search within themselves for their own identity.
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between Ringo and Bayard is explored most fully in the “Ambuscade” section, when they are only children. It is obvious from the start that they do not perceive each other in the master-slave context, but simply as playmates. Like most small children, they seclude themselves from the outside world in an imaginary bubble to contain their interpretation of it. To them the Civil War is a far off event that has no bearing on their immediate existence. They play games inspired by the war and even argue about who gets to be the Confederate General. Bayard and Ringo are ignorant of the implications of the war. When the Union soldier invades their play world, their immediate reaction is to use violence against him like they had planned in their game. It is likely that Faulkner chooses Bayard as the narrator to emphasize the naivety of the two boys’ relationship. Bayard would be the least likely of the two to notice any sort of inequity in their lives, as he is white. Perhaps as the story goes on and the two characters get older we will see changes in the way that Bayard perceives Ringo.
ReplyDeleteThe Unvanquished follows the development of the main character Bayard Sartoris through his eyes. Bayard controls our perception of the world around him so we can see nothing he does not see. So therefore his growth morally and his point of view about society and environment he lives in are very important to the reader. Bayard’s narration gives us the happy point of view from the white boy of a slave owing family in the South during the Civil War. Perhaps the view of the black boy in this setting would not be as rosy although he seems to be happy as well.
ReplyDeleteAt the start of the book Bayard seems to have a happy and content childhood despite the war. Bayard seems glad and relatively carefree in the first image of him in the book contently playing with his friend Ringo. Ringo is a black slave born in the same month as Bayard and is his best friend and consistent companion. These companions demonstrate some clear character traits such as courage in their early adventures, but there seem to be no harmful consequences to their actions. Bayard’s gunshot only kills a horse, and Colonel Dick takes pity on Granny. Also he is rescued from his wild pursuit of the mule thieves by Colonel Sartoris, and Granny finds her way home unharmed.
The relationship between Ringo and Bayard is one which can only be described as brotherly. Having been raised so closely together they have grown to be extremely close, and it is interesting to note the surprisingly small amount of irregularities in the ways in which they were brought up. For example, they are allowed to play together, they sleep in the same room, and when they are caught swearing, they both have their mouths washed out by Granny. However, there are some subtle differences between them in the way in which they are treated, and even in how Bayard treats Ringo. For example, Bayard sleeps on a bed while Ringo sleeps on the floor, and Bayard is allowed to pretend that he is their favorite civil war hero more often than Ringo is. For the most part, though, this irregularities are small and are often added without much unnecessary embellishment. I think that Faulkner chose Bayard to narrate the story because as he is not the minority party he is able to tell the story in such a way as relates to the reader his ability to identify with the minority struggle because of his relationship with Ringo, but also his experiences as a member of the majority, at a time when all of the relationship lines and standards that he had come to know were disappearing in the midst of the civil war, making for a much more complex story. The reader is then able to draw upon their previous knowledge of the minority struggle against slavery while seeing for perhaps the first time the struggle from the eyes of someone who is a member of the majority but is almost indescribably close with someone who is considered to be his family’s property. Had Ringo been chosen to narrate the story instead of Bayard I feel that they essence of their relationship would remain unchanged because they do seem to be genuinely close friends, but I also think that a valuable portion of the story would have been lost because there would no longer exist the internal struggle of Bayard’s wherein he is theoretically supposed to command someone that he sees as an equal if not all of the time than at least more than he is “supposed” to.
ReplyDeleteThe two boys are close like brothers, but race still factors into their relationship. If they hadn’t been born in the same month, and been the only playmates each had, they wouldn’t be so close. But circumstances what they are, they are close. When they were playing at the beginning of the book, Bayard said, “I knew that, because niggers know, they know things; it would have to be something louder, much louder, than words to do any good” (6). He then throws dust on Ringo to try to get him to play the game with him. This reveals that while they are close Bayard still recognizes the differences between them, his white-role and the control factor. Later in the same paragraph Bayard describes how they were like two moths, and how they are able to be close despite everything that would normally separate them (7, 18). The way they take care of each other when they are running after the two mules also suggests their relationship is based on their sincere love for each other (60).
ReplyDeleteFaulkner chooses Bayard to narrate the story because it provides the unique perspective of the sheltered white youth of the south. Bayard is clearly influenced by slavery, having grown up with slaves, but his account allows us to sympathize with him. His youth also means that his views are subject to change. His love and recognition of Ringo suggest he is not the stereotypical southerner. It allows Faulkner to reveal that not all southern whites were evil or corrupt, as some literature would suggest. I think if Ringo had narrated the story, it would have been similar in point of view because Faulkner suggests that the two boys were treated very similarly. However, it might also have been a more revelatory account of the actual life of a slave boy and not the slightly sheltered view of Bayard. It would probably be similarly naïve however, because, based on Ringo’s quotes, he was just as against the Yankees as Bayard and just as naïve of the horrors of war.
The relationship between Bayard and Ringo is the "best friend" relationship that most normal boys of that age experience with the one big difference being their race in a time period where the white race was superior. They are both imaginative and carefree and possibly a bit naive as the play fake war games while a real war is actually occurring. Their relationship is genuine although Bayard knows the difference between their skin color.
ReplyDeleteI think Faulkner chose Bayard to be the narrator because this novel is about change and self-development, and he is the most important character in this way. He is an unordinary white boy who has experienced the loyalty and friendship of an African American. I think that will have a profound impact on him growing up compared to other white men. We only see the world as Bayard does; we only have a perception of what he sees, thus there's a one-sided view on this whole novel, Bayard's view. Because the boys seem so similar in everything but skin color, one would think that the novel would be also similar if told by Ringo. I, however, think it would be very interesting if maybe not even too different. Bayard, even from a young boy seems to be naive, so I would be interested to see if he and Ringo truly see on the same level or not. Following the change of a young slave boy as he was growing up could lead to quite a different perspective on ideas as following a young white boy's transfer to adulthood.
I agree with Maria's comment about how the relationship between Bayard and Ringo appears to be just like that of any other childhood friends.
ReplyDeleteThe observation of the world they inhabit as being one free of any genuine worry draws upon Faulkner's ability to demonstrate the innocence of youth and how this particular phase of life is a time when individuals are best able to interact and integrate with those different to themselves in a way that is almost void of any prejudice.
I also concur with the assesment of this part of the novel as bearing the appearance of a calm prelude to potentially devastating events. In this sense, Falkener's writing thus far is tonally foreboding.
In response to Elizabeth’s post, I also agree that Bayard and Ringo’s relationship is based on their sincere love for one another. However I also believe that this love will either be tested or extremely transformed in the upcoming chapters. Their lives are changing immensely as each day brings a new adventure in their confrontations with both the Yankee and Confederate soldiers. The issue of race and the differences between the two boys will definitely grow. I believe that this is foreshadowed by Bayard describing how close he and Ringo are at the beginning of the novel. Their relationship will change as the novel progresses.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Elon, I don’t think the story would be interpreted any different if Bayard was the narrator of if Ringo was. They are very similar in character attributes that the reader often forgets they are not of the same race. They seem to be brothers rather than master and slave. Elon’s point about Bayard being the narrator because of his direct relationship with his father is very true. Bayard’s father serves as a vital character that influences Bayard as he matures in age. Bayard looks to his father as a role model and when he ages he is faced with decisions that draw from his moral character, which was heavily influenced by his father. I don’t really feel like Ringo would berate his situation. I think he is very thankful for what he has and if given the choice I believe he would stay with Bayard and his family.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jessica that if Ringo was the narrator that Bayard’s internal struggle would be lost, and this would be detrimental to the story and perhaps Faulkner’s point. However I also think that it would be interesting to see Ringo’s internal struggle explicated by Faulkner.
ReplyDeleteHowever I disagree with the assumption that being part of the majority class has anything to do with his internal struggle since Bayard is actually the minority on his farm. Rather the internal struggle is based on Bayard’s being part of the planter class, being the master and not the slave. I think if Ringo narrated we would loose Bayard’s experience of being the ruler in a system that is being destroyed, and his eventual struggle to figure out his place in society and how their new places will affect their relationship as they grow up.
I agree with Kelly's post in regards to the way the boys view each other. As I read, I continuously had the feeling that the boys were more than just friends but almost true brothers despite their skin color. Bayard seems like the older brother with Ringo following him around all the time, sort of like he looks up to Bayard instead of knowing the race difference.
ReplyDeleteI agree with David that Bayard does not recognize Ringo as his inferior, but I do think that Bayard and Ringo unconsciously fall into their "rightful place. Bayard is always the leader, while Ringo follows and plays along; Bayard sleeps in a bed, while Ringo sleeps on the floor. There are many instances where the two boys are treated equally, for example, when they are punished for swearing. However, there are also subtle clues that Faulkner lends us that suggest that there is definitely not a whole lot of equality between Bayard and Ringo.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with what Hayley said about my earlier post, now that I have read further in the book. Although I feel that the inequality we see between the two comes from the expectations put on them by the adults, both black and white, rather than from the boys themselves. If it were up to the boys they would be eating at the same table and sleeping in the same bed (a common thing for brothers during this time). When Bayard climbs down onto Ringo’s pallet to sleep with him because Ringo is too scared to climb into the bed, it’s the adults that Ringo is scared of; he doesn’t think that Bayard is going to yell at him or beat him for it. It will be interesting to see how these expectations of the world impact these two very close friends as they mature and become more aware of their ‘proper’ places in society.
ReplyDeleteIn many of the posts people have talked about how the boy’s naiveté or their age has led to their lack of understanding of race relations and also of the world and the war. I would tend to disagree that Bayard and Ringo do not understand what is going on. All kids are going to play games, whether they are sports or war games. Just because they are playing does not mean that they do not understand what is going on. I feel that this notion that they do not know what war really is, or what happens in a war is dispelled when they go and shoot at the Union soldiers. As soon as they know the soldiers are there, they immediately ran to get a gun, and I do not believe that they don’t understand what would happen if they shot someone. Also, with the idea that Ringo does not realize the race difference, it has not been brought up that maybe he is just trying to stay as close to Bayard so he can maybe escape the idea of being less. It may not be true, but it’s a thought.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Micala (who agreed with Elon) that Ringo's narration, at least through the first two sections of the novel, would not differ too much from Bayard's. Both children seem equally naive about their surroundings: Ringo opposes the Northern troops, despite the fact that they were fighting against slavery, while Bayard believes that the Yankees are coming down to set him "free" (23). Bayard is certainly the leader of the two, privileged with a better bed and fancier meals. However, I do not believe that their difference in status affects their relationship in the early stages of the novel.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, as the novel progresses, the viewpoints of the two boys will most certainly grow apart as they become submerged with reality. I have not yet read books three and four (will do that tonight) but I predict that these books will likely focus on the two boys quietly growing apart, in both their ideas and their friendship.
I agree with Joe's first comment that the story would be vastly different had Ringo been chosen to be the narrator in place of Bayard. However, I was confused by the comment, "Indeed, he would be able to speak of his own intelligence and good humor, but he would then appear arrogant. His personality as we see it is crucially the antithesis to what people would have thought of slaves during the era in which the novel is set." Does intelligence necessarily denote arrogance? I agree that Ringo, as he is portrayed by Faulkner and Bayard, is the complete opposite of what people usually expect to see from the portrayal of slaves within this context, and I think that's great, but I'm not so sure that he wouldn't be just as likable were he to be the narrator. When you look at it that way, would Bayard be more or less likable if Ringo were the narrator? I’m not so sure.
ReplyDeleteI agree with James for a couple reasons that I had not thought about until he mentioned them. First is the fact that Bayard does realize that Ringo’s relationship with the family is different and unusual, however he still has no problem being friends or really questioning the fact that Ringo is black. The second thing that I agree with is the idea of Bayard being the narrator in order to tell the story through the innocence of youth. I never thought about this until now but it is a great way to tell the story without having the personal opinions of the elder people who look down at racism. Also this allows the story to be told by someone who doesn’t know as much about these times as someone older, which connects the reader because the reader doesn’t know much either. Lastly I agree that if Ringo was telling the story he would focus more on the struggle of his family as blacks during this time period. Since Ringo is black he would notice the treatment of his family more than Bayard does, which would take away from the story.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Hayley's post, I agree with her that although the relationship between Bayard and Ringo is brotherly and is not scarred by the race issue that is tearing the rest of the country apart. However, if one was to look deeper into the text, it is clear that there is an unconscious divide between the boys, that is unknowingly caused by the social norms of the time in reguards to race. These social forces are to blame for the reason that the boys accept certain habits that unconsiously continue the trend of race division. This is evident throughout the text, when it is accepted as completly normal for Ringo to sleep on the pallet and for Bayard to have the bed. Also, some underlying racial tension is evident when Bayard acknowledges that Ringo is smarter, better read, and more artistic than him, but he tries so hard to keep the upper hand over him by having seen the railroad when it was actually working and Ringo only seeing it once it was destroyed. Though the boys have a genuine and brotherly friendship and do not judge each other by color, but by character, it is evident that their relationship is still unconsiously swayed by societal signals.
ReplyDeleteAnna has a good point when she says that the relationship of Bayard and Ringo will be tested during the course of the war. They both have some growing to do - or their minds don't think like we do today - and the Civil War was one of the major steps towards modern American Civil Rights. I think it would also be very possible for Faulkner to have their friendship progress like a smaller version of the racially tense world around it.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with the many posts stating that the relationship between Bayard and Ringo mimic the relationship of close friends or even relatives. The boys simply do not seem to hold biases to each other and see each other in a very innocent way. That being that they are both the same age and that they enjoy each other’s company. It is evident and probably important to realize that the boys are not ignorant to their racial differences but simply innocent. This can be supported by their sleeping arrangements and the Bayard always leads the way on decisions and adventures. Their innocents will without a doubt fade with their inevitable growth to maturity, which will most probably result in the rise of conflict from challenges to this relationship where Bayard is dominant.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of Elizabeth’s explanation of Faulkner’s choice to narrate from Bayard’s perspective. Bayard is indeed meant to represent the “sheltered white youth of the south.” Bayard exists as a dispassionate witness to the dissolution of the Confederacy. It is important to note, however, that Faulkner sometimes uses Bayard as a medium to subtly insert opinions on race. There is a reason that Bayard sees the cooperative slaves as positive characters and the ones that act out as negative. By making this distinction through the eyes of an objective observer, Faulkner exhibits his lack of interest in condemning slavery. In contrast to Elizabeth, I would contend that Faulkner is not interested in redeeming southern whites. He never indicates that slavery is unjust and consequentially there is no need for slave-owners to be pardoned. The underlying racism of Faulkner’s presentation of good slaves and bad slaves ultimately contaminates the innocence of Bayard and Ringo’s friendship. Though both characters have a sincere respect for each other, Ringo’s complacency trivializes the elemental injustice of his servitude.
ReplyDeleteMany of the posts do claim that these boys are like brothers to each other and I agree with all of these statements. However, this story seems to remind me a little about the Disney movie The Fox and the Hound in the beginning. Like Anna said the relationship between the two is very calm and serene in the early chapters. However, the society that they live in will test their friendship throughout the novel. As we have seen throughout the later chapters, both Ringo and Bayard change from being children and learn to be adults. It is unclear which boy will be able to surpass the other. Ringo is the smarter of the two, but the will and drive of Bayard and his societal advantages will probably bring him up to speed with Ringo.
ReplyDeleteIn a response to Joe's blog, I do think that there still would be some differences in the story if Ringo was writing. I think that Faulkner would bring up more situations that have to deal with the differences in the lifestyle of the two boys. I think that the story would be much different than Bayard's narration in the first two stories because of this. However, I do agree with Joe's comment that they will continue to grow apart from one another as the story moves on. Like the Fox and the Hound, society will eventually turn their friendship in a different direction than what it was in the early chapters.
I agree with Chris's comment when he mentions that the relationship between the boys will be tested throughout the novel. However, I think that it is less their relationship as friends that will be tested, and more so the test of each boys individual integrity as a person. Although they are experiencing the same situations and events in their lives I feel as though each boy observes these situations differently because that are of different skin colors. Although the boys are very close and similar, their differences, not just of race, will be shown through their individual development throughout their lives. These interpretations will be the deciding factors of whether or not the boys see one another in a different light as they grow up.
ReplyDelete