New Leaf February 2018 Discussion • Passing by Nella Larsen

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Maybe it’s just about the society Larsen knew, pushed to extremes. We don’t ask if there is a deeper meaning to every book we read, when it is about the world we know. We just accept that world as depicted and then events take place in it, whether murder or romance or adventure or whatever.

I think the things I read into the book, of which I wrote way back at the beginning of the thread, are there perhaps, or not. That includes my thoughts on the stress of trying to live as one sort of person when you feel inside like another sort of person, whether that is to do with skin colour, or gender, or sexual preference or religious belief, or whatever. We each of us bring our own interpretation to any book, which is affected by our background, upbringing, other reading and on and on.

I suppose what I love about reading is that it’s a relationship I have with the author, who is speaking to me, and he or she may say something different to each of us.

I go more than one way on all of this! I tend to believe that the text is the text and can be seen in the context of its times, but I'm not as interested in how it reflects the author her/himself. At the same time, it can be illuminating, so long as you don't start to see what isn't there and there is a lot missing from Passing. Inference should only go so far and I think we've gone pretty far here, but it's also fun and there's nothing wrong with that.

I also thought that Passing is both about race and about race as metaphor, which might or might not be what Larsen intended. The title Passing is far superior to the original, in what it can be taken to imply and in its historical resonance.

But in talking about lacunae, I've become increasingly interested in Brian and what drives him, but then I'm hoist with my own petard, as I do think we get into "making it up" territory. It's a little odd how Irene was portrayed in her own voice as so controlling to Brian. And what did Brian want, really? As was noted upthread, it's not as if he wouldn't be tending to the poor in Brazil and I think we have to assume that Brian also had carriage trade in Harlem. I can't help thinking (and again, based on minimal textual evidence) that part of Brian's issue with Irene was the lack of sex. He put the name of Brazil on it, but that could have been because discussion of sex was even more off the table.

In fairness, Irene was entitled to input on Brazil. It was her life, too, and not what she signed up for. There's also the question of their sons and where they'd be better off and it was legitimate to think that their prospects were better in racist America as the offspring of the urban upper middle class than they would have been in the putatively unracist Brazil.

All of that said, I can understand why Brian would have been attracted to Clare. While I have no doubt that Irene pushed Clare, part of that is that I don't think Clare would have given up so easily or readily or without thought. She never struck me as suicidal and I think it would have been a last resort for her. I'm even willing to think that part of the function of the man she was with in Chicago was to show that Clare always had another man in her string. An option in case everything blew up, which was a possibility she lived with constantly.

[Catlady]

The other day I noticed a new-ish book that may be of interest--a nonfiction account by a daughter who learned her mother had passed: White Like Her: My Family’s Story of Race and Racial Passing by Gail Lukasik.

Lukasik wrote about her book in an Washington Post article. Interestingly, Lukasik notes that her white father was racist.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by gmw

Irene was ostensibly Clare's friend. It would have been odd not to go to her side. And that quoted paragraph is quite peculiar. We have "terror tinged with ferocity" and declarations like "couldn’t have her free", but we also have "laid a hand on Clare’s bare arm". Say what? I'm so angry with you I'm going to lay my hand on your arm? Scary.

Irene stops her thoughts at the point of laying her hand on Clare's arm; it doesn't mean that was the end of her actions. Irene refuses to go beyond that point--and clearly SOMETHING happened beyond that, something that should have been obvious to Irene--Clare pulling away to commit suicide, or tripping backward, or, as I am convinced, being pushed by Irene. Which of those would Irene so sternly repress?

Those sorts of think-one-thing-but-do-or-say-another contradictions exist in a lot of what Irene does throughout the book. I don't like her, I don't trust her, and I don't want to be her friend. But I'm not convinced she tossed Clare out the window. I think Irene would like to think she was capable; she may even believe she was responsible (perhaps Clare did step back, not to commit suicide, but in surprise or to regain personal space, forgetting how close she was to the window), and this would be enough to explain all those careful phrases/thoughts from Irene at the end.

For all that, I am not trying to convince you that Irene didn't do it; I'm just trying to justify why I didn't read it the same way despite the leading hints. I did see them, but I didn't believe them.

You say you don't trust Irene, yet you rely on her fragmented account of the events at the party--e.g., her failure to report a scream, her rage-filled dash across the room ending in a gentle touch on Clare's arm.

I think Irene's unreliability is most apparent in the final scenes, and yet those are the ones in which you seem to take her at her word.

[spindlegirl]

I just finished it. I believe Irene impulsively pushed Clare.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I wasn't at all sympathetic to Claire. She didn't have to marry someone who hates people of color. She took that risk and even introduced Irene to him. Claire took the risk and it backfired on her.

The whole time I read this, I was thinking that very thing. I had no sympathy for the repercussions of not being able to be her true self after marriage because she deliberately chose to "pass" and deceive her husband. And she flaunted it in front of all her friends.

I keep getting torn between whether Jack did it or Irene did it (impulsively) but I do know the husband felt enraged at having been duped.

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by Catlady

The other day I noticed a new-ish book that may be of interest--a nonfiction account by a daughter who learned her mother had passed: White Like Her: My Family’s Story of Race and Racial Passing by Gail Lukasik.

Lukasik wrote about her book in an Washington Post article. Interestingly, Lukasik notes that her white father was racist.

Thanks very much for this information and the link, Catlady. It’s a sad story in that the mother left her loving family behind for the most part, but good that the daughter was able to make the connection again. A very interesting comparison with the book.

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by issybird

I go more than one way on all of this! I tend to believe that the text is the text and can be seen in the context of its times, but I'm not as interested in how it reflects the author her/himself. At the same time, it can be illuminating, so long as you don't start to see what isn't there and there is a lot missing from Passing. Inference should only go so far and I think we've gone pretty far here, but it's also fun and there's nothing wrong with that.

I also thought that Passing is both about race and about race as metaphor, which might or might not be what Larsen intended. The title Passing is far superior to the original, in what it can be taken to imply and in its historical resonance.

But in talking about lacunae, I've become increasingly interested in Brian and what drives him, but then I'm hoist with my own petard, as I do think we get into "making it up" territory. It's a little odd how Irene was portrayed in her own voice as so controlling to Brian. And what did Brian want, really? As was noted upthread, it's not as if he wouldn't be tending to the poor in Brazil and I think we have to assume that Brian also had carriage trade in Harlem. I can't help thinking (and again, based on minimal textual evidence) that part of Brian's issue with Irene was the lack of sex. He put the name of Brazil on it, but that could have been because discussion of sex was even more off the table.

In fairness, Irene was entitled to input on Brazil. It was her life, too, and not what she signed up for. There's also the question of their sons and where they'd be better off and it was legitimate to think that their prospects were better in racist America as the offspring of the urban upper middle class than they would have been in the putatively unracist Brazil.

All of that said, I can understand why Brian would have been attracted to Clare. While I have no doubt that Irene pushed Clare, part of that is that I don't think Clare would have given up so easily or readily or without thought. She never struck me as suicidal and I think it would have been a last resort for her. I'm even willing to think that part of the function of the man she was with in Chicago was to show that Clare always had another man in her string. An option in case everything blew up, which was a possibility she lived with constantly.

Brian is a bit intriguing as we “see” him only through Irene, and don’t get to know what he really thinks about her, their marriage, and life in general except that he is fed up with it. I think your diagnosis could be spot on, issybird.

Another little point that I noticed on both my readings: I found Irene’s propensity for being late surprising and out of character for such an organiser - Iwould have expected her to be standing round tapping her foot, waiting for everyone else.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Irene stops her thoughts at the point of laying her hand on Clare's arm; it doesn't mean that was the end of her actions. Irene refuses to go beyond that point--and clearly SOMETHING happened beyond that, something that should have been obvious to Irene--Clare pulling away to commit suicide, or tripping backward, or, as I am convinced, being pushed by Irene. Which of those would Irene so sternly repress?

I've said all along that Irene may believe herself to be responsible*, and that would be quite sufficient for her to want to repress the feeling. So I don't think you can conclude there was an actual push, just from that reaction.

* If you're feeling threatened (your angry husband is confronting you), and some other person rushes into your personal space, isn't it reasonable to suppose that you might step back without remembering there's an open window behind you? And if you are the one that causes this reaction, isn't it reasonable to suppose that you might blame yourself for this reaction?

Originally Posted by Catlady

[...] I think Irene's unreliability is most apparent in the final scenes, and yet those are the ones in which you seem to take her at her word.

I assume the reported actions and words are true, albeit not always complete (either because Irene didn't witness or because she chooses not to tell us), but Irene's thoughts, her interpretation of these events, are not to be trusted.

For me this final scene feels flawed, not fully consistent, regardless of whether Clare was pushed, jumped or fell. If the author had told us explicitly (perhaps in some concluding sentence), I think we'd all have been picking at the flaws (even if not in the same way) rather than defending some particular manner of death. (In that respect the ending is quite clever, we are diverted from the flaws.) So while it has been fun to talk about what seems most in character, I don't think any solution is all that satisfying.

[Catlady]

So, gmw, you think Irene rushed across the room to Clare, in a rage, because Clare is her friend??? What, Irene's going to protect her gal pal from Jack so good ol' Clare can try for a happily-ever-after with Brian?

You say you don't trust Irene's interpretation of events--well, Irene interprets her hand on Clare's arm as the prelude to an accident (It was, she insists to herself). You believe that. You seem to be buying all of Irene's frantic excuses as she refuses to allow herself to own what she did.

[gmw]

You suggest that Irene rushed across the room in a rage, but the text says: "She ran across the room, her terror tinged with ferocity". That sounds more scared than raging ("tinged" generally referring to a slight shade or minute amount). But a cornered animal will often act ferociously, so I am not arguing that fear (as opposed to rage) excludes the possibility of her pushing Clare.

The whole "poor me, what will people think?" thing is so obviously (too obviously, it seems to me) intended to make the reader believe she did it, that I think - as you phrased it earlier - the lady doth protest too much. That was the impression I got when I first read it, and I still see it as a viable interpretation (but quite accept it is not the only possible interpretation).

[WT Sharpe]

If I were going to push someone out a window, I wouldn't do it at such a public gathering.

[gmw]

Postscript: I recognise that my previous post (my use of "protest too much") sounds a bit strange, so I'm going to try one more time to explain myself...

I am not certain whether my reaction comes from my distrust of Irene as a character, or my expectation of Nella Larsen as a writer. It's probably a bit of both. Together they are protesting too much, presumably for some ulterior motive. Irene need only have claimed that she didn't want to remember; she didn't have to keep pushing the "will they think I did it?" in our face. In combination with the practicalities of trying to push someone out the window - without being noticed, but while they're all watching - it's all too much. The obvious conclusion (based on Irene's excessive hints) doesn't feel credible, and it seemed to me that the author expected me to feel this way, that she kept pushing so I would feel this way. (Do I give her too much credit?)

That reaction led to my conclusion when I first read it: Irene believes she was responsible, but it was really just an unfortunate accident - Clare stepped back as Irene got close. This has an absolute minimum requirement for actions that we are not told about (no pushing or shoving or turning around, just a backward step). My only problem with this is that I would have expected Clare to give voice to her fright as she fell out the window. (If the "gasp of horror" is Clare's then it fits an accident quite well, but I still would have expected more.) All the subsequent behaviour we see from Irene is just as consistent with Irene believing herself responsible (sincerely or not, that's a separate argument) as it is with her actually being responsible.

It's only later in our discussion that I have given any sort of serious consideration to suicide - I still don't like it much, but it's a solution that can be made to exactly fit the text of the last scene (even if it doesn't fit my understanding of Clare's character).

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

If I were going to push someone out a window, I wouldn't do it at such a public gathering.

Assuming you cold-bloodedly planned it ahead of time, and didn't act in the heat of the moment.

Originally Posted by gmw

That reaction led to my conclusion when I first read it: Irene believes she was responsible, but it was really just an unfortunate accident - Clare stepped back as Irene got close. This has an absolute minimum requirement for actions that we are not told about (no pushing or shoving or turning around, just a backward step). My only problem with this is that I would have expected Clare to give voice to her fright as she fell out the window. (If the "gasp of horror" is Clare's then it fits an accident quite well, but I still would have expected more.) All the subsequent behaviour we see from Irene is just as consistent with Irene believing herself responsible (sincerely or not, that's a separate argument) as it is with her actually being responsible.

This makes Irene at least morally responsible; Irene making sudden physical contact with Clare makes Clare fall. We do know that Irene did have her hand on Clare's arm, so even if you want to claim there was no push, you can't deny that Irene's action caused Clare to go through the window.

It's only later in our discussion that I have given any sort of serious consideration to suicide - I still don't like it much, but it's a solution that can be made to exactly fit the text of the last scene (even if it doesn't fit my understanding of Clare's character).

Let me shift the discussion slightly. What do the three possibilities--accident, suicide, murder--mean to the story?

My thoughts are these. Accident is an extremely unsatisfactory ending--it means no real change or growth for any of the characters; it means the author got tired of writing the story and decided to wrap it up, deus ex machina. Suicide means that Clare either suddenly sees the folly of her life of passing and gives up, or decides death will be a grand gesture of defiance; possible, surely, but abrupt and not in keeping with character.

Murder, though--that is a satisfactory conclusion to Irene's growing anger and dissatisfaction, a way for Irene to punish Clare for being what Irene is not, for being a threat to Irene's well-being. All along we've seen Irene struggle to maintain her status quo by removing Clare from her life, and then, suddenly, she does. It's the logical, suitable ending of the story of these two women. This, as much as anything in the wording of the final scenes, is why I believe Irene killed Clare. It simply fits.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Catlady

[...] This makes Irene at least morally responsible; Irene making sudden physical contact with Clare makes Clare fall. We do know that Irene did have her hand on Clare's arm, so even if you want to claim there was no push, you can't deny that Irene's action caused Clare to go through the window.

"morally responsible" I definitely don't want you on my jury. Irene may have physically caused it, but if the reaction to her approach was not planned nor intended then Irene is not responsible for it. It is an accident*.

* Well, personally I'd blame any person that would design and build a building with a window on the 6th floor that you can just fall out of like that.

Originally Posted by Catlady

Let me shift the discussion slightly. What do the three possibilities--accident, suicide, murder--mean to the story?

My thoughts are these. Accident is an extremely unsatisfactory ending--it means no real change or growth for any of the characters; it means the author got tired of writing the story and decided to wrap it up, deus ex machina. Suicide means that Clare either suddenly sees the folly of her life of passing and gives up, or decides death will be a grand gesture of defiance; possible, surely, but abrupt and not in keeping with character.

Murder, though--that is a satisfactory conclusion to Irene's growing anger and dissatisfaction, a way for Irene to punish Clare for being what Irene is not, for being a threat to Irene's well-being. All along we've seen Irene struggle to maintain her status quo by removing Clare from her life, and then, suddenly, she does. It's the logical, suitable ending of the story of these two women. This, as much as anything in the wording of the final scenes, is why I believe Irene killed Clare. It simply fits.

Bookworm_Girl asked this question earlier. I think the ending is a cop out however you interpret the story. I do think the author decided she'd had enough (had said what she wanted to say about people and/or race and/or life) and just wanted to end it.

When asking about what the different endings mean to the story, I think we need only look at two:

* Murder - Irene pushed Clare

* Ambiguous/obscure cause of death.

The first is the only solution that is clearly hinted at; the author wanted us to see this one. Did she think we might miss it otherwise, or is she wanting us to believe this happened, or is she making the hints so obvious because she wants us to question this? Obviously we all have our own ideas.

For me, an impulse murder is the start-of-a-story sort of thing (how to cope with the consequences). An impulse murder at the end of the story only says that people will lash out when they feel cornered, which is nothing new nor particularly interesting. I don't find it satisfying, and if this was intended then I question why it was not plainly stated. (There seems no reason to make it less than perfectly clear, and there seems no reason to suggest that Irene isn't going to be accused/arrested for the murder, because the accusation - at least - would have made this possibility more credible.)

So I lean toward the second situation: the author wanted the death to be obscure. Either she wanted us to see that it didn't matter, or the obscurity itself is part of the message. I'm inclined to go along with what CRussel suggested earlier, that the cause of death isn't important, this wasn't really part of the story, it was just a way to end it. (But in this I may be underestimating the author ... perhaps.)

[Bookpossum]

There is always the possibility of Irene feeling guilty because she had earlier thought that if Clare died it would solve all her problems, so guilt for its happening because she had wished it, not because she did it.

And I agree - those windows were clearly incredibly dangerous!