William Faulkner’s Sanctuary displays vulgar abuse and violence toward women. Throughout the first part of the novel (chapters 1-17) characters such as Goodwin and Popeye represent the impossible barriers that women face when trying to escape oppression and violence from abusive men. The men in the novel adhere to the stereotypical characteristic of alcoholics, while the women are constantly reminded that they are “whores” no matter how they behave. The men in Faulkner’s Sanctuary use intimidation, violence, and rape to instill fear in the women of the novel, and to control them and treat them as being “other”, or less-than-human. Goodwin, Popeye, and the Old Frenchman house all contribute to the disenfranchisement of the female gender.
Upon arriving at the Old Frenchman house with Gowan, Temple is immediately afraid of their surroundings. The atmosphere around the house is frightening, and when they meet Goodwin, it becomes clear they are not welcome; Goodwin intimidates Temple upon first arrival. “She heard his light, swift feet twice, then his hand touched her cheek and he lifted her from behind the box by the scruff of the neck, like a kitten. “What are you doing in my house?” he said.” (Faulkner, 52) He invades not only her personal space, but physically grabs her, “like a kitten”, dehumanizing her; at that moment Temple is no longer a woman, but an intruder. Fearing for her life from the men around her, Temple hides herself in a bedroom, only contributing to the abuse she would soon suffer. The men see Temple’s self-entrapment as an opportunity, and harass her. “She could tell all of them by the way they breathed. Then, without having heard, felt, the door open, she began to smell something: brilliantine which Popeye used on his hair.” (80) The men harass Temple to infuse fear within her, as another way to maintain power over her; they keep her in fear which prevents her from retaliating or fighting to get away from them. Her inability to run away at that moment leads to the eventual sexual assault she would suffer.
Like Temple, Ruby is also trapped. Although she says she is not afraid, Ruby is held at the Old Frenchman place by the abuse that Goodwin inflicts upon her. Goodwin traps Ruby with violence and prevents her from escaping, just as the fear Temple feels prevents her from escaping. “He plucked the child from her and laid it on the table and caught her other hand as it flicked at his face, and holding both wrists in one hand, he slapped her. It made a dry, flat sound. He slapped her again, first on one cheek, then the other, rocking-her head from side to side. “That’s what I do to them,” he said, slapping her. “See?”.” (95) Goodwin refers to women as “sluts” or “them”, as a way to dehumanize women. He includes Ruby with them as well, making her less of a woman, but rather a punching-bag; an object he can abuse.
The men in Sanctuary physically and emotionally abuse the women, contributing to the dehumanization of not only Ruby and Temple, but the female gender in general.
This was a good argument you have made about Sanctuary. I thought that you had a good thesis statement and it followed all the way through when reading this essay. You used examples to support your argument and you described how the men in the novel abuse the women and treat them as though they are not human.
ReplyDeleteI think you have a really good argument. Your introduction is very concise and well written. You make a great point about the way in which woman are dehumanized by the males in the novel. I think you have chosen good evidence to support your thesis, but maybe you could integrate the quotes more effectively to help draw out your point for the audience.
ReplyDeleteMadeline,
ReplyDeleteThis was a good analysis of "Sanctuary" and you have a strong argument about how the acts of the men in the novel not only affect the individual but also women/society as a whole. The essay uses quality quotes, my only suggestion is find a way to integrate the quotes with the essay so that the paper flows a bit better. Overall this was good stuff.
Madeline,
ReplyDeleteYour close reading has a great focus and a very strong introduction. As a reader your argument was very clear and I understood where the piece was going right away. I really like the way you point out the textual moments where the men actually refer to the women as animals or "other" as evidence of their dehumanization. My only suggestion would be to possibly focus on either Temple or Ruby instead of both. You have great evidence given for Temple already, I would like to see more! Great work!
Madeline, I like your argument and the quotes used to support it. To make your argument more clear, you could focus on either Temple or Ruby, and possibly bring in more evidence to support your claims.
ReplyDeleteMadeline, I like your argument and the quotes used to support it. To make your argument more clear, you could focus on either Temple or Ruby, and possibly bring in more evidence to support your claims.
ReplyDeleteMadeline, I think this is a great paper, and it is very well supported and convincing. I don't quite understand what you mean by "disenfranchisement of women" in your thesis, and think that your conclusion's use of "dehumanization" is a better fit for your paper's argument.
ReplyDeleteMadeline,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this essay. It was easy to follow, it had great textual evidence, and your argument was clear. I also think it connected very well with the class. I really don't have any suggestions or complains for your essay. Good Job!
Great job. I think you really captured your purpose well. One idea I had: the last quote you provide is followed by a few short responses to it; what might help to further draw out the significance of that quote is to analyze specific words in it (e.g. "flat, dry sound," I think, implies a sort of deadness or inhumanness). Doing so could just add a little more beef to your argument.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very nice close reading. I think you picked very good quotes to look at, but i think your thesis could use a little tweaking. Your argument is strong once you understand it, but I feel that if you made it more clear in the beginning exactly what it was you were trying to do, the piece as a whole would be more solid. Great job!
ReplyDeleteI think you did a great job with this close reading. I thought that your introduction set up your argument well. I also thought that your examples were great and you did a good job of analyzing. One thing that would perhaps be beneficial would be to include the magnitude of this issue. Why is it problematic that women are treated this way? You could possibly explore the answer to this question in your conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI think you started in a good place, and that you can actually go further with your argument - you say that the violence and abuse traps the women, but how? What is it about physical and emotional abuse that keep someone in one place, rather than running away?
ReplyDeleteIt's one of the most unsettling contradictions of abuse, and it's an area of inquiry that you can certainly explore more deeply.
I like that you made the evidence in the text connect to a deeper issue in society revolving around the depiction of women without power. This really added significance to your piece. It looks like there was at least one standalone quote, though, and you know Dr. R doesn't like those! I'd look back at that. :)
ReplyDeleteI think you've done a nice job getting right to the point you were trying to make. I think this would be stronger though if you focused on just one of the women. Also, consider what it means to be dehumanized, and perhaps include more about the women's reactions to being dehumanized.
ReplyDeleteWhat I love here is that you made a bold statement and you backed it up. The standalone quote is the only big issue I'm seeing right now. The content is perfect.
ReplyDeleteGreat job! I think you did a really good backing up your argument with evidence from the text. The only thing I noticed is you have double quotes around dialogue within quotes.
ReplyDeleteYou have a good and clear argument, but why does Faulkner portray the women being dehumanized, what effect does it have on the book (first half). I would also like to see more analysis on Ruby. Good job though!
ReplyDeleteYou have a good stance and do a good job of backing it up. I would work on the length of the evidence you provide. I found myself getting muddled in quotes rather than questions your reading would bring up. Otherwise I thought you had a concise point.
ReplyDeleteI like where you are going with your argument that Faulker dehumanizes women. At the end, you briefly touch on them being referred to as "whores" and "sluts." I think this is a major point, and should not be brushed over. Elaborate on that and I think your paper will be complete.
ReplyDeleteI think that you do a good job of providing examples in which women are portrayed as a type of "other", but I think some of them are either a little too long or not "unpacked" enough. Furthermore, how does establishing the women as "others" affect the novel and the relationships between the characters - basically, what is so important about this observation?
ReplyDeleteI feel that you have made a very cohesive argument, and your evidence supports your thesis well. I think that your paper would seem more significant if you also incorporated the implication of the male viewpoint of women on women.
ReplyDeleteI feel you have a good argument. I think the inclusion of the quotes where he grabs her like a kitten is great in that it allows you to paint a picture of the dehumanization rather than just telling the audience of its presence. I think digging deeper into aspects of dehumanization would strengthen your work. Great start!
ReplyDeleteGreat argument and very well supported. The only thing that you could tweak is integrating your quotes. Occasionally they just appear without any introduction and little analysis afterwards. It leaves readers guessing the relevance of the quote instead of you saying why it is relevant.
ReplyDeleteI think you have a great structure and a good thesis. I think you need to unpack your quotes though.
ReplyDeleteI believe that you have a very strong thesis and you support it well throughout your close reading by giving ample textual evidence. By constantly describing the way the male characters in Sanctuary “othered the women” and dehumanized them you support your claim of the way the men sought to “disenfranchise” the female gender.
ReplyDeleteNice job, I thought you had a clear thesis and great support to back it up. Great use of textual evidence, that made a huge difference. Maybe more of a conclusion would make this stronger, but overall it was a great start!
ReplyDeleteYour argument is very clear and you do a good job of focusing your claims back to your thesis. I think it would be helpful for clarification if you analyzed your quotes a little more in depth and elaborated on them a bit more.
ReplyDeleteMadeline,
ReplyDeleteYou have a very solid argument that's clear and well-supported. Your first body paragraph about Temple is very strong, and you employ a good quote/analysis ratio. My suggestion for you would be to make your second paragraph about Ruby just as strong- it's much shorter, and half of it is a single quote. If you elaborate and further tease out your thoughts, I think you'll have an awesome essay!
You have strong ideas stated in your opening paragraph which you return to throughout your close reading. However, you talk about three arguments (all of which are interesting points but you might stick to one more specifically in your introduction). For instance you reference a.) The impossible barriers women face when trying to escape oppression and violence b.)The intimidation and violence men use to instill fear in women and control and treat them as the other and c.) The disenfranchisement of the female gender. Throughout your writing, I saw you focusing mainly on the disenfranchisement of women argument; however, you might want to consider choosing the terminology of either disenfranchisement of dehumanization.
ReplyDelete