Ralph
Ellison’s “The Birthmark” portrays a message deeper than what the readers see
at a first glance. The birthmark
in the short story depicts a test between the justice system and the people. Matt and Carla are asked to identify
someone who could be Carla’s brother, but the only way of identifying him is
through a birthmark, which is not present due to the condition of his
body. This signifies that the
patrolman wants to test Matt and Carla to see if they understand the justice
system procedures as far as identifying a body and how the body should be
properly displayed. The birthmark
is a test to have Matt and Carla choose to identify the man, without
understanding what the proper procedures are.
The
patrolman is a character who seems complacent about the feelings of others,
especially if people lost a loved one.
This is demonstrated as he “traced a line near the body with the toe of
his boot, making a small furrow in the earth” (Ellison 1). By tracing a line around the body and
making a small furrow, the patrolman is not caring about how the body is
presented when the family members come to identify it. The justice system normally has a
coroner bring the body back to a lab in a body bag to ensure that nothing gets
onto the body other than the evidence that is needed for identification. The coroner is the only person at the
time of the crime that is supposed to touch the body in any way. Having the patrolman doing whatever he
wants to the body signifies that there is a test that he wants to display to
Matt and Carla.
Matt
is the one who goes to look for the birthmark on the man in order to identify
him, but he never questions the procedure or state in which the body is in, in
terms of its positioning, how it is displayed, these things are important to
note because they are not the usual or proper way in which a body should be
displayed for identification. The
description of the body is described as, “hunched on one side, lying bare upon
straw-colored pine needles, the long legs bare. He saw the jaw hanging limply against the shoulder, the
mouth gaping” (Ellison 1). The
description of the body is detailed, but it is not right. This description is placed here to
metaphorically describe the test within this situation. Matt notices how the body is placed,
but cannot get the image out of his head.
Unfortunately Matt is unable to speak up to the patrolman about the way
that the body is just left there as though to decay in the street, but that is
what the patrolman wants.
The
patrolman does not want Matt or Clara speaking up against the way that they
handle the justice system. They
are black people, and the patrolman does not care about them or the loved one
they just lost. When Matt
approached the body, he saw that “the flesh was hacked and pounded as though it
had been beaten with hammers” (Ellison 1). This description here is evident that the man had been
lynched, but the patrolman told them that a car hit him. Matt stays quiet as he does not want to
get into trouble with the patrolman, but this is what the patrolman wants. He wants to silence Matt and Clara so
that he cannot get into trouble for not following procedure with proper
identification and the truth about what had happened.
Matt
cannot speak out against the patrolman, which in turn gives the patrolman the
power to test him in a way so that Matt cannot go to a higher authority on this
matter. The test is that by
showing the body in the condition it is, it keeps Matt from questioning the
authorities because he doesn’t know better. All Matt wants to know is who the man is that is in such
poor condition lying dead in the road and how he got that way. The patrolman cannot give him the truth
because he wants to test his authoritative power.
Right off the bat, your first sentence needs more work. Every writing in the history of the world has a deeper meaning, but for this specific text, what it is? Needs to be more explicitly stated, don't make the reader figure that out, tell them right away. Your thesis seems to center on the idea of silencing of Matt and Carla/misplacement of a body for identification in order to test Matt and Carla's silencing. Your thesis is a little unclear to me, but that's what I got from it so far. Your main idea seems to be centered more in your last paragraph so I might move that to the front, reword it a little, then bring in the supporting evidence. Lastly, you haven't delved into the implications of the silencing or misplacement of the diseased. For instance; if the patrolmen is already aware of the fact that Matt and Carla cannot speak out bcause of their race then why does he bother with having them come in to identify the body? What does it mean for your thesis when Carla does speak out and Matt is punished? etc.
ReplyDeleteI like where you're heading with this paper, especially since your touching on a subject we glossed over during class discussion. When I read your paper, I kept thinking that "testament" would have worked better than "test" in some cases. I think you are, in many ways, arguing that Willie's body is a testament to the power of oppression during this time. Willie's body is a tangible artifact of what kind of corrosive power oppression gives perpetrators and how victims are left without any means of defending themselves (legally, physically, and emotionally). I don't necessarily agree with your argument that the patrolman is "testing" M&C's knowledge of procedure, I read your quotes as more of an assertion of dominance (as if the patrolman were saying, "See? I can disregard every law on the books, and you can't do anything about it"). I hope this makes sense and helps you in some way!
ReplyDeleteJustina,
ReplyDeleteI'm a little confused about what kind of "test" you are talking out throughout the piece? You mention that Matt and Clara aren't given the proper information to make an identification so that the patrolman can stay in power, so what is he testing? I think if you make this more clear, since it comes up often, it will really help strengthen your piece. Overall, good start!
I feel like your argument is scratching the surface of what could be a much larger and in depth analysis of the text. A conversation concerning the way in which the body is presented to the couple and the implications that this has could be interesting, but maybe not in the context of "a test" that has been presented to Matt. Furthermore the issue of following procedure and the patrolman not wanting to get into trouble doesn't seem to fit since the patrolman actually breaks protocol in order to create a type of audience (Matt and Carla) thereby producing a type of spectacle. If anything it seems to be a blatant statement of the way in which the patrolman can operate outside of/manipulate the laws in whatever way he pleases. If I were you, I would think of those types of things when revising and extend your argument. Additionally, I would look closely at the wording, structure and overall flow of the essay as it seems unpolished in some areas. This definitely has the potential to be an amazing close reading - so just push it a little further! Good luck!
ReplyDeleteThis paper seems to be a compilation of ideas with no real direction. That being said, I agree with the others that if you were to delve into what you really mean by "test", the whole paper would be stronger. I was also a little confused on what your thesis was. You have some strong evidence, but little claims. I think that if you pushed a little further with your ideas, such as what Matt and Carla are being tested on and the implications of this for the story as a whole, your close read would be more effective. You have good ideas, you just need to organize them.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading your paper, the entire first portion seems as though you're ignoring the fact that the man was lynched, and focuses more on procedure. To me, procedure doesn't have much to do with the short story at all. Pointing out that the patrolman disregards/disrespects the body with his foot doesn't suggest "a test" (the meaning of this is pretty ambiguous), it suggests something much more horrific and violent than that. Procedure isn't the issue here, the violent act against blacks is. I think there's a lot more you could do with this piece. A lot of the ideas that the above commenters have come up with seem very helpful for taking a new direction with this argument. I think that there's potential here, you just need to consider looking at it in a different light.
ReplyDeleteWhat would really improve your paper here is focus. You make a lot of interesting points and introduce a lot of interesting ideas, but I think you need to narrow it down and pick something really specific to discuss. Focus could be found in a number of places in this paper by asking "why?" to the points you bring up. "The patrolman does not want Matt or Clara speaking against the justice system." Why? This in itself could be the focus of a paper.
ReplyDeleteI am unsure of what exactly your argument is here. I think you have a lot of good ideas but I was confused to as how some of your ideas connected with your overall topic. What do you mean exactly by saying it was a 'test'? Why is giving Matt and Carla this test significant? I think in order to have a strong paper you need to address these issues and articulate your argument. I also thought that your discussion about the way that the body was placed was interesting. It might be helpful to your argument to discuss that the body was also covered in newspapers which is not a typical procedure for a dead body at a crime scene.
ReplyDeleteAs many others have stated, directly tell us as readers what you mean by "test." Although we analyzed it in class a bit, you should assume that whoever reads this is starting without prior discussion knowledge. Also, I think bulking the few corrupted cops (although I'm sure there were many), as the "justice system" as a whole is a bit problematic. Also, spell out for us what the proper procedure or protocol for examining a body at a crime scene is, because I myself am unaware exactly what particular details of protocol are.
ReplyDeleteI think you're off to a good start, but I have a couple suggestions. For example, maybe you could introduce the patrolman before you make any claims about him. Also, I think you're diving a little too deep into the proper procedures of the crime investigation. We don't know the laws and procedures that took place at the time.
ReplyDeleteI feel like you're going in more than one direction in this paper. It starts off talking about the proper standards in the legal system and then changes to the silence of Matt and Carla. If you focus on the legal system make sure you have clear evidence that supports your argument. And if you focus on their silence use more textual evidence. Personally I feel that the second part is stronger. Great start though!
ReplyDeleteI'm a little confused about where you are going with this. What exactly do you mean by a test, and how is this functioning as a test? You don't really bring up this idea except for in the introduction. I think you really need to tie in your argument throughout the body of the paper. Your conclusions left me with lingering questions as well. I hope some of this helps!
ReplyDeleteI do like a lot of the ideas you've got going on, but I have a few thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. Based on the evidence you provide, I think the birthmark is not so much the test as the answer to it. Matt and Clara are tested in their ability to i.d. the body, but cannot find the answer because it has been covered by the damage to the body.
2. I think the way you describe the patrolman makes him seem more indifferent than he actually is. He isn't just uncaring toward Matt and Clara; he's hateful. He is actively oppressing and marginalizing them and their brother by forcing them to join his cover-up of the murder.
3. I also don't think the patrolman is "testing" the reach of his authority/power, but rather displaying with aggressive confidence how far he thinks his power can go. He is not very worried about Matt and Clara acting to get him fired or imprisoned. He expects that his power over the situation will remain complete.
I don't really understand the "test" you present in this paper. Early on you describe it as a test to see if Matt and Clara understand the justice system protocol, but at the end you say it's a way of tricking Matt and Clara into speaking up to give the patrolman a reason to act violently towards them. The first kind of test is problematic because it kind of assumes equal status between blacks and whites. I think if you want to work with this notion of testing, stick with what you have at the end.
ReplyDeleteAs it is, you have a lot of summary with a few quotes sprinkled in, without enough analysis included. Right now you have a collection of ideas, but no real direction or much insight. I think you need to decide what exactly you're trying to say, and then dig deeper into the quotes.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an interesting topic and to strengthen your argument, it would be really useful to provide evidence for your claims about procedure. It's important for the audience to have evidence of the laws for identification during the time period this piece was written; from there you could really develop your argument more. Would procedure have been followed if this was a white character? Was procedure not followed because he had been lynched? Etc.
ReplyDeleteTry and focus more on the "test" you speak of in the introduction of your paper. Personally, i do not fully understand what the test is you are speaking of.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, if you do stick with the idea of the test, try and reformat your last two sentences of your introduction. The word test comes up frequently, making the two sentences sound like mirror images of each other.
This is a great start, and I think you have a lot going on here. First, I think it would be beneficial for you to explain what the "test" is that the patrolman is putting Matt and Carla through up front, rather than wait until the end. Second, if the test is to see if Matt and Carla remain quiet, how do you read Carla's inability to remain silent?
ReplyDeleteYou need to further develop your argument and explain it more. What is the test you are arguing that Matt and Clara are under? Why is this test significant to the story and what effect does it have? It seems like you are stating a lot of observations, but I believe that if you explain more about the test the argument will be stronger.
ReplyDeleteYou're off to a good start with your thoughts, but I think we're all just looking for some clarity. Identify and define your key terms, as well as your argument. I'd also make sure you know that the proper procedure is what you say it is (maybe it's common knowledge, but I don't know!), especially in the context of the story, since you rely so heavily on this in your analysis. Keep writing, it'll all work out!
ReplyDeleteI still don't see the importance of this test. I got a glimpse of it with your last sentence in that they want to test their authoritative power. However, in the beginning I thought you said the test was on Matt and Clara? I think once you focus your paper more and figure out the significance of this "test" then your paper will come together better.
ReplyDeleteYou have good thoughts but I think you need to expand more and clarify what you are trying to argue. LIke others, I'm having trouble seeing what the significance of the test is. I think adding more analysis and focusing your points around a clear, concrete argument will help your paper out a lot. Good work so far!
ReplyDeleteJustina,
ReplyDeleteI, like others, am struggling to understand the "test" aspect of this piece. I think if you analyze the scene a bit more, and expand upon your quotes, then your paper will offer more clarity.
You seem to be, as others have noted, very scatted. I think choosing an interesting statement and unpacking it would truly help flesh out an argument. I really enjoyed the analysis of how the patrolman is testing the knowledge of people he views as inferior.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what many have stated previously. Explaining the "test" will provide clarifiaction for the reader and make you piece easier to follow. Unpacking usually helps to reaveal a "so what", so try to dig deeper rather than stating what is on the surface and this will be a good piece.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the majority, that there is a lack of cohesion. I would work to have more analysis, a more prominent "so what?" and use quotes to support more directly with analysis. right now, its largely summary, and i feel like you make some claims with out a lot of back up.
ReplyDeleteI think you have an interesting topic that can be explored, but it need a lot of refining. These are a few things I questions: I would cut the first sentence out. You are writing a paper about the deeper analysis, so this self-evident. At first I did not know what you are arguing based on your thesis. I believe what you are arguing is that the patrol man uses improper procedures to show the body, which leaves the characters silenced because they are too ignorant to know what the patrol man is doing is wrong. I think your thesis contradicts itself. You first argue that the patrol man is complacent, but really, I think he knows exactly what he is doing by showing Matt the body of someone he considers subhuman and perhaps someone he lynched. Then you argue that Matt is unable to speak up, but you don't argue why. I think this is the significant argument. Matt is being silenced in the act of being shown this body. It seems a be a warning. This could be you. Then you argue that Matt and Clara are silenced so the patrol man does not get in trouble, but earlier you argue that he doesn't understand that he is showing them wrong. Also you don't question the power of authority the patrolman is in as a white officer. Would he get in trouble? He is white, which puts him in a position of power, and then he is the law which makes crimes like this acceptable to the law. Then you say Matt stays silent because he doesn't know better, but you said earlier he doesn't want to get in trouble. So, he either knows he is danger, or he doesn't know anything. I think you try to argue both sides, and you need to pick one, and argue more thoroughly.
ReplyDelete