Alex Podlasinska

In many ways, Paul Beatty’s The Sellout is an unconventional novel, particularly where African-American novels are considered. One element which distinguishes The Sellout is its setting; the racial tensions within the city of Los Angeles are a rarely-tackled topic in media. Being set in Los Angeles, the novel is granted the authority to comment on societal issues in a pragmatic manner, despite not necessarily doing this through realistic means.

            Due to its geographical position, Los Angeles receives high rates of immigrants from Mexico and Asia. As a result, diversity in Los Angeles is definitively higher than that in the south and arguably higher that in progressive northern cities, such as New York. Entitling an entire section of the book “Too Many Mexicans,” Beatty is commenting on the distaste which minority groups have for one another, as well as how this sentiment is internalized. Charisma, the vice principal of a school, claims that there are “too many Mexicans,” despite being Mexican herself (153). The prejudice being expressed on her behalf can be attributed her class status, seeing as she is an educated individual with a middle-class job. Although the opinion held by Laura Jane, that class outweighs race in terms of determinants of lifestyle, is incorrect, the effects that race and class have on one another are worth considering (108).

            Despite being regarded as a liberal city, racial issues persist in Los Angeles. Throughout the course of The Sellout, instances of racism against the narrator and his community are frequently identified, ranging from police brutality to attempted gentrification of the neighborhood. Beatty ridicules the idea that Los Angeles is a city free of racism through the narrator’s recollection of his trip to the south. Beginning the story with “I’ve experienced direct discrimination based on race only once in my life,” despite this particular recollection being preceded by instances such as Dickens’ rejection by potential sister cities for being “too black” makes it clear that the opening statement is insincere in nature (174, 147). The artificial contrast which Beatty draws between the south and LA, one being a terrible place and the other a safe haven from the perils of racism, highlights the flaws of Los Angeles, and in turn highlights the flaws of contemporary liberalism as well.

The Irony in "The Sellout"

The novel, The Sellout, by Paul Beatty is filled with a series of ironies that both show how segregation is still very present and how we create numerous black stereotypes. From very early on in the novel, we are exposed to the comical stance that Beatty takes to these stereotypes.  He starts the novel with a black man awaiting trial in the Supreme Court while also smoking a blunt.  His comical, but ironic stance throughout the novel creates a light-hearted tone while he alludes to the present-day discrimination towards African Americans.

There are many complicated stereotypes throughout The Sellout of black people, but rather than portray them in negative ways, the author embraces these stereotypes. The novel explains the main character as a watermelon planter, farmer, and a dope seller.  The irony of the character making his living from selling watermelons, pokes fun at the typical stereotype of black people loving watermelon. The main character even completes a drug-deal style sale with his “crack of the apple world” in a “window to car window, crime-movie-style” transaction (213). The fruit of the main character is so delicious that it seems drug-like and superpower inducing. Beatty turns negative labels that black people are given, into proud descriptions for his characters. We, as white Americans, expect the weed, watermelon, and guns in this story because the characters live in Dickens.  However, we don’t expect the characters’ love for poetry and Charlie Chaplin, or success with selling fruit as opposed to drugs. The book is addressing the common stereotypes, but also showing other sides of black people that are unexpected, like their love for the arts.

Additionally, Beatty creates an irony from segregation.  While real-life segregation worsened the situation for African Americans and destroyed opportunity, BonBon’s segregation plot has the opposite effect. The narrator notes that “segregated schooling is already working,” even in its earliest stages (208). He even exclaims that “grades are up and behavioral problems are down” (208). There is success in the main character’s segregation attempts, which comes as an unexpected shock to the reader, given our understanding of real-life segregation. The narrator places a sign on the bus for “Priority Seating For Whites,” and rather than making the bus filled with riots and upset black people, the bus becomes “the safest place in the city” (163). Kids feel so safe in their bus, that kids “go do their homework” on Marpessa’s bus (163). This is not the result that we expect.

Beatty’s ironic take on typical African American stereotypes and the narrator’s success in segregation, allows the reader to think about present day relationships with African Americans.  Cities, like Dickens, still exist in America, leaving us to think about if desegregation actually took place, especially in under-privileged, mostly-minority schools. 

The Struggle for Dickens in a Post-Racial World

In Paul Beatty's The Sellout, the struggle that engages the narrator for much of the novel is his fight to reinstate Dickens as a city. It was removed quietly and "didn't go out with a bang like Nagasaki, Sodom and Gomorrah, and my dad" (57). It was taken down in order to keep property values up and blood pressures down of surrounding cities. There were no official announcements---it just happened without warning (58). Throughout the novel, Beatty clearly portrays Dickens as a poor place with its citizens being held back. This is evidenced by the career fair that takes place at Chaff, when every single occupation that was exhibited was low-level, almost like those were the only options. Principal Molina knew that "the black and brown troops she was sending out into the world didn't have much of a chance" (165).  By erasing this town, the government is trying to ignore the problems like poverty that are so prevalent in Dickens. This has parallels to how some neighborhoods like the South Side of Chicago are completely ignored. People do not care about what goes on in these neighborhoods and pretend like they do not even exist. The narrator is fighting against this and wants the world to acknowledge Dickens for what it is. He does not want these problems to be brushed aside and fights to reinstate the city. For all its problems, Dickens is still a part of him and without it, he does not know how to become himself (40). The narrator thinks that "real cities have borders. And signs. And sister cities" (141). With this in mind, he sets out a plan to reanimate Dickens by actually painting city borders around the city. What ensues afterwards is the entire community rallying behind him, helping him paint the borders. It makes them ask themselves "why they felt so strongly about the Dickens side of the line as opposed to the other side. When there was just as much uncurbed dog shit over there as here" (109). The narrator also sends in applications for sister cities to pair with Dickens. To his despair, only Juarez, Chernobyl, and Kinshasa are listed as compatible, with all of them rejecting Dickens for ironic reasons. For example, Chernobyl rejects Dickens due to its proximity to sewage treatment plants" (147). Beatty uses humor here to reveal just how absurdly unwanted Dickens is that even the "worst" cities in the world do not even want to associate with it. Later on, the narrator restores segregation back to the schools, because he feels that would be key to bringing Dickens back (167). Eventually, he succeeds and Dickens is reinstated as a city. I believe Beatty through the fight for Dickens, is trying to communicate the idea that we should not trick ourselves into thinking that we've solved the problem of racism. That just because slavery or Jim Crow does not exist anymore, we can ignore the inequality that takes place in places like Dickens. Beatty, just like the narrator, wants the world to acknowledge Dickens or real-life equivalents and does this by "whispering racism in a post-racial world" (262).

              

Living in a Skinner Box

During the narrator’s upbringing, his psychologist father recreated and tested many famous psychology experiments. These experiments, while cruel for a child, were also designed in a way for the narrator’s father to expose the narrator to how he believed blacks should behave and are perceived in America.

One of the experiments mentioned was the Little Albert experiment where researchers turned a neutral stimulus into a conditioned stimulus. While Little Albert was exposed to stimulus like a bunny and heard a hammer strike a steel bar, the narrator’s father provided stimulus such as, “toy police cars, cold cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon, Richard Nixon campaign buttons, and a copy of The Economist” and the narrator heard gunshots and his dad shouting “‘Nigger, go back to Africa!’” (29). The change of stimuli in the experiment depicts the different things the narrator’s father wanted the narrator to be scared of, and many of the stimuli were ones that black people tended to not like. His father, through this experiment, was trying to instill these beliefs and behaviors at a very young age.

One recreated experiment that was especially interesting was when the father wanted to test the bystander effect, based on the incident of Kitty Genovese who was stabbed, sexually assaulted, and murdered in front of multiple witnesses who assumed that others would call the police. In testing this, the narrator’s father instead created a situation in which he got people to help him mug and beat up the narrator. His father says that he forgot “to take into account the ‘bandwagon effect’,” (30), however, I believe this was more to do with how social contagion, deindividualization and risky shift created the situation in which people helped the father instead of the narrator. Through this experiment, it was hinted that the reason the bystander effect wasn’t applied and instead the people helped the father was because the narrator was black and dressed with “dollar bills bursting from [his] pockets, the latest and shiniest electronic gadgetry jammed into [his] ear canals, a hip-hop heavy gold chain hanging from [his] neck, and, inexplicably, a set of custom-made carpeted Honda Civic floor mats draped over [his] forearm” (30). The father wanted to see how the bystander effect applies to the black community, and he got his answer.

Another significant experiment was the experiment showing the black and white dolls. The father thought and expected his son to identify with and choose the black dolls, so when the narrator chose the white dolls he “lost his scientific objectivity and grabbed [the narrator] by the shirt,” (35) probably surprised by the narrator’s answer. However, intentionally or not, the father made the Barbie and Ken dolls have better accessories than MLK Jr, Malcolm X, Harriet Tubman, and a Weeble toy. This depicts actual society where generally white people have better commodities and accessories than black people.

For me, these recreated experiments were either funny or cringey but overall very entertaining. Having recently learned about each of the experiments in another class, it was interesting to see how the narrator’s father recreated the experiments including an element of the behaviors or beliefs of white and black people.

Is Dickens a victim of race or class?

            Laura Jane’s statement to Marpessa that “it isn’t race that’s the problem but class” stuck out to me as the most blatant example of white ignorance presented in The Sellout (138). Yes, there is definitely an issue of class for people of all races, but a white person and a black person of similar financial circumstances will be presented with vastly different opportunities and treatment, making race the prevalent issue in America.

            Even in lower class blue-collar jobs, black employees have “to be twice as good as the white man, half as good as the Chinese guy, and four times as good as the last Negro” to have the exact same job (181). This proves that black employees have to work much harder to obtain the same job as their white equivalent, based on the hiring manager’s prejudices alone.

            Success for others in Dickens is “possible if one can get the right white person on your side,” allowing for Stevie’s parole (183). Without Panache’s connection to “big-time white people,” Stevie would serve the entirety of his sentence in prison (182). The word of white people has much more clout than the word of anyone black.

The importance of making the right connections (right meaning white) is reinforced by BonBon’s attempt to find a sister city for Dickens. Poverty stricken cities Juarez and Chernobyl (an area not even safe for human habitation due to radiation) ironically reject Dickens because it is “too violent” or because of its “rampant pollution,” but Kinshasa rejects Dickens simply because it is “too black” (147). Kinshasa’s honesty reiterates that relationships with black people are viewed as less valuable than those with white people.

Examples of advertisements in the book provide an example for the inherent competition forged between races that motivates both to do more and work harder. In car commercials, showing a “handsome African American male model behind the wheel” will motivate the white men to buy a car as to avoid allowing the black man to “steal your piece of the American dream” (138). Inversely, the presence of the white-faced Wheaton Academy motivated the black and Latino students to behave better and work harder in school due to “the colored person’s desire for the domineering white presence” that brought out the “need to impress” (208).

The success of the resegregation of Dickens is based on this need to impress and the sense of community between races oppressed by whites, enforcing that the issue is greater than just black vs. white and extends to all victims of “white male privilege” (149). On Hood Day, the “suspicious Hispanic males,” who usually rival the members of the black gangs gathered at the field, end up smoking weed and shooting at the clouds along with the rest of the Hood Day celebrants (234).

These driving forces prove that race transcends class as an issue in America. As evidenced by the slim choices for the middle schoolers on career day, if oppressed races are never offered the opportunity to escape their circumstances, then the issue of class persists as a cyclical result of race continuing with each generation.

Why The Sellout is Not Considered a Satiric Novel

         Paul Beatty has often said that he does not label The Sellout as a satire due to the applications of many of the scenes to modern society. While the novel is heavy laden with comedy, a majority of the exaggerated scenes can be applied to modern society. A great example of Beatty using an exaggerated event to show highlight racial issues in modern society is the narrator's plans to segregate Dickens. While segregation is obviously not something that one would think still exists in modern society, it is still prevalent around the country. Beatty says,"'Segregate the school.' As soon as I said it, I realized that segregation would be the key to bringing Dickens back. The communal feeling of the bus would spread to the school then permeate the rest of the city. Apartheid united black South Africa, why couldn't it do the same for Dickens" (Beatty 167). To begin, the comparison that Beatty makes to segregating the school in Dickens to Apartheid is laughable as Apartheid was a terrible and racist policy that destroyed South Africa, not united it. Additionally, Beatty is very obviously using a comedic tone here to display his distaste for segregation but he uses this to highlight the existence of segregation in modern society. Within modern society, the majority of inner city areas are predominately black and riddled with crime. As a result, people that live in affluent areas (generally a predominately white population) avoid these areas, causing a form of segregation. While the novel may seem to have a satiric tone surrounding this topic, the novel does highlight the issue of segregation in modern society. Beatty uses this comedic tone to highlight the true nature of these issues in today's landscape and help to bring attention to them.

         Another example of Beatty uses comedy to highlight a real issue within modern society is through the Dum Dum Donut intellectuals. Over the course of the novel, the narrator's distaste for the club becomes clear, despite the fact that he is a member of the club and still attends the meeting. The group is comprised of the "intellectuals" of Dickens and was created by the narrators father. According to the novel, the club serves as the closest thing to a local government that Dickens has. The irony within the club is that the intellectuals like Foy and the narrators father seem to think that they know what is wrong with the city but take no actions to attempt to fix it. They fill the meetings with useless information about financial advice and the current state of Dickens as a town but the organization does nothing to try and fix these issues. The comedic outlook on the club however could easily be applied to modern society and the politics of the current world. Beatty has often said that his books are him writing down what he sees around him and this is no exception. In the modern political landscape it seems that politicians are making promises that they cant keep and tearing the country apart more than they are actually helping it, similar to what the Dum Dum intellectuals do to Dickens. Through his use of comedy, Beatty again illuminates a major issue within the scope of modern society.

The Eventual Emancipation of Hominy Jenkins

            In Paul Beatty’s The Sellout, the idea of freedom takes on an almost-antagonistic role, menacingly looming over both the narrator and Hominy Jenkins as an extra burden or responsibility that they are, to varying extents, reluctant to accept. It seems that Hominy has successfully avoided the responsibility of freedom his entire life, offering it up to others, starting with the entertainment industry during his career as a child star. Even later on into his adult life, Hominy willingly surrenders his freedom and subjects himself to a life of slavery under the refusing hand of the narrator. In an attempt to set him free, the narrator officially grants him status as a “free man of color” to which Hominy responds by “[wiping] his ass with his freedom, then [handing] it back to [the narrator]” (82). Although Hominy addresses the narrator as “massa,” it seems to me that he is more of a slave to the entertainment industry, and that the narrator serves as an extension of that.

            Throughout the novel, Hominy seems to be enslaved by the entertainment industry, though it seems to be more of a self-imposed enslavement. Much of the time he is mentioned in the novel, he is talking with the narrator about his various experiences growing up in the entertainment industry as a child actor, effectively creating a narrative solely comprised of stories and memories derived from such experiences. The only other development of him as a character that is present throughout the majority of the novel is through what is mentioned by the narrator, such as his longing to “feel relevant” once again (77), a feeling that was previously derived from the presence of visitors and fan mail from his days in the entertainment industry.  Furthermore, his suicide attempt was driven by this lack of feeling relevant and the setting itself reflected that of a “one-act of desperation” with things such as a playbill containing his biography/screen credits and a publicity shot, showcasing his love for and devotion to the entertainment industry and his time in the “spotlight” even in what he planned on being his last few moments (74).

            Throughout the rest of the novel, Hominy repeatedly turns to the narrator regarding the lost Little Rascal films as well. It seems that potentially this, in addition to the narrator saving his life, is the reason that he offers himself in servitude to the narrator. He sees the narrator as the opportunity to obtain such a dear possession, and ultimately, this is the case. Hominy is finally emancipated, from both the narrator and the entertainment industry, when he obtains the Little Rascal videos. Almost immediately after watching the Little Rascal films, Hominy tells the narrator that he quits slavery (283). In this moment, he is finally emancipated from the entertainment industry and becomes a free man of his own.

Absurdity and Ambiguity in Beatty's America

Beatty’s use of casual absurdity and extreme, unlikely situations and characters suggests that being ridiculous is a possible way not to erase racism in America, but to acknowledge the impossibility of a perfect solution and to thereby find closure despite the divisive and often ambiguous controversy.

Hominy, for example, is one of the most absurd characters in the book. In both his ridiculous, voluntary racism and his acting career, (which, since the Little Rascals actually did exist, is firmly grounded in reality and plausibility) Hominy readily makes a fool of himself and perpetuates racial stereotypes. In this way, his “slavery” is an exaggerated representation of his obsession with his demeaning acting career, and he “quits” slavery shortly after watching the some of the most racist Little Rascals episodes. The timing of this implies that seeing the most ridiculous side of his obsession may have helped Hominy let go of at least one of his self-destructive obsessions, but it may or may not allow Hominy to work through the emotional problems at its root.

The narrator also has many absurd experiences which contribute to his confusion about his identity, beginning with his father’s allegedly scientific experiments and continuing after losing his father and the existence of his city: “I had no idea who I was, and no clue how to become myself” (40). Surprisingly, even after his many ridiculous antics, he seems hardly any closer to resolving this confusion when he laments, “Dickens, the segregation, Marpessa, the farming, and I still don’t know who I am” (249). Although the bulk of the novel’s rather absurd plot has already passed at this point, it seems hopeless that the narrator will ever be sure of who he is.

Beatty weaves absurdity into almost every sentence of this book, from his swearing to his unlikely characters to his flirting with magical realism, and I think the entire book could be considered a larger-than-life observation of race in America. However, it is often based in reality or stereotypes, leaving readers unsure if they are meant to agree with the narrator or if doing so would make them racist. However, this very state of unawareness seems to be the end result of all of the events in the book, since Hominy’s story ends in uncertainty, as does the narrator’s: Foy tells him he will “never understand,” and the narrator admits, “he’s right. I never will” (288) in the final chapter, entitled “Closure.” By closing the novel on this uncertain note, Beatty reminds us that in real life, this may be the closest we ever get to closure regarding race issues. Dialogues about race will always be uncomfortable, and trying to define racism or race itself will always be confusing. However, through absurdity and comedy, we may have a chance of at least being able to openly and honestly consider the problems underlying our society, like the black comedian who, through jokes, “plucked out your subconscious and beat you silly with it, not until you were unrecognizable, but until you were recognizable” (286). Beatty’s absurdity forces readers to confront their own opinions and often ignorance, and invites them to use this uncomfortable ambiguity as a starting point for solving complicated problems.

Intersectionality in The Sellout

In class, questions of the importance of the author's maleness and blackness both arose. The Sellout discusses homosexuality and its implications within the black community on several occasions. Based on the both of these elements, I argue that the intersectionality present in The Sellout complicates its simple premise of re-segregation for the purpose of dismissing it as a real solution for the race issues of today.

The protagonist's father expresses concern regarding his son's sexuality. Just before he dies, the protagonist's father is planning to meet his son at a Dum Dum Donut Intellectuals meeting to "ply [him] with . . . conversion therapy" (Beatty 42). The narrator/protagonist concedes that his father may not think he is gay, "but he's worried that [he] never stays out past eleven and the word 'booty' doesn't seem to be in [his] vocabulary" (Beatty 42). This passage demonstrates that despite the psychologist/father's obsession with the uplifting of the African-American race, despite his thematic question, "'Who am I? And how can I be that person?'" he is still adhering to the cultural standards of the black community, which clearly for him, in Dickens, include the commandment "Thou shalt not be gay" (Beatty 40).

The theme of intersectionality with regards to sexuality resurfaces just as the protagonist begins his cut-and-dry segregationist solution for the troubles that plague the black community. The children at Careers Day exchange jeers of "'that's gay'" in response to one another's career aspirations (Beatty 166). This interaction affirms the protagonist's father's perceptions of the black community's views on homosexuality - not only is it not yet accepted, but the word "gay" is still used as an insult.

These passages highlight just one of many factors that complicate the simple segregation the protagonist tries to implement. As Beatty obviously is not advocating for a return to segregation, I believe these passages are placed purposefully to draw the reader's attention to the idea that, while the United States may not have improved much with regards to race relations since the 1960s, the idea of identity has grown much more complicated. Segregation by race writes in even bigger question marks over these issues of intersectionality in which U.S. society has taken an interest.

The Role We Were Born to Play

In his novel The Sellout, Paul Beatty’s satirical style manifests in old man, washed-up child actor, and resident crazy person Hominy Jenkins. Poor Hominy just wants to “feel relevant” again, which becomes increasingly difficult because “when Dickens disappeared, [Hominy] disappeared” (Morgan 77). After a melodramatic suicide attempt, Hominy feels he owes his life to the narrator, who saved him. He seems to regain purpose and relevance in becoming the narrator’s slave, despite the narrator’s many refusals and numerous attempts to “emancipate” him. But, this is not enough to give Hominy a complete sense of identity – the last missing piece is his beloved Dickens.

Hominy’s resolve to be a modern-day slave in L.A. echoes his childhood acting career as a member of the Little Rascals. Unfortunately, he was the butt of all the show’s racist jokes because he was the only African American cast member. Hominy explains, “‘Sometimes we just have to accept who we are and act accordingly. I’m a slave. That’s who I am. It’s the role I was born to play…This is the ultimate nexus between craft and purpose, and we won’t be discussing this again. I’m your n***** for life, and that’s it’” (Morgan 77). Hominy is stuck in this childhood role as the one and only minority Little Rascal – it’s all he knows. When Dickens disappears, Hominy loses his sense of identity. His local fanbase comes around to visit less and less often, his stack of fan mail dwindles, and his feelings of irrelevance grow. Even the narrator recognizes that he is just “a wizened old black man who knew only one thing—his place” (Morgan 81). With the Little Rascals disbanded and Dickens erased from the map, Hominy loses both his place and his purpose.

So, when Hominy and the narrator erect a new “Welcome to Dickens” sign on the freeway, Hominy experiences a great sense of pride and satisfaction. He says, “‘Massa, signs are powerful things. It almost feels like Dickens exists out there in the smog somewhere…The whip feels good on the back, but the sign feels good in the heart’” (Morgan 88). Hominy knows in his heart and soul that his rightful place is as the narrator’s slave, as the patsy of the Little Rascals’ racist humor, and as a resident of the lost city of Dickens. As hellish and poor as Dickens is, he still roots his identity in this community, so he is eager to contribute to the narrator’s efforts to bring it back into being. The “Welcome to Dickens” road sign is just their first step towards reanimating the city.

A path into the future

Henrietta's son Samuel can be interpreted in many different ways in regards to his impact on the characters in the novel. As the son of a rich, white woman, and a poor, black man, his birth shook the Forge family in ways that completely changed the dynamic of the novel. Henry struggles with the fact that he is not the father, but understands that this child is his only true future as he "want[s] nothing more than to push [Samuel] away even as he pull[s] him close" (Morgan 403). This being said, I believe Morgan utilizes Samuel as a method for Henry to break away from his past and take what he has left into the future.

This echoes the modified Genesis story in Interlude IV, as both stories draw parallels to each other. In the interlude, the characters are given one task: to "not eat the paw-paws," otherwise they will be kicked out from the habitat (392).  When the Great Big God of Pine Mountain discovers that the man and woman ate the paw-paws, he orders them off the island and into a "broken and desert" future along with the other animals (395). The man realizes that his company, the woman "could not be trusted" and therefore takes the most sturdy animal, the horse as his primary companion (395).

In Henry's case, society dictates both that a man should not sleep with his daughter, and that a black man should not sleep with a white woman. As almost the punishment for his crimes, Henrietta's son is not his, but is Allmon's. Henry then faces the same "broken and desert" future that the man and woman of Pine Mountain faced, and realizes that his horse, that his rock, is Samuel. He takes further steps in the future to ensure that his attention is solely focused on Samuel, which also brings about a change in perspective in which he no longer differentiates between species, but claims that "there are no bodies, only beings" (490). With this shift in perspective from being exclusively introspective and solely focused on profits and winning to being family centered and loving towards his son, Henry makes the decision to pull Hellsmouth from racing to protect her as a being.

A Tragedy of Predestination

Though it is not structured exactly like a typical tragedy, The Sport of Kings presents the story of a painfully long fall for Henry Forge: he loses his daughter and his will to race horses, and is left to rebuild the Forge legacy (or not) with Henrietta's child, Samuel. The question of what brought this tragedy about, while multi-faceted, can be boiled down to one concept: legacy. In my opinion, John Henry Forge may not have been so abusive in his education of Henry were he not trying to uphold the family legacy, and Henry may not have continuously raped Henrietta were he not trying to produce an heir. The pressure to adhere to tradition in John Henry's case and the pressure to maintain the family name in Henry's case lead to the downfall of the Forge family.

John Henry expects quiet obedience from his son, because that is what his father expected of him. In the opening scene when John Henry is about to beat his son, he says "I gave you that mouth. I'll tell you when to open it"(9). He wants Henry to grow up with a dutiful appreciation of his father and his family, and to one day join the long line of corn farmers, never changing anything. "Our crop is our family," he says (10). Similarly, when Henry confides in John Henry that he wants to turn their property into a horse farm, John Henry is appalled at his son for wanting to break tradition, which he views as "learning collected." According to John Henry, "there is no need for improvement, only adherence to a line that has...never proven unsound" (51). Though Henry does follow his ambition and raise horses, he still raises Henrietta with the elitist mindset with which his father raised him. The painful memories of his childhood influence his adult personality, which leads to pain for Henrietta.

Throughout Henrietta's education, Henry places an emphasis on their family name. When he describes to Henrietta her inheritance, he says "Everything you need is already in this house" (120). Like his father, he makes the mistake of assuming that his child will be content simply carrying on the name rather than adding to it. He also tells her that she is too good for any man, and that she "won't be like any other girl" (121). Reflecting on the novel, I think that this was his way of isolating her from the possibility of an equal relationship with a partner, and a rationalization for later trying to procreate with her himself. Henry's need for legacy contributes to the Forge tragedy because he distorts Henrietta's view of love from a young age, and she dies probably never having experienced healthy romantic love. Perhaps with Almond, but it is also his child that kills her.

Through the Forge family, Morgan suggests that it is rarely, if ever, possible for a person to escape his or her fate. Corn farm or racetrack, Henry was always going to be an abusive father, because that is all he knows; how he was bred. As a woman in the Forge family, Henrietta could never have escaped the abuse that awaited her, even though she had the money to get out. She is tied to her father by more than proximity.

Can we blame people for how they are raised?

Can we blame people for how they are raised? While reading The Sport of Kings, I kept asking myself this question. I think that characters such as John Henry, Henry and Henrietta can be seen as evil or cruel. Towards the beginning, we see Henry begin to develop “evil” qualities. When Henry tells his father about Filip, Maryleen says “You are evil” to Henry. Before this, I almost thought that Henry would be able to “run away from his father”. As Henry gets older, it becomes  clear that the way he is raised will impact his entire life. Even his mother believes that Henry is changing. “There was a change in her son, she eyed him now with the wariness of a doe that senses a hunter is afoot. He didn’t lean into her on the pew anymore, didn’t doze like a child against her shoulder; he no longer smiled.” Lavinia sees that the evil in John Henry may be spreading to Henry. This is when Morgan begins to establish that anyone in the Forge line is doomed to inherit the evils of their family. This is where my question is presented. The evil, the hate, the racism that the Forges possess is innate due to how they were raised. I had a really difficult time truly hating any of the characters. I think it is impossible to overcome evil if it is all that you have ever known. But is it our human duty to try and overcome it? I think Morgan wants us to ask ourselves these questions to explore the depths of human nature. John Henry tells Henry: “I’m going to tell you what my father told me: throughout the history of this country, we have saved an inferior people from themselves, and now that they’ve won everything they clamored for, they can’t manage their own freedoms.” This quote exemplifies how both John Henry and Henry were taught by their fathers. How can we blame a young child for what they are born into? I think that towards the end, both Henry and Henrietta try to change their natures. It is infinitely more impressive to be born into evil and try to overcome it rather than being born into “good”. I think before we make judgements about the characters, we have to use empathy and put ourselves in their positions. I am not justifying their evil, but that is what Morgan wants us to feel. We are supposed to question how our upbringings affect our human nature.

Can White People Be Slaves?

Freedom is a reoccurring theme throughout Morgan’s The Sport of Kings. This novel takes place after the abolishment of slavery, but in the southern state of Kentucky, racism is still very real. Despite black people being the targets of oppression in this time period, I argue that the modern slaves in this novel are the white characters.

Black people are discriminated against, tortured, and murdered in this novel, whereas white people are not. The Reverend realized the gap between the two races, and he believed that if society kills you, then “You. Are. Black” (219). It is indisputable which of these two races experiences more violence and systematic oppression; I can’t argue with that. But I argue that the white characters are the characters who are stripped of their freedom and therefore enslaved.

For example, John Henry was a slave to his hatred of black people. He was a cruel, arrogant, and demanding man, but he was a smart one. His lessons came from the core of his being, and he taught Henry that murder “is merely the kind of excuse a weak man seizes upon to wriggle his way out of his real responsibilities” and that it is the “very definition of a…nigger” (49). Despite his belief, after his wife cheated on him with a black man, John Henry violated his morals and murdered Filip in cold blood.

Additionally, Henry was a slave to his father. During his childhood, he was forced to follow the orders of his father like a well-oiled machine. Even when he grew older, he felt that his father “owned him” (85) like a master owns a slave. Henry was unable to pursue his dreams of creating a horse farm until the death of his father. The passing of John Henry marked the first day of Henry being free.

Lastly, Henrietta was a slave to Henry’s thoroughbred dynasty. Growing up, Henrietta was poisoned with inappropriateness. At the age of nine, she was brought to view a horse breeding, which “is no place for a girl” and “barely a place for a grown man” (135). Henrietta was isolated on her family’s property, and despite her occasional vacations of pleasure at the bars, she was “as trapped as any Thoroughbred” (313). She knew no other life than the one she had, and she often looked along the large expanse of her family’s property and wondered what freedom felt like. She never gained her freedom, and Henrietta died a slave.

Redeeming the Forges

After the death of his daughter during childbirth, Henry becomes affectionate towards Samuel, Henrietta’s son, and reflective of his life. He finds that his past and present cast an unsavory image of him and he wishes to escape, “to the future…the safe house where he could escape his old self,” (478). From this point on, Henry aims to redeem his character. Although the attempt seems to be genuine, the usage of African American characters and Henry’s action of hiding Allmon’s son reinforces the fact that Henry, and the Forge clan in general, can never truly be redeemed from the crimes of their past.

The usage of specifically Maryleen and Rueben, serve to contradict the redemptive angle that is taken of Henry Forge. When Maryleen returns to the Forge household as a writer, Henry’s first horrible sin of getting a man killed is re-exposed. Additionally, Henry’s explosive temper leaks out of him. Henry’s entitlement and rage leads Maryleen to put him in his place: “You may believe you can still order me away,” (478) The word “still” implies that Henry has not really changed since Maryleen last saw him, which contradicts the redemptive tone. Even when Henry’s actions were moral, like pulling Hellsmouth from racing, the reaction of Rueben demonstrates that not everything can be forgiven. When convincing Allmon to take revenge on the Forges, he states, “The man that stole your child is the same man that killed your mother…” (514). By reminding Allmon of the deep-rooted racism in America, Henry’s racism and his past transgressions are not forgiven. Thus, Henry Forge cannot be forgiven due to his character not changing genuinely and his transgressions being so historically horrible.

Besides outside characters reacting towards the new-and-improved Henry Forge, Henry himself raises suspicion by keeping Allmon’s son and not informing him that the child is Allmon’s. Even Henry acknowledges that he should have told Allmon the truth, but instead he “was returning to his grandchild as quickly as technology allowed,” (427). By selfishly keeping the secret of his grandson’s father, Henry and his previous obsession for genetic purity leaks. Additionally, when it is revealed that Samuel is Allmon’s son, Henry tries to mend the relationship with a simple apology. This is not only totally inappropriate for hiding a child from his father, but for thinking that a simple sorry can mend this despicable act. The lack of genuine remorse Henry feels towards Allmon is an indicator for readers that Henry has not fully changed.

The whole Forge clan can never be fully redeemed as well, since their transgressions of the past were passed down from generation to generation with little penance for their sins, or at least an appropriate apology. Henry Forge follows this pattern, even while he attempts to become a better person for the sake of his grandchild. C.E. Morgan’s shifting tone with redemption towards Henry Forge is perhaps one of the most complex pieces of the ending, but overall the question of his redemption is truly simple: no.

Pleasure as a Way of Power

     The theme of pleasure is established several times throughout The Sport of Kings. Henrietta, who is often the victim of her father's plight for pleasure, grows up to be a woman always in search of a new body she can conquer. Having sex is her way of taking back what her father stole from her, which is control over her body. This is proven when Henrietta first gives herself to the Irishman, and she quickly learns to "take what she could get, because these men would offer her no pleasure of their own accord" (154).

     This theme is further exemplified as Henrietta starts to become a familiar sight at the bars. Men are willing to take her home, not because they find her attractive, but because she is a woman willing to give herself to them. Usually, it is the men who find thrill in the chase of a woman, but this is not so in the case of Henrietta. Henrietta willingly gives herself to these men, because as Morgan indicates, "she was after pleasure" (171). However, Henrietta makes it clear that she "had to have a man to do it," (154) that she can't just find pleasure from anything and everything.

     Henrietta additionally tries to avoid the men that complicate her pursuit, by using her for admiration. She states that the "point of fucking was to crush the pearl, not polish it" (171). Not wanting to be used as a toy to boost men's egos, Henrietta stays away from the men that ask too many questions, who pretend "interest in her private mind" (171).  Rather, she takes her sexuality into her own hands by seeking out men who are only there for one thing alone.

     Some might argue that Henrietta's actions are far from how a woman should behave, however, this seriously begs the question—isn't this what men have always done? Take from a woman what is rightfully hers and then call her a whore for behaving the same way? Those who call into question the actions of Henrietta must call into the question the actions of men as a whole. All Henrietta has done throughout her entire adult life is attempt to reclaim what her father took from her as a child. She cannot help what cruel injustice has been done to her, so if fucking is her way of feeling some kind of empowerment over her body again, then so be it.

How Far Did the Forges Run?

At the beginning of Sport of Kings, the author presents the question, “How far from your father can you run?” (3) Both Henry and Henrietta try to take a different path than the one chosen by their fathers but, as Morgan illustrates, they only find themselves repeating their fathers’ choices.

Henry wants to be the opposite of his father in both business and family matters, yet he ends up embracing the lessons his father taught. Henry remarks early upon how he will be different towards his children, only to immediately realize that his children will simply be more of him, while he takes the role of John Henry. (13) Henry wants to change, but he knows in his heart that he cannot run far enough from his family's legacy to make a change. Yet, at the end of the section, Henry leaves his father at dinner, calling him a tyrant and pledging to one day change from what he has done. (91-92) Once he returns, we see him giving speeches about legacy and teaching Henrietta about the world through his eyes just as John Henry did. (100/127) While Henry wanted nothing more than to leave his father behind, he ended up running the Forge property, teaching his next of kin, and acting distant toward his wife just as his father had done. He made some changes to the path, but he seems hesitant to accept that he has come to the same destination.

As Henrietta matures, she repeats the family’s pattern. After witnessing the horses crashing at the race, Henrietta mentions that she and Henry are no different than “kings of coal” who sent workers without benefits into poor conditions that led to their death. (167) Henrietta has serious reservations about the family business, additionally expressed through discussions about evolution, but she continues her work after meeting with Penn. Her father talks with her about her role in the world, and she remarks, “This is the kingdom come and it is his, I am his, I become his..., I become It.” (182) In this moment, Henrietta comes to a realization: she can run in a different direction than her father for as long as she wants,; but, she will always be directed back by the presence of her father. However, when Allmon and Henrietta have their first meeting, Henrietta is quick to mention her father’s racism saying, “We’re not all like that”. (324) While Henrietta acknowledges the inevitability of legacy, she still attempts to separate herself from her father any way she can. Morgan is saying that these characters realize their similarities yet try to find anything special about themselves to prove that they are individuals.