Karl’s character can be related to Greek mythology in the forms of Pan and Dionysus. Though his origin is unclear, some myths tell that Pan is abandoned by his mother, just as Karl is. It is because of Pan’s monstrous form that his mother abandons him. Similarly, Dionysus never meets his real mother who is killed by his father, Zeus, and taken from the womb to be born a second time from Zeus’ leg. After his birth, Zeus turns him into a goat in order to further conceal Dionysus from Hera (Souli 50). Karl is also born out of an adulterous relationship. The dual nature of both Dionysus and Pan can be partly defined in their half animal, half human form. Though not half animal, Karl reflects dualism in his gender. When he first meets Giles Saint Ambrose on the train, Giles says, “You’re a girl, aren’t you?” and even when Karl denies it, Giles doesn’t seem to understand (23). Karl decides that he is attracted to Giles, and when they begin to kiss, Giles realizes, “You’re no girl,” [. . .] then he kissed Karl on the throat and began to touch him in a new way” (25). Both Pan and Dionysus engaged in and encouraged promiscuous sex. Pan was very sexually active with both nymphs and young boys alike (Souli 56). It is through this duality in both gender and sexuality that intertext between myth and modern is developed.
Karl also shares characteristics with figures in Christianity. Both Lucifer and Jesus, though vastly different, each have dual natures. When Mary slides down the ice and cracks it at school, she says, “The pure gray fan of ice below the slide had splintered, on impact with my face, into the shadowy white likeness of my brother Karl” (39). Everyone else, with the exception of Celestine, sees the face of Jesus. When Karl is an adult, he finds his brother Jude, who, not knowing Karl’s true identity, calls him, “the devil” (82). This presents another aspect of Karl’s duality: the nature of both good and evil residing in him. He is analogous to Jesus, perhaps subconsciously, in the eyes of one sibling, and analogous to the devil in the eyes of the other.
This duality, however, is best exemplified in Karl’s actions while in seminary. Karl tells the reader, “I had a great talent for obedience. I was in love with the picture of myself in a slim black cassock, and felt that the green lawns of the seminary and white brick of the chapels set me off to good advantage” (55). While Karl is putting forth this image of a holy seminary student, the advantage he refers to is that he can attract the attention of men whom he wants to sleep with. He admits, “Between the lines of sacred texts, I rendezvoused with thin hard hoboes who had slept in the bushes [. . .] they saw me as a pure black flame” (55). He is committing, in the eyes of the priests and his fellow students, a terrible sin while putting forth a holy image. In this same way, Lucifer was an angel, pure until he wanted to put himself on God’s throne. In his heart resided evil, although his exterior portrayed a holy being. Karl’s dual nature in this respect can even be compared to Jesus who, in Christian tradition, is believed to have been fully human and fully God. While Jesus himself committed no sin or evil, he was tempted and had the ability to; the natures of God and man can be equated to good and evil.
While Karl is not completely analogous to any one of these characters, he can be seen as a compilation of their traits. It is through the duality of Karl’s character that intertextuality exists in Karl. This creates an intertext not only between The Beet Queen and each cultural mythology but between all three in which Karl is one nexus for all three.
Works Cited
Erdrich, Louise. The Beet Queen. New York: Harper Perennial, 1986.Souli, Sofia. Greek Mythology. Trans. Phillip Ramp. Athens: Editions Michalis Toubis S.A., 1995.
No comments:
Post a Comment