This has been on my mind for a while but is it just me or are some of y’all also bothered with how the novel ended?! Dana is a mysterious character. She doesn’t control her time travel, but she does control whether or not she actually saves Rufus when she gets there. Dana chooses to save Rufus every time she gets pulled into the early 1800s, she even goes out of her way to pack a bag with modern medicine to bring with her when she’s brought to Rufus. Granted, the first two times when Dana met Rufus, when he was drowning and later when he set the curtains on fire, she saved him without knowing who he was, but after that it was her choice. It’s weird how she’d spend so much time (months in the 1800s world) caring and tending to Rufus, and then just take his life at the end.
I know Rufus was no angel, but did he really deserve to die? Although Dana was only there for a fraction of his life, she was there during the most traumatic/memorable times, when Rufus was on the verge of death, and she must’ve influenced him a bit. Nevertheless, she gave up on him at the end. I know she was staying around because she needed to ensure Hagar was born (also it wasn’t her choice how long she stayed), but she must’ve developed an emotional attachment to Rufus. Throughout her time, Dana taught Rufus to be kinder and and how to act less like the stereotypical white slave owner. Dana killing Rufus at the end took me by shock because she seemed to truly care about him, at least she tried to really change and better him, which is why I’m thinking was her kind attitude towards Rufus all an act? Like did she stay around just to make sure Alice and Rufus get together and have Hagar, or did she really care about how Rufus is as a person?
Another side to this is yes, Dana killing Rufus is justifiable. He continuously (emotionally) abused her and took advantage of the fact that she was black, and with any other slave owner she’d be treated like any other slave, working on the field or in the house. Another big thing is that Rufus never mailed her letters to Kevin, and if it weren’t for Tom Weylin actually keeping his word to slaves, she probably wouldn’t have found Kevin and brought him back home. I think that instance really made Rufus lose Dana’s trust, because she realized that at the core maybe he’s just as bad as any other slave owner. Also, Dana maybe thought that the only way to break her connection to the 1800s was to kill Rufus, and she already got enough scars and injuries for her to handle. Either way, the ending of this novel has been on my mind and I really want to know y’alls opinions, do you think Dana is justified in murdering Rufus?
I definitely had conflicted feelings about Rufus and how he died. Though we'd seen that he has done absolutely horrific things and is capable of continuously doing them, there is a side of Rufus that Dana has helped develop to make him even a bit different from his father. I don't know if Rufus deserved to be killed by Dana, but I do think that maybe is had to happen in order for Dana to go back to her life and her time, both literally and symbolically. For one, if Rufus didn't die, Dana would most likely have had to keep coming back every time he was in danger. Symbolically speaking, Dana would probably have a very difficult time not continuously thinking about Rufus and how he would've been treating his kids, if she hadn't killed him. There is an element of symbolic closure in the death of Rufus.
ReplyDeleteI think that it's hard to justify murder in most cases. However, you could argue that Dana killed Rufus out of self-defense. She was being assaulted by him when she stabbed him, and was fearful for her life. Her and Kevin had decided that Dana should attempt to murder Rufus upon her return to the Weylin plantation because they were both so desperate to separate themselves from that time and place. However, I'm uncomfortable completely accepting Dana killing Rufus because I don't feel comfortable condoning murder.
ReplyDeleteDana is more bothered by this outcome than we might expect her to be, too, and Butler makes it clear that killing him is *very* difficult and traumatic for her. But equally disturbing to many readers is the way she almost talks herself into letting him assault her, "forgiving him even this," continuing to see the best in Rufus even as he's attempting to rape her, having caused Alice's suicide and essentially treating Dana as a "replacement" for Alice.
ReplyDeleteAnother way to look at this same question, though, would be to ask if a woman who murders a man in self-defense, when he's attempting to rape her, would be justified. Is there a limit to how far "fighting back" should go? Or does any assailant get what he deserves, if the would-be victim happens to be good with a knife?
I think Dana's killing of Rufus is justifiable. Killing him was the only want that Dana could ensure that she would not have to return to the 1800's. Once Hagar was born Dana did not need to stay in 1800's or go back. In addition the mental and physical abuse that Rufus put Dana though is unforgivable and even though she cared for him Dana has to put herself first.
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely a lot to unpack surrounding these scenes. I think part of it was that she felt trapped in an endless cycle of being pulled back in time to a hell where he was dead-set on not letting her leave. She set up her boundaries and he crossed them, so she forced herself back into modern times by slitting her wrists. When he (i understand he doenst have control of it) pulls her back again, and alice is dead, she is obviously shook, she blames him. She has lost one of the people she had the closest bond too, and she had tried to advise him on how not to have this happen-but she had clearly not succeeded. I guess she felt like things wouldnt change and that this was the only way for her to escape (plus he is crossing another line by sexually abusing her). I honestly cant say if it was the "right" thing for her to do because of all the complicated moral and time stuff, but I definitely do not blame her for doing it, and I would have probably done the same (if i had the courage to).
ReplyDelete