Red Leaves by William Faulkner
In Red Leaves by William Faulkner we have the theme of corruption, mortality, power and paralysis. Taken from his Selected Short Stories collection the story is narrated in the third person by an unnamed narrator and after first reading the story the reader realises that Faulkner may be exploring the theme of corruption. For the Chickasaw Indian, the black slaves serve no real purpose and if anything they seem to be a burden to the Chickasaws. They don’t know what to do with the slaves and it would appear that they (Chickasaws) resent the time that they have to spend finding things for the slaves to do. It was only through Doom’s (Issetibbeha’s father) involvement with white people that the Chickasaws were introduced to slavery. It is possible that Faulkner is suggesting that the burden the Chickasaws feel when it comes to managing the slaves (and their actual participation in slavery) is directly linked to Doom’s involvement with white people. Without this involvement it is possible that the Chickasaws would not be involved in slavery.
The title of the story is also interesting as it appears to be symbolic. Faulkner when asked about the title replied ‘the red leaves referred to the Indian. It was the deciduation of nature which no one could stop that had suffocated, smothered, destroyed the Negro. That the red leaves had nothing against him, they probably liked him, but it was normal deciduation which the red leaves, whether they regretted it or not, had nothing more to say in.’ It is possible (or it appears to be) that Faulkner is suggesting (in the story) that the burial ritual carried out by the Chickasaws is as natural (and as normal) to the Chickasaws as the changing of seasons and the falling of red leaves in autumn.
Faulkner continues to explore the idea of corruption (through involvement with white people) when Issetibbeha travels to Europe and returns with a gilt bed, a pair of girandoles and a pair of slippers with red heels. These items are significant because in reality Issetibbeha has no real use for any of these things. It is possible that Faulkner is suggesting that white people (and their cultures) have nothing to offer the Chickasaw Indian. It may also be important that Faulkner mentions that in Issetibbeha’s house (upper deck of steamboat) there is a ten gallon whiskey keg. By briefly mentioning the whiskey keg Faulkner, through symbolism, may be suggesting that the introduction of alcohol to the Chickasaws (by whites) has in some way further corrupted them.
Symbolically the slippers which Issetibbeha brought back from Europe may also be important as the reader is aware that each time Moketubbe wears them he falls unconscious (from the pain). It is possible that Faulkner is not only suggesting that they are impractical (or of no use to Moketubbe, they are after all too small for him) but he may also be suggesting that their continued use (or the Chickasaws continued involvement with white people) will bring a paralysis to the Chickasaws. It is interesting that Moketubbe has very little movement in the story (which suggests paralysis). It is also possible that Faulkner is suggesting (by Moketubbe continually wearing the slippers) that just like white people, Moketubbe also has a lust for power. The fact that Moketubbe stole the shoes from Issetibbeha may suggest that Moketubbe also wishes to steal power from his father.
Faulkner also explores the idea or theme of mortality in the story. Through Issetibbeha’s black slave (who is never named) the reader gets a sense of how strong a person’s desire to live actually is. Regardless of the burial rituals and traditions of the Chickasaws, the slave does not wish to be killed and buried with Issetibbeha. So powerful is his desire to live that he runs away, rather than face a certain death. Though death is a part of life and inevitable for everyone, it is possible that Faulkner is suggesting that despite a person knowing that they will die, they still remain committed to life (just like the slave). It is also interesting that when the slave is captured he asks for a hatchet to chop off his arm (which is gangrened and poisoning him after being bitten by the snake). This may be important as it again suggests (for the slave) a strong desire to live. Even though he is aware that he is soon to be killed and buried with Issetibbeha, he wishes for his arm to be removed so that he will not die of gangrene. At no stage in the story does the slave give up on his plight to live.
The strong desire to live is also noticeable at the end of the story when the slave attempts to eat the food and drink some water. Symbolically Faulkner may be using both (food and water) to symbolise life, however the slave is unable to eat the food or drink the water. It is possible that Faulkner, by having the slave’s body refuse both the food and water, is suggesting that life is over for the slave. Something that the reader is aware of, as at no stage in the story, particularly at the end, does Faulkner suggest that anything apart from the slave’s death will occur. If anything his death is part of life’s progression, at least in the eyes of the Chickasaw Indians.
When I read the story, I felt that Faulkner was emphasizing the corruption of ‘civilization’, not just the white man. The white man represented the entire concept of ‘civilization’. Other Faulkner works emphasize the notion that the further mankind gets from raw nature, the more corrupt he becomes. This story is depressing because there isn’t a single character that has a redeeming quality. Everyone is just going through the movement of life- almost like a habit. The slave didn’t run toward freedom. He simply ran- again, out of a blind obedience to some life force within him. He wasn’t even aware he wanted to live until death was directly in front of him. Only then did he feel the pulse. Even so, he ran near the camp- a habit of familiarity. He wanted to avoid death but couldn’t bear the unknown. He had lost the opportunity to run while he was still alive and young. Because of this, he didn’t even consider running to true freedom when he faced death. Based on the Native’s attitude toward the slaves, the slaves could easily have escaped- but they didn’t even try. They simply transferred their lives from Africa to the forest.
I believe Faulkner is talking about humanity in general with each of these characters. The slave was made hopeless, and thus, blind, because he was made ‘property’ and treated as such. This abuse dehumanized him and his people. They fell into submissive acceptance of their ‘fate’. In fact, everyone in the story seems to believe in the concept of ‘fate,’ the idea that we have no ability to change our lives from a pre-ordained result. Faulkner seems to be saying that even the idea of ‘fate’ is corrupt. The reader desperately longs for someone to do something! The monotony is unbearable. Faulkner seems to be saying that the vast majority of humanity lives in this manner, never having the courage to take a true risk with the possibility of ultimate freedom. That we don’t even realize our craving for freedom and life until it’s too late.
Doom, Issetibbeha and Moketubbe were supposed to provide leadership to the decaying Native Americans but didn’t. Doom cared only about status. Moketubbe also. The only one who seemed to break free from the profound inertia described by Faulkner is Issetibbeha. He is the only one who could see the absurdity of people’s actions, including his son. He watched his wife sneak in and out of bed each night rather than just speak up and say she preferred to sleep on the floor. Maybe she thought the bed elevated her status- or she was a coward. Perhaps both. But he laughed only to himself. He never shared any of his experience or wisdom with his people. He sat on his hands, even knowing that his son was incapable of leadership. That is the ultimate corruption of a leader. I think that Faulkner saw government in this way. That ruling over others is inherently corrosive to the human soul.
Faulkner plays with the concept of life and death- both physically and spiritually. Both the slave and Moketubbe were dead, even though they went through the sensual, habitual actions of life. The slave was dead long ago through hopelessness and Moketubbe through a failed father and civilization’s corrupting influence. Moketubbe is hopeless. But something remained in the depths of the slave. Faulkner continues to say that the slave’s eyes were ‘slightly luminous,’ speaking to the faint light of life within him. It isn’t bright- but it is there. Unfortunately, it took imminent death to spur him to action. But it was too late. He only realized that he craved life and freedom at the end. And even then, he didn’t fight for it.
To me, Red Leaves is a complete indictment of civilization. By talking about the ease and tranquility the Natives had enjoyed before they were touched by ‘civilized’ ideas, he is upholding Nature as best. Civilization had intruded upon beautiful Nature and killed it. It lead to a humanity that was inert, unsatisfied, and spiritually dead.
If one thinks about it, the Natives didn’t kill unless it was beneficial in some way. Murder out of rage was not in their minds. They used to bury a chief with his possessions so that he could use them in the afterlife. This would include a horse and dog, both animals without soul and undoubtably possessions. The natives in the story felt strongly that the slaves were a burden and heavy responsibility. They didn’t understand slavery – they had no such motives. But the concept of money had been introduced. Again, the idea of money was never considered in their culture before the white man. Once they tasted of that forbidden fruit, they were immediately seduced into saying the Black man was less than them and could be treated as livestock. And yet, the natives who chased him had compassion. They were patient and gentle with the slave when they caught him. They even let him go to continue his need to run. They understood his humanity completely. But they didn’t want to think about it. Morality would have deprived them of the white man’s money, which they craved. But these people lived without money for centuries. Why did they want money now? The suggestion of the whiskey barrel gives the idea that they wanted the corrupting influence. Evil had awakened in their souls when they met the white man. They saw the slave’s humanity and yet, they allowed themselves to treat them as slaves. They even called them ‘savages’ which is interesting because the white man saw the natives as such.
This brings the idea of racism and cruelty and how it can apply to any self identified group. The idea of elitism, of being better. No race is superior. We are all just human beings- and can all be corrupted by civilization and the loss of our natural instincts.
This story is savage in its monotony, helplessness, hopelessness, cruelty and self delusion. To me, Faulkner’s clear intention is to criticize civilization and call for its return to Nature. That we are essentially ‘less’ than we could be if only we would get rid of all the corrupting seduction of wealth and property. It’s clear that the only people worth anything were in the memories of the natives- those who had lived naturally.
Thank you for reading my analysis, Susan
Thanks for that great insight Sue. You have a better understanding of the story than I do. I have learnt a lot.
Thank you Susan. A very thoughtful analysis!
Thank you Dermot and Sue. Both of your analyses were helpful to me. I looked for interpretations after reading the story, because in some ways it was opaque to me, though compelling.
I’d guess that Faulkner’s story was set in the 1800’s, before his own lifetime, so that it was imagined, based on accounts of slavery and Chickasaw life that he had heard, rather than based on his own observations of people in these conditions.
It was darkly funny that the Natives thought of eating the slaves as a way to do something useful with them, because they didn’t understand the purpose of the agricultural work the slaves had been forced to perform for white people. It mystifies me that the Natives didn’t seem to realise that the slaves didn’t choose this way of life, that it was forced upon them by white people. White people don’t appear in the story, but created the conditions for it.
Sue, I would question your assertion that civilisation in general is the corrupting force here. It’s the European civilisation that has come to the New World, symbolised by the ridiculous items imported from France, that is corrupting the way the Natives had been living. They were able to look after their needs without exhausting themselves with pointless sweating in the fields, but they were still civilised. See ‘The Dawn of Everything’ by David Graeber and David Wengrow, who write about under-appreciated ways of being civilised.
Thanks for that insight Cate.
I wonder what Faulkner’s sources for Chickasaw burial practices were and if they were accurate. There is a certain inevitability to the story; of course, the original transporter of the steamboat is named “Doom”. Why doesn’t the Negro run away from the tribe’s area, which holds certain death for him? Does his choice make the story less realistic (perhaps he is not a good planner)?
Thanks to all for your comments.
David