Whose mother is the fish?

Darl, in As I Lay Dying, seems to have a completely different sense of the world than most, if not all people. He is constantly questioning his own existence and the existence of others. Once his mother dies, he stops loving his mother because he thinks that she no longer exists, while at the same time he calls Jewel's mother a horse, and Varadaman's mother a fish, which doesn't make any sense at all seeing as they all have the same mother. Not only that, but hes got some sort of supernatural power, or at least that is what Faulkner makes it seem like. Darl seems to be able to accurately tell what exactly is happening in a totally different place. He watches his mother's death while he is away at town. The thing is, we don't actually know if these events are accurate. He could just be completely imagining these scenarios, but they are neither confirmed nor denied. The only part that we know to be true is that Addie dies while Darl is away. Darl is a very intriguing, but creepy character and I like him because of it.

Another interesting character is Vardaman. With memorable quotes like, "My mother is a fish." to give readers a sense of him, it seems as though Vardaman has absolutely no idea what is going on. He might vaguely recognize that his mother is dead, but she is most certainly not a fish. It also seems like he is at least somewhat able to understand Darl's mysticism. Or maybe he just goes along with whatever Darl says. It probably just comes with being very young and innocent to the world. I do have to wonder what was going on in his head when he decided that it would be a good idea to bore holes into his mother's coffin and face. Like, what? Maybe he thought she wasn't getting air. Hard to say.

Jewel is a bit of an ass.

Bloodbath

In anticipation of Odysseus murdering a bunch of ungrateful suitors (who deserve it) I would like to look at heroes getting revenge and think about how far it is really necessary to go in getting this revenge. Obviously all heroes are different and will react differently to the tragic events that often inspire the heroes. The heroes we are accustomed to generally have an aversion to killing. This is probably because they have realized that if they kill, they are just becoming as bad as the people who have had such a negative impact on their lives by, for example, killing the hero's parents. The hero then turns that anger and pain to solving bigger problems, even if they have already gotten revenge or had their original nemesis brought down. This is all very inspiring, and I think part of what makes heroes so appealing - they have overcome such a horrible event and use that to push themselves to do good. That's all fine and well, but (using batman as an example) I think that it would have of been justified if Batman went after his parents killer with an intention to kill. For sure it wouldn't have been appealing, and honestly, it probably would be better for almost everyone if he didn't, but I do believe that there is some kind of retribution that Batman can have of gained through killing his parents' killer.

Unlike the real Batman, Odysseus actually does go on a rampage and kill the people that have been against his house (except Poseidon for obvious reasons). These violent "heroes" that kill people for revenge are in some cases justified. I think that Odysseus is justified in killing the suitors for example. But some times these killings aren't necessarily justified. This makes me think of the TV show Arrow, about the Green Arrow superhero. In the first season, the protagonist wants to get revenge on the rich aristocrats who control his city through corruption and for personal gain. To get revenge, he decides that it will be a good idea to put arrows through the villains saying "You have failed this city" every time. I don't necessarily think that this is the best option, but he is doing what he can. I really only enjoyed the fact that he killed his enemies because it was so different from what all the other superheroes do. But by the end of that first season, he decides that it is no longer necessary to kill all his enemies. He will be satisfied with just uncovering the evidence needed to put them in jail for a long time. I think that this is a more heroic solution to his problem. These people definitely needed to be punished, but I don't think that killing them was necessarily the best way to do it.

I am a firm believer in "an eye for an eye". It is so logical and simple it just seems like the best plan. People should get what they have given. Punishment is generally a must, and I think that the best way to give punishment is to give back the crime that has been committed. That actually sounds a bit messed up now, but oh well.