The Gradual Decline of the Grandeur of the South

When I first read “Dry September” by William Faulkner, I found myself slightly lost in the midst of all of the characters and dialogue. But after beginning to discuss the story in class and looking over the story again, I found myself pondering not so much the direct narrative, but rather, the picture that Faulkner paints of the South as opposed to the picture that we had gained of the South from our previous readings.

The first paragraph of “Dry September” opens with an incredibly vivid, and not altogether flattering, description of the setting. Faulkner begins, “Through the bloody September twilight, aftermath of sixty-two rainless days, it had gone like a fire in dry grass—the rumor, the story, whatever it was … none of them, gathered in the barber shop on that Saturday evening where the ceiling fan stirred, without freshening it, the vitiated air, sending back upon them, in recurrent surges of stale pomade and lotion, their own stale breath and odors, knew exactly what had happened.” This paragraph struck me, and I found myself coming back to it again and again. Faulkner invokes such a negative picture, forcing our senses to come alive. You can almost smell the foul scent of sweaty men on a hot summer’s day. There are no descriptions of green, fertile land or grand plantations. Quickly, you realize that this is one Southern town you might not want to visit.

As the story continues and you learn more about the town, the place just becomes more and more unappealing. The whole place is in an uproar over Minnie Cooper’s accusation that an African-American man had done something to her. What he has done, no one even knows. All they know is that she claims something happened to her and they are convinced it was Will Mayes. The entire ordeal sounds very fishy, but that doesn’t matter to the bored, racist white people at the barber shop. They have had nothing to do, and now that this fire has begun to burn, they have quickly allowed themselves to get caught up in it. Again, this provides us with a rather unpleasant image of this town.

I began to wonder as to why Faulkner’s writing about the South was so different from most of the other pieces we had read. Why would he portray the South so negatively when most of the other writers were building up this glorious image of the South, whether directly or indirectly. What was so different about Faulkner’s time that caused him to write such a piece? There was one major difference: Slavery had been abolished.

Without slavery, plantations and the lifestyle that had revolved around plantations quickly declined. No longer could men afford to live the lavish lifestyles that had grown accustomed to; no more free labor to work their lands and bring in the cash flow that was necessary to live in the lap of luxury. Instead, men began to have to work for themselves; make a living for themselves, which involved the need to hire help and decrease their acres. And seemingly, the end of slavery did bring an end to the Southern lifestyle.

These thoughts really began to disturb me. And I thought of Fitzhugh and his argument for slavery. Was he right in saying that basically, without slavery things would fall apart? The comparison between the writings we read before slavery was abolished and this, which is after, is shocking. It goes from this beautiful, romantic landscape to this horribly dry, stale town. As this is one of the first readings we have read post-slavery, I don’t know if I can accurately draw any conclusions. But I truly hope that some of the other readings will still find the South alive and well. Because it would be a terrible thing if people believed that the South was doomed to fail after slavery was abolished, and instead of attempting to make changes, simply contributed to this downward spiral of the South.