Teaching Philosophy and Materials
Paul Laurence Dunbar The Sport of the Gods
What is the significance of the plural "Gods" in the title of The Sport of the Gods? And of the word "sport"? We spoke in class about the religious and classical references in the text and about the story functioning as an allegory, a symbolic tale that has a resonance beyond the "simple" or surface subject matter and characters of the plot. If the concept of "gods" conjures images of mythic Greek gods, then with whom did those gods "sport"? With "mere mortals"? And if Kit and Joe and their parents are the quintessence of mere mortals, are all of the characters in the novel similarly so? So, in that regard, all are powerless and are subject to the whims of some sinister or dispassionate gods? What does this title tell us about Christianity, of the family and for Dunbar? When we reflect on the text, characters both black and white are "played" with by forces beyond their own control, and it is to these forces that Dunbar makes a reference in the final pages of the novel. The very final line is, regarding the Hamilton parents, that "they knew they were powerless against some Will infinitely stronger than their own." Has this been the case for all of the characters throughout the novel? And if so, what kind of commentary is Dunbar making? If black people have been subject to the whims and will of white people, as in the historical context in which we meet the Hamilton family, are they more "in control" of the Will and Sport of "gods" (as opposed to people)? Dunbar seems to suggest that they are not. He also seems to indicate that the downfall of the Hamilton family in New York City is not a product of their race. The only instance where Dunbar seems to lay significant blame on racial injustices is in the "crime" that unleashes all of the novel's action and so it is critical because of that: Maurice's hasty and uninformed indictment of Berry. He "convicts" Berry (who is ultimately convicted in court) because of his previous condition of servitude and his race. So, if this is the catalyst for the novel's action, that would seem to demonstrate where Dunbar squares blame. But, I would argue, all of the tragedies of the novel, despite this initial one, cannot be attributed to racial prejudice. Dunbar doesn't seem to be saying this.
Dunbar picks up on the idea of contagion that we have discussed previously. In Chapter XI, he says that the other bar denizens, other than Joe, are "inoculated against further contagion." In this conversation, Sadness is pointing out to Joe all of the crimes and misfortunes of the other people who hang out at the bar and he says that if one is unaccustomed to their ways and these plights, it can get "a little warm," but after a while, one gets used to it. Indeed, Joe gets used to it, but his condition does not stabilize. He is not "inoculated against further contagion." His debasement continues, worsens. Why does Joe sink deeper into sin and crime? Based on our earlier conversations, what can we make of this reference to social ills moving through populations like communicable diseases? What kind of commentary is this?
To return to the notion that this novel functions allegorically, think back to where the Hamilton family begins the novel, in a cottage in the garden of their former master, who functionally persist in that role. While this garden and this cottage is not necessarily idyllic or Edenic, Dunbar does not neglect to describe the wonderful and supportive family life that the Hamilton family has in that place. He suggests that there is a temptation that might get them ejected from the garden and that would be violating the Oakley family's trust or stealing from them. Indeed, someone does steal from the family, but it is not Berry, and he is cast from the garden nevertheless. This is the Kafka-esque aspect of this tale, in that one is convicted of a crime one did not commit and (though Berry knows his accuser and in Kafka this is often not the case) he has absolutely no recourse for defending and exonerating himself.
In regard to our course themes (some of which are borders, race, gender, religion, language), which are most prominent in this novel as factors that contribute to or reify the family's "otherness." From whom are they different? From whom or by whom are they alienated? What factors cause these states of affairs? How is gender-power presented in the novel (think of Hattie, think of Frank)? How is geographic movement -- movement across borders and to new places/spaces -- represented by Dunbar?
Click here to return to the "Other Writers" Lecture Notes page.