I believe, that William Faulkner uses his novel Light in August to criticize the fatalistic concept that a person’s future is predestined by his or her family history. This is a reoccurring theme throughout the novel and is manifest in many cases. Joe Christmas, the principle protagonist, is expected to "go bad" by those who know that he is of mixed blood. His grandfather Doc Hines watches him for years and refers to him as "God’s abomination of womanflesh." As soon as the bulk of the townspeople are told that Joe is of mixed origin, it is predestined that he will face punishment. He can no longer live his own destiny, but will be forced into one by his peers.

The Reverend Hightower is also haunted by a fatalistic urge to become something because of who his ancestors were. It is clear in his mind from the time that he was very young, he would live in Jefferson. That was the town where his grandfather had heroically died in a cavalry charge trying to drive out the armies of the Union. It is important to note that Hightower’s grandfather did not really die at the hands of northern troops in a glorious raid, but at the hands of a southern woman as he was stealing chickens. Faulkner uses this discrepancy in the character’s view of history to point out that the things one is predestined to become are all too often based on conceptions of history, and not actual historical fact. To carry this point further, Faulkner never tells us if Joe Christmas is of mixed blood or not, and leaves some reason to believe that he is actually part Mexican, not Negro.

The bulk of the characters in Faulkner’s novel relate to each other in a manner that reflects, not who they are, but who their parents were. Ms. Burden, the single daughter of Northern carpet baggers is expected to live outside the society of the town became her parents were foreigners, even though she has lived in Jefferson all her life. I also find it intriguing that her violent death is met with some degree of acceptance, simply for the fact that her father was killed in a similar way.

Faulkner’s most dramatic attack on this fate mentality is his character Lena. She is an orphan, she is carrying a child out of wedlock, and she is a traveler. An yet, in spite of all of these things that would normally work against her and her children, you are left with a sense at the end of the novel that she is going to be successful. Her children will be prosperous, and she will be contented. "I looked back and saw her face. And it was like it was already fixed and waiting to be surprised, and that she knew that when the surprise come, she was going to enjoy it. And it did come and it did suit her."

Go back to my Great Books Picks

Go Home