Why Everett Is More Likeable than Odysseus

None of us really liked Odysseus when we talked about him in class. He didn't seem like a real hero. He is courageous, yes, but he gets all of his crew members killed because of his pride. He is clever, but he is also a bit sneaky and seems somewhat untrustworthy. He often uses his cleverness to get him (and not always his crew members) out of sticky situations that they wouldn't have been in if his pride hadn't convinced him to do something foolish (like taunt the cyclops). He also uses his cleverness to test people: he tests Penelope's loyalty to him very seriously, supposedly planning to kill her along with the suitors if she had been unfaithful, yet he himself had been unfaithful to Penelope numerous times. Clearly, Odysseus's negative qualities are many, and it seems from our discussions in class that those traits made him unlikeable.

However, Ulysses Everett McGill is not unlikeable, even though he possesses many of the same traits that Odysseus does. Everett, Pete, and Delmar are all protagonists, but Everett is undoubtedly "the leader of this outfit". What makes him more sympathtic, or at least easier to hear about, than Odysseus?

Everett is clever--he uses big words too, and can talk himself out of many bad situations, but he is also somewhat silly. With lines like "Well, there are all manner of lesser imps and demons, Pete, but the great Satan hisself is red and scaly with a bifurcated tail, and he carries a hay fork," and "Say, any of you boys smithies? Or, if not smithies per se, were you otherwise trained in the metallurgic arts before straitened circumstances forced you into a life of aimless wanderin'?" we see that Everett has "the gift of gab" but also that he is funny. He makes errors in pronunciation of the long words he uses, and his general tone of fake knowledgeable amiably discredits most of the things in says. Odysseus seriously fools people--people don't know who he is or are tripped up by his trickery. No one really falls for Everett's trickery.

Everett is also not all powerful. Odysseus sweeps into the hall and murders everyone, deciding himself whether they should live or die even though he has not been at the house watching their conduct for twenty years. Everett gets beaten soundly by Vernon T Waldrip even through Waldrip is ridiculous prig. He is continually rejected by his wife, even when he swims through a vast lake to get her her ring, and his daughters greet him not with awe and respect but with:
Wharvey gal 1: Mama says you got hit by a train.

Wharvey gal 2: Blooey! Nothin’ left.

Wharvey gal 1: Just a grease spot on the L & N.

Everett does not inspire the same awe in the people around him, nor is he obviously backed by some supernatural force. He triumphs by luck and tenacity, and does not really take anyone down with him, except Waldrip. I don't think he manages to do anything particularly violent to anyone the entire movie.

Everett may fool people sometimes, and he is not exactly trustworthy, but overall he is honorable. Odysseus is honorable overall too. What he lacks is Everett's funniness. Odysseus is not slapstick funny; Everett is. Everett blatantly says stupid things--"We're in a tight spot!" x 4--while Odysseus is described as calculating and cunning. We like Everett better because his Odysseus-like traits come across as a character quirk, while Odysseus's come across as a character flaw.

Case Study: Jack Johnson

Jack Johnson

In Race, Class, Gender, we are currently discussing Jack Johnson. Jack Johnson was a black boxer who won the Heavyweight championship in the early 1900s (around 1910), taking a title that black boxers were not originally allowed to have. His defeat of white favorite Jim Jeffries caused widespread racial tension and race riots broke out in cities across the country. He definitely broke a barrier and proved that African Americans were just as strong, clever, and talented as white Americans. Arguably, his defeat of Jeffries and his unwillingness to conform to white standards could have made him a hero, but things were much murkier. Despite his victory, his personal life and behavior made him an enemy of the majority of white people and many African Americans. So is the potential hero's personal life more important than their heroic acts in making them a hero? And is this fair to the "hero"?

Johnson fought many white boxers at lower levels of the sport, and he eventually fought a white boxer, Tommy Burns, to win the Heavyweight Champion title. However, white people across America were angry that Johnson was a black man, and white boxers challenged him again and again to no avail. Finally, the retired favorite Jim Jeffries came out of retirement to become the "Great White Hope". Clearly, in this fight, Johnson symbolized the African American man's hope for advancement and greatness, while Jeffries symbolized the white man's fear that they would not remain dominant over minorities. Johnson won. This could be considered a heroic act on Johnson's part; he had proven that African Americans were just as good as whites. Of course, this gave white racists even more reason to hate him. However, it seems like African Americans would have made a hero out of him. Many did, but many did not, and that relates to his personal conduct.

Johnson with first wife Etta Duryea

Johnson was not submissive at all. He wasn't really even respectful. He knew his own mind and he was going to do what he wanted to even if it was not considered appropriate for a black man. He slept with numerous women, both white a black, drove fast cars, and flaunted his wealth. He had his front teeth gold plated. He bought houses in solely white neighborhoods. This alienated many black people (not to mention white people), and his fight caused the deaths of many African Americans and a few white people in the weeks following the match (that is not directly his fault).

In a time when Booker T. Washington was considered a guide on how African Americans should behave in order to gain status and economic prosperity, Johnson was not conducting himself particularly well. He was not following the accepted rules of white people or black people, and some African Americans believed he was betraying his own people by being with white women. In general, his heroism, while still present, was murky and questionable.

During a time when obviously breaking social codes was more acceptable, like during the 60s and the 70s, Johnson might have been indisputably a hero. But because he boxed during the 1910s and his behavior was not considered the best way for African Americans to better themselves, he was somewhat less of a hero. This is true of all heroes, I think. Regardless of the heroism of your act, your status as a "hero" will always be tenuous, and it will depend not only on your own personal conduct but on how said personal conduct is viewed during the specific time in which you live.