A paper I wrote back in 2008. Hopefully my other post will be just as insightful although probably not as long.
Bechdel, Alison. Fun Home, a
Family Tragicomic. Boston: A Mariner Book Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007.
Falling
with Wax Wings
Alison Bechdel’s
stunning graphic memoir Fun Home is
an exploration of the complex relationship with her father as well as the
events leading up to his unexpected and mysterious death. Bechdel uses
repetitive mythic and literary references to illustrate and characterize her
emotional relationship with her father. In almost every chapter of her book
Bechdel focuses on a particular text in order to manifest the emotional context
that was playing out within her life. For example in chapter six, she
explicitly puts forward Oscar Wilde’s works as a metaphor for what was
happening in her life at that time. Wilde’s constant double or layered writing,
of saying one thing and meaning another, allows Bechdel to parallel this to her
own life at the age of thirteen; her Father not telling her the whole truth of
why he was going into therapy, her own lie of omission of not telling her
mother that she had got her period, all insinuate that there is more going on than
what is actually being said. These literary parallels, references and allusions
continue throughout the book, from Joyce’s Ulysses
to Camus’ A Happy Death to
Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby,
helping to elucidate the complexity of Bechdel’s remembered life and its
emotional context. But there is one particular repetitive narrative that is
most notable in explaining and casting the relationship between her father and
herself, the myth of Daedalus.
From the very outset
of the book Bechdel frames her relationship with her father through the myth of
Daedalus and Icarus, in which she alternately casts herself and her father as
either Icarus or Daedalus. On 4.1, in the second page of the book, Bechdel
places her father in the role of Icarus in which she states “in our particular
re-enactment of this mythic relationship, it was not me but my father who was
to plummet from the sky” (4.1).On the surface this may be seen as simple
foreshadowing, an mythic allusion to her father’s eventual death, but if one
were to read deeper there is the implication of a fall from grace or perhaps an
overpowering sense of disappointment in her father for his emotional distance
and the hiding of his sexuality from her for so long. In this instance, it is
necessary to understand the allusion that is taking place. In the origin myth
of Daedalus he is forced to flee Athens because he has murdered his nephew
Talos. The reason for killing his nephew was because Talos was brilliant,
almost as brilliant as Daedalus, yet Daedalus’ son Icarus was dull and had
always been a source of disappointment to his father. So Daedalus feeling
jealous and threatened by his nephew’s brilliance, as well as his overall
disappointment by his son’s dullness, results in Daedalus’ murdering his nephew
which forces both father and son to flee Athens. The greater context of the
myth then brings to the fore the allusion of disappointment Bechdel felt towards
her father when she cast him in the role of Icarus.
This line of
thinking however is quickly overshadowed by her switching the role of her
father from Icarus to Daedalus, in which she expounds upon her father’s ability
with home decorating and house restoration, citing him as a “Daedalus of décor”
(6.5). But she quick to points out both Daedalus and her father’s darker side
with the retelling of the myth of the Labyrinth. This particular retelling of the myth introduces the
narrative theme of concealment that will be echoed throughout the book.
Daedalus built the Labyrinth to hide the Minotaur, just as Bechdel’s father
built the perfect home and family in order to hide his sexuality. The
metaphorical use of the house as the labyrinth is brought home when Bechdel
changes the role of her father, again, to that of the Minotaur. On page 12.1 as
the narrator explains Daedalus’ inspiration for the labyrinth and we are
presented with the figure of Bechdel’s younger self looking up in fear at the
dark silhouette of her father after having accidentally broken the stopper for a
wine decanter. We see the young Bechdel run through the house as the narrator
tells the story of the Labyrinth and its victims. But as her younger self runs
out of the house the narrator explains that there was no escape for the
Athenian youths in the labyrinth, yet if the house is meant to be the labyrinth
then why is Bechdel able to escape? (12.2, 12.3, 12.4) This particular scene is charged with
multiple meanings; young Bechdel can never truly escape the house as a child
since she would have to eventually return to it one way or another. Nor can she
ever truly escape the house in a metaphorical sense since it is an integral
part of her remembered experience. Yet there is once more the allusion to the
Daedalus myth, which if one recalls, that after Icarus and Daedalus had been
locked in the labyrinth by the king of Crete they, unlike the Athenian youths,
managed to escape because of Daedalus’ knowledge as the builder of the
labyrinth. However Daedalus is forever hunted by the Cretan king for his escape
of the labyrinth. This gives the scene another dimension of meaning that is
repeated, albeit subtly, throughout the entire novel; that although one may
physically escape something, in this case the house, emotionally remembered
experiences never leave. Additionally, it is important to note the interesting
implication that once her father is cast as Daedalus, Bechdel by default is put
into the role of Icarus, the disappointment or the one who falls short of the
perfection the father envisioned. This illustrates the complimentary opposing
circularity of the parent being disappointed in the child and alternately the
child being disappointed in the parent.
After the
introduction of the parent child dynamic, as established through the Daedalus
and Icarus myth, the allusion to the myth is not repeated till the very last
two pages of the book. Here, as at the beginning of the book, Bechdel portrays
herself as a child in order to bring the reader back full circle to the theme
of the parent child dynamic, as the narrator expounds about Joyce’s literary
and personal life, a complete break from what is going on pictorially, with the
exception of 231.2. There is also
the role reversal that has been constantly repeated in relation to this myth.
In 231.3 Bechdel asks “What if Icarus hadn’t hurtled into the sea? What if he’d
inherited his father’s artistic bent? What might he have wrought?” (231.3). The
implied question is about her relationship with her father and what it might
have been like if he had not died when he did. Had he not died would their
father daughter dynamic be irrevocably changed or would it remain the same? An
impossible question with no definitive answer either way, which leaves the
reader with a sense of incompleteness perhaps meant to mirror Bechdel’s own
loss. Yet on page 232.2 Bechdel once more switches the role of Icarus. She
inverts Icarus’ tragedy rewriting it so that in her “tricky reverse
narration…he was there to catch me when I leapt” (232.2). This particular
passage is notable for two reasons; it insinuates an acceptance on Bechdel’s
part over her father’s death and the knowledge that although he may be
physically gone he is still an integral part of her both emotionally and
perhaps spiritually. There is also the interesting circularity between the
pictorial representation of them both on page 4.1 and 232.2. In each instance
Bechdel’s younger self is falling or jumping with her father, his arms
outstretched, ready to catch her. A graphic representation of the ultimate role
and relationship between parent and child, that no matter how vast the distance
between you emotionally or physically your parent will always be there to catch
you.
The complexities
of the parent child relationship are infinite, and nearly impossible to
articulate with infallible accuracy. But Bechdel’s makes a very good attempt in
her use of repetitive mythic and literary allusions, coupled with circular and
parallel illustration allowing her to emphasize and characterize her emotional
relationship with her father. Although ultimately there is no real resolution
as to whether or not her father committed suicide there is a kind of emotional
conclusion, in that she forgives her father for his short comings, his lies,
and distance, moreover she accepts his death and understands that it does not
mean the end of their emotional bond as father and daughter.
