61 pages • 2 hours read
Louise ErdrichA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
All protagonists in the novel—the five primary narrators—have been profoundly influenced by Catholicism. Mary, Sita, and Celestine all attend St. Catherine’s school together; Karl attends seminary before renouncing the priesthood; and even Wallace, whose narrative sections make no mention of religious belief, remembers that he knew (and disliked) Mary from their time at Catholic school. Even minor characters, like Russell Kashpaw and Jude Miller, reveal their ties to religion in ways small (Russell) and significant (Jude). These influences reverberate throughout the novel: From saints and priests to martyrs and miracles, the language of religion is deeply embedded in the characters’ thoughts. While this also sometimes takes the form of rejection—from Karl forsaking his vocation to Mary’s preoccupation with the supernatural to Sita drifting away from the church after her divorce—these characters still belie their connection to Catholicism through their explicit, if fraught, turning away from it.
Mary’s “miracle” in manifesting “’Christ’s face formed in the ice’” turns her into a minor celebrity for a time (40). However, this miracle is complicated by the reactions of the various people who witness it. First, there is Mary’s reaction to her creation: “The pure gray fan of ice below the slide had splintered, on impact with my face, into a shadowy white likeness of my brother Karl” (39). This, of course, links Karl to a Christ-like figure; Mary has martyred him by leaving him behind, and her guilt engenders his face as “[h]is mouth [is] held in a firm line of pain” (39). Second, there is Sita’s reaction, as described by Celestine, as she tries to draw attention to herself and away from Mary by acting faint. Celestine observes that she is acting like “[a] tortured saint, maybe even Catherine herself”—the school’s namesake saint (41). Third, there is the nun, Sister Leopolda, whose reaction is so extreme that she kneels in front of the ice Christ and “scourg[es] herself past the elbows with dried thistles, drawing blood” (42). She is sent away “somewhere to recuperate” (42). Finally, Celestine’s older sister, Isabel, weighs in on the incident: “’Girls have been canonized for less’” (43). So, in the course of a single incident, Mary becomes symbolic of Judas Iscariot, betrayer of her brother, and then worthy of sainthood, in the eyes of some.
This incident continues to trouble Mary; as her celebrity fades, she seeks meaning in other forms of belief, like palm reading and tarot cards. Once the Kozka family has left and she is on her own, Mary manifests her unspoken fears about dabbling in esoterica of which the Church would surely disapprove—though only in her dreams. She has a recurring dream wherein she waits to couple with a man, large enough to buckle the floor beneath him: “His lips were deep and curved. His eyes were the same burnt-butter brown as his hair, and his horns branched like a young buck’s” (79). Mary is uncomfortable, at least subconsciously, with dabbling in supernatural things not sanctioned by the Catholic church. Still, she is obviously titillated by her transgressions and dreams of herself making love to the devil.
Sita, too, struggles with her relationship to Religious Belief, Doubt, and Guilt. She “had lapsed from the church” because of her divorce (144), and she is now searching for something to ground her. When Karl shows up at her house with Celestine’s New Testament Bible, it provokes a kind of hysteria in Sita. It also evokes guilt—over the letter from Catherine Miller and over the necklace that should rightfully be Mary’s—and she begins to hallucinate. She sees Karl sink into the grass, ultimately buried right before her eyes. She exclaims, “Mea culpa […] Mea maxima culpa” (153), directly confessing her guilt in Latin, the language of the Church. She finally pronounces, “We wake when we die. We are all judged” (153). Her search for spiritual comfort has turned up nothing; her religion has been taken from her. All she is left with is a husband who is “not in the book. […] You are down there with your specimens” (153). She condemns them all, even herself. In losing her religion, she begins to lose her grip on reality. Later, when she is in the psychiatric hospital, she finds herself martyred by her situation: “Here I am, Sita thought, laid out like a human sacrifice” (211). Finally, when Mary and Celestine find her after her suicide, she is hanging, arms splayed, from the yew bush, the very image of sacrifice.
Karl’s time in the priesthood is also brief, and his renunciation of religion is the most direct. Shortly before the reader learns of his departure from the Church, there is a scene with Russell Kashpaw that serves as a study in contrasts. Mary tries to read Russell’s palm, but he is uncomfortable, both with the practice and with her touch. He breaks the tension by saying, “‘Bless you, my child,’ […] so that we all laughed” (75). A few pages later, the reader witnesses Karl returning to the scene of his long-ago (and unspecified but hinted at) crime: “The new clothes, he thought, and the thick wad of dollar bills would throw the priests off. The truth was he’d turned out worse than their wildest dreams” (80). In juxtaposition to these faux priests, there is the very earnest figure of Jude Miller. Karl expresses great glee at having disappointed the priests and, when he figures out that Jude is actually his long-lost brother, in denigrating the boy. However, Karl’s journey comes full circle, and it can be read as one of redemption. On the day of the coronation of the Beet Queen, he jumps into the water with Wallace, saving him and pulling them both out of the water as if they are being baptized for a new and better life.
The characters in the novel are also riven by rivalries. While Karl and Mary do not compete for the attentions of Adelaide—Mary is too stubborn and practical to engage in what she knows would be a losing battle—they do compete to define their collective memory of who their mother was. After Adelaide disappears in the plane with The Great Omar, Karl chooses to imagine her as the victim of a kidnapping. This irks Mary, who knows the truth and wishes the plane might crash and kill her mother as punishment for abandoning the children. This difference in their reactions to the foundational trauma of both their lives illustrates the difference in their personalities. Where Karl is hapless and vulnerable, Mary is pragmatic and capable, and she views Karl’s vulnerability as another burden she must bear. When the two are separated on their first night in Argus, Mary feels the burden lifted, and consciously or not, she chooses not to look for him, guaranteeing that his absent presence will continue to haunt her for many years to come.
The contrast between Mary and Karl could not be starker. Where she is short and squat, with plain looks at best, Karl is tall and willowy, with a dark handsomeness. While Mary enjoys the visits from Adelaide’s male friend, “Karl hate[s] Mr. Ober’s visits” (6), envying the attention his mother gives the interloper, whom he does not yet realize is his father. When Adelaide is giving birth to the baby, Mary waits with rapt attention, excited for her new sibling, but Karl faints upon hearing his mother scream. Mary’s unperturbed reaction to this—“I had given up on reviving Karl each time he fainted” (8)—indicates that this level of sensitivity is common in Karl. Mary will have no truck with what she sees as weakness. When Adelaide rejects the baby, giving it only the barest of necessities, Mary coddles the infant. She loves the baby, though Karl sees the boy as another rival in his quest to dominate Adelaide’s affections. When Mary wants to follow the man who says he will have his wife feed the baby after Adelaide flies away, Karl panics and insists that Mary stay with him. She must make a difficult choice that, in the end, costs her both of her brothers.
The rivalry that develops between Mary and Sita is even more intense both because it has generational force and because it takes place in close quarters and over long periods of time. Sita becomes a kind of surrogate sibling for Mary, and their competition for the friendship of Celestine—and for all the attention and love Sita feels is her due—cements an antagonism that will linger for the rest of their lives. Aunt Fritzie, Adelaide’s sister, has no respect or affection for this woman who abandoned her children. She, like Mary, is practical and suffers no nonsense; Sita’s hatred for Mary stems, in part, from the fact that her own mother favors Mary because they are similar. Her father, too, favors Mary, though his affection derives largely from the pity he feels for the child. The final challenge to the girls’ relationship comes as Celestine’s growing bond with Mary means she spends less time with her former best friend, Sita. Later in life, both Mary and Sita begin to realize that they have always cared more for each other than they’ve ever been willing to admit. For example, Mary says, “[M]aybe I was closer to Sita than I ever was to Celestine” (66), and later, when Sita moves away to Fargo, she says, “I missed Sita more than I thought I would” (78). Sita, too, expresses compassion for the circumstances that brought Mary into her home—yet she never allows herself to show such empathy.
As soon as Celestine’s daughter, Dot, is born, she becomes the focal point for all the long-standing rivalries among the novel’s adult characters. For example, Sita develops a close relationship with Dot, effectively stealing her from her mother and from Mary in order to punish them both for having abandoned her—as she sees it—when they were children: “For an instant I had taken Dot away from them both the same way Mary stole Celestine” (288). Old grudges maintain their generational power. Dot herself continues to be relatively oblivious to the amount of love that surrounds her—though she does understand the power of enthrallment. She recognizes, even if mostly unconsciously, the degree to which she is being used as a pawn in the rivalries of the adults, and as a result she “gr[ows] angrier each year, frightening [the adults], making havoc, causing danger to herself” (301). Further, “[i]n her worst moods, the world was out to destroy Dot” (303). Too much indulgence and not enough discipline—not to mention the psychological impact of growing up without a father and the generational traumas that she has inherited—has turned Dot into a difficult character, at best.
Still, Dot presents an opportunity for the adults to redeem their own traumatic childhoods, and thus the primary rivalry in the book eventually forms between Mary and Celestine over the capricious love of Dot. Mary admits that they spoiled her—Dot’s first word is “MORE”—and, as a result, “[they] were making a selfish girl” (181). This is because, as Mary also admits, “[they] were thorough in living through her, in living [their] childhoods over” (181). Thus, Dot becomes an object of contention. While Mary believes that “Dot and [she] had a mental connection” (180), Celestine “see[s] too much of [her]self in Dot” (215). Celestine grows tired of Mary’s interference with the raising of Dot. While Celestine, as the mother, wants to teach Dot the difference between right and wrong, between lying and telling the truth, Mary, as the aunt, wants to indulge her every whim and serve as her friend and confidante. Wallace witnesses the worst of this competition and tries not to worry: “I think that Dot’s behavior was partly the result of Celestine and Mary’s squabbling. Sometimes I thought the friction between the two would grind Dot to dust, but instead she hardened between them, grew tough” (233). In the end, though, Celestine need not worry. When Dot is hurt or humiliated—at the Christmas play or at the Beet Queen ceremony—she runs toward her mother, that primal force.
The novel reflects a great deal on the consequences of generational trauma and on the unintentional inheritance with which a family can burden a child. Inheritance, too, has positive connotations: the physical things one leaves behind to support family or to foster memory. Throughout the beginning of The Beet Queen, parents leave or die, and children suffer, replicating patterns passed down to them by neglectful or absent parents. The physical objects that remain are either meaningless or misplaced. However, in the person of Dot—as much a symbol as a character—the author provides an example of how to reset these patterns and of what might happen when families return rather than remain absent. Dot represents the potential alleviation of suffering, the cessation of a cycle that reproduces the same traumas over and over again.
Mary and Karl react differently to Adelaide’s abandonment: Mary becomes stalwart and rooted in one place, while Karl becomes an itinerant wanderer, rejecting stability and family. Still, Mary quickly gives up on the notion of romance and love; after one unsuccessful attempt, she discards the idea of marriage, choosing instead to live alone. This choice is a consequence, at least in part, of Adelaide’s legacy: The family lost everything—their wealth, home, and stability—because of Adelaide’s choices in love.
All that Adelaide leaves Mary is a nearly empty box. Mary believes that it contains Adelaide’s jewelry, which she hopes will help her pay for her keep with the Kozka family. When she opens it, however, she finds “[s]tickpins. A few buttons off a coat. And a ticket describing a ring and the necklace set with garnets, pawned for practically nothing in Minneapolis” (21). This is Mary’s “inheritance” from Adelaide: abandonment and betrayal. In an echo of Mary’s experience, Sita discovers a “cow diamond”—the lens from a cow’s eye that resembles an opal—while cleaning gizzards at the butcher shop. She notes, “[F]or one brief moment I was sure the diamond made us rich,” but the cow’s diamond, “[her] inheritance,” is just as worthless as Mary’s mostly empty box (30). Further, her father will give the cow’s diamond to Mary, robbing Sita of even this insignificant inheritance. Later, Sita will retrieve Adelaide’s garnet necklace from the pawn shop, wearing it as if it were her own, to repay the insult.
When Dot comes along, however, these patterns slowly begin to change. There are two specific moments rich with symbolism regarding Dot’s position within the dysfunctional and makeshift family. The first moment comes when Dot is still an infant and Celestine is breastfeeding her. She notices “a tiny white spider making its nest” in Dot’s hair (176). Celestine can only watch, transfixed, as the spider goes about its work: “A web was forming, a complicated house, that Celestine could not bring herself to destroy” (176). This functions as a metaphor for the entire cast of characters in the book; their relationships are delicately entangled via the personage of Dot. She will bring this “complicated house” together. The second moment occurs when Mary knits a sweater for Dot. Celestine thinks the sweater resembles a maze: “Mary doesn’t understand until I trace the pattern with my finger, trying to find an exit. She begins to search along with me, through the tangle of pathways across the chest, down the undersides of the arms, across the shoulders. But we can discover no way out” (277). This describes their relationship exactly; they are bound together, again through the presence of Dot, in inescapable ways.
Dot’s existence also elicits the return of Karl. He has been repeating his mother’s patterns of flight for most of his life, but as he grows older, he feels a pull toward his child. First, Karl finds himself in Argus, wanting to see his child for the first time in 14 years. This brief meeting proves not to be enough. But when he receives the newspaper clipping from Celestine about Dot becoming the Beet Queen, he behaves like a proud father: “I crowed over Dot and altogether made a fool of myself, until one of the managers couldn’t take it anymore, sneered, asked me the last time I’d seen her. I quit the place” (317). Thus, Karl returns to Argus again, this time, it seems, for good.
When Dot jumps into the airplane at the beet festival, flying away—and reproducing the pattern that Adelaide laid out for her—she inadvertently brings the disparate adults in her life together. Once the plane has disappeared from sight, most of the crowd leaves the stands: “Only the four [Celestine, Mary, Wallace, and Karl] stood rooted, heads tipped back, ears straining for the engine’s return. They made a little group, flung out of nowhere, but together” (328). They are bound together, like family, in their love and concern for Dot. Of course, Dot will break the cycle started by Adelaide; she will return, just as her father has finally done. She is the only child among the four adults, the hope for the future lineage. With her return comes relief, not just for her and not just for her mother and the others; it will be a relief for Argus itself after its long and devastating drought: “Low at first, ticking faintly against the leaves, then steadier, stronger on the roof, rattling in the gutters, the wind comes […] the smell of rain” (338). The ground will be fertile yet again; the beets, like the Beet Queen, will return.
By Louise Erdrich
American Literature
View Collection
Community
View Collection
Family
View Collection
Indigenous People's Literature
View Collection
LGBTQ Literature
View Collection
National Book Critics Circle Award...
View Collection
National Suicide Prevention Month
View Collection
Religion & Spirituality
View Collection