Appearance
Excerpt
Excerpt from Hell Fer Sartain and Other Stories, by Jr. John Fox
Stranger, them fellers over thar hain't seed much o' this world. Lots
of 'em nuver seed the cyars; some of 'em nuver seed a wagon. An' atter
jowerin' an' noratin' fer 'bout two hours, what you reckon they said
they aimed to do? They believed they'd take that ar man Beecher, ef
they could git him to come. They'd heerd o' Henry endurin' the war,
an' they knowed he was agin the rebs, an' they wanted Henry if they
could jes git him to come.
Well, I snorted, an' the feud broke out on Hell fer Sartain betwixt the
Days an' the Dillons. Mace Day shot Daws Dillon's brother, as I
rickollect--somep'n's al'ays a-startin' up that plaguey war an'
a-makin' things frolicsome over thar--an' ef it hadn't a-been fer a
tall young feller with black hair an' a scar across his forehead, who
was a-goin' through the mountains a-settlin' these wars, blame me ef I
believe thar ever would 'a' been any mo' preachin' on Kingdom-Come.
This feller comes over from Hazlan an' says he aims to hold a meetin'
on Kingdom-Come. "Brother," I says, "that's what no preacher have ever
did whilst this war is a-goin' on." An' he says, sort o' quiet, "Well,
then, I reckon I'll have to do what no preacher have ever did." An' I
ups an' says: "Brother, an ole jedge come up here once from the
settlemints to hold couht. 'Jedge,' I says, 'that's what no jedge have
ever did without soldiers since this war's been a-goin' on.' An',
brother, the jedge's words was yours, p'int-blank. 'All right,' he
says, 'then I'll have to do what no other jedge have ever did.' An',
brother," says I to the preacher, "the jedge done it shore. He jes
laid under the couht-house fer two days whilst the boys fit over him.
An' when I sees the jedge a-makin' tracks fer the settlemints, I says,
'Jedge,' I says, 'you spoke a parable shore.'"
Well, sir, the long preacher looked jes as though he was a-sayin' to
hisself, "Yes, I hear ye, but I don't heed ye," an' when he says, "Jes
the same, I'm a-goin' to hold a meetin' on Kingdom-Come," why, I jes
takes my foot in my hand an' ag'in I steps fer home.
Explanation
This excerpt from Hell Fer Sartain and Other Stories (1897) by John Fox Jr. is a prime example of Appalachian regional literature, blending local color, dialect, and themes of violence, faith, and stubborn resilience in the isolated mountain communities of late 19th-century Kentucky. The passage is narrated in the first-person vernacular voice of an unnamed mountain dweller, recounting a feud between the Day and Dillon families and the arrival of a determined preacher attempting to hold a revival in the lawless settlement of Kingdom-Come. Below is a detailed breakdown of the text, its themes, literary devices, and significance.
Context & Background
- John Fox Jr. (1862–1919) was a journalist and novelist who wrote about the Appalachian and Bluegrass regions, often focusing on feuds, religious fervor, and the clash between tradition and modernity.
- Hell Fer Sartain (1897) is a collection of short stories set in the Cumberland Mountains, depicting the harsh, insular world of Kentucky mountaineers—a world governed by blood feuds, rough justice, and deep (if superstitious) religiosity.
- The story reflects post-Civil War tensions, where loyalty to family and clan often outweighed legal or moral authority, and outsiders (preachers, judges, reformers) were viewed with suspicion.
Summary of the Excerpt
The narrator describes two key events:
- The Feud Between the Days and Dillons – A long-standing blood feud on Hell Fer Sartain Creek (a real location in Kentucky, renamed for dramatic effect) flares up again when Mace Day kills Daws Dillon’s brother. This is framed as a cyclical, almost inevitable conflict ("somep'n's al'ays a-startin' up that plaguey war").
- The Arrival of the Preacher – A tall, scarred young preacher (possibly a circuit rider, a traveling evangelist common in rural America) announces his intention to hold a religious revival on Kingdom-Come Creek, despite the ongoing feud. The narrator warns him that no preacher has ever succeeded in holding a meeting there during the war, but the preacher defiantly insists he will do "what no preacher have ever did."
- The narrator compares this to a judge who once tried to hold court in the same area, only to hide under the courthouse for two days while the feuding families fought above him, then fled. The judge’s failed attempt serves as a parable—a lesson in the futility of trying to impose order on chaos.
- Despite the warning, the preacher remains resolute, and the narrator, sensing the futility of arguing, leaves in frustration ("I jes takes my foot in my hand an' ag'in I steps fer home").
Key Themes
The Cycle of Violence & Feuds
- The Day-Dillon feud is presented as an inescapable, self-perpetuating conflict, where each killing begets another. The narrator’s casual tone ("somep'n's al'ays a-startin' up that plaguey war") suggests acceptance of violence as a way of life.
- This reflects the real-life Hatfield-McCoy feud and other Appalachian blood feuds, where honor, revenge, and kinship outweighed legal or moral constraints.
The Futility of Outside Intervention
- Both the judge and the preacher represent external authority (law and religion) trying to impose order on a lawless land.
- The judge’s failure (hiding under the courthouse) is a darkly comic metaphor for the impotence of formal justice in the mountains.
- The preacher’s determination ("I'll have to do what no preacher have ever did") suggests faith as a counterforce to violence, but his chances of success seem slim—reinforcing the isolation and resistance to change in the community.
Religious Zeal vs. Worldly Chaos
- The preacher’s scar (possibly from battle or a past conflict) symbolizes both suffering and resilience.
- His insistence on holding a meeting despite the danger reflects the Appalachian tradition of fiery, itinerant preachers who saw their mission as spiritual warfare against sin and lawlessness.
- The narrator’s skepticism ("blame me ef I believe thar ever would 'a' been any mo' preachin'") contrasts with the preacher’s unshakable faith, highlighting the tension between pragmatism and idealism.
Isolation & Lack of Worldly Experience
- The opening lines ("them fellers over thar hain't seed much o' this world") emphasize the mountaineers’ insulation—some have never seen a carriage or wagon, suggesting a pre-industrial, almost medieval way of life.
- Their naïve admiration for Henry Ward Beecher (a famous abolitionist preacher) shows their limited but intense exposure to the outside world, often through war and religion.
Literary Devices & Stylistic Features
Dialect & Vernacular Speech
- Fox faithfully reproduces Appalachian English, using phonetic spelling ("hain't," "reckon," "jes," "fer") and grammatical structures ("they hain't seed much," "ef they could git him") to immerse the reader in the culture.
- The rhythmic, oral quality of the narration mimics storytelling around a fire, reinforcing the communal, oral tradition of mountain life.
Foreshadowing & Dramatic Irony
- The narrator’s repetition of failure (the judge’s retreat, the preacher’s likely fate) creates a sense of inevitability—the reader expects the preacher to fail, just as the judge did.
- The preacher’s quiet determination ("Jes the same, I'm a-goin' to hold a meetin'") contrasts with the narrator’s world-weary cynicism, setting up tragic or heroic potential.
Symbolism
- Kingdom-Come Creek: The name is ironic—it suggests heaven or salvation, but the reality is a war-torn, godless place. The preacher’s attempt to bring literal "Kingdom Come" (the Kingdom of God) to this land is both noble and doomed.
- The Scarred Preacher: His physical mark could symbolize past battles (literal or spiritual), reinforcing the idea that faith in this land must be hardened by struggle.
- The Judge Under the Courthouse: A darkly humorous image of authority in hiding, showing how law is subservient to feud culture.
Repetition & Parallel Structure
- The judge and preacher’s identical responses ("I'll have to do what no [judge/preacher] have ever did") creates parallelism, linking law and religion as equally powerless in the face of the feud.
- The narrator’s refrain ("an' I ups an' says") gives the story a folksy, almost musical cadence, reinforcing its oral tradition roots.
Humor & Understatement
- The narrator’s dry, understated humor ("a-makin' things frolicsome over thar") downplays the brutality of the feud, a common trait in Appalachian storytelling where violence is treated as mundane.
- The judge’s "parable" is ironic—his lesson is that no one can stop the feud, yet the preacher chooses to ignore it.
Significance & Interpretation
- Regional Realism: Fox’s work is part of the Local Color movement, which sought to capture the unique dialects, customs, and conflicts of specific American regions. This excerpt authentically portrays the speech, values, and violence of Appalachia.
- The Myth of the American Frontier: The story challenges the romanticized idea of the frontier as a place of freedom and opportunity. Instead, it’s a land of entrapment, where feuds and isolation dominate.
- Faith vs. Fate: The preacher’s defiance of the inevitable raises questions about whether faith can overcome deeply ingrained violence. His fate is left ambiguous—will he succeed where others failed, or will he become another casualty of the feud?
- Cultural Preservation: Fox’s use of dialect and folklore helps preserve a way of life that was rapidly changing due to industrialization and outside influence. The story acts as a time capsule of 19th-century Appalachian culture.
Conclusion: Why This Passage Matters
This excerpt is more than just a tall tale—it’s a microcosm of Appalachian identity, where feuds are eternal, outsiders are doomed to fail, and faith is both a weapon and a shield. The narrator’s voice—wry, weary, but oddly affectionate—draws the reader into a world where violence is routine, but so is the stubborn hope that someone, someday, might break the cycle.
The preacher’s resolve stands as a symbol of resistance against the deterministic nature of the feud, while the narrator’s skepticism reflects the hardened realism of a people who have seen too many failures. In the end, the passage leaves us wondering: Can faith conquer Hell Fer Sartain, or is the feud truly eternal?
Fox’s genius lies in not answering the question—instead, he lets the mountains speak for themselves, in their own unvarnished, unforgettable voice.
Questions
Question 1
The narrator’s repeated invocation of the judge’s failed attempt to hold court serves primarily to:
A. establish a historical precedent for the preacher’s likely success, given the judge’s eventual escape.
B. underscore the legal system’s superiority over religious intervention in resolving feuds.
C. highlight the narrator’s personal bias against outsiders attempting to mediate local conflicts.
D. illustrate the cyclical nature of violence by showing how authority figures perpetuate the feud.
E. foreshadow the preacher’s probable failure through a structurally parallel cautionary anecdote.
Question 2
The preacher’s response—“Well, then, I reckon I’ll have to do what no preacher have ever did”—is most effectively interpreted as an example of:
A. hubristic overconfidence in his ability to transcend the limitations of his predecessors.
B. a literal misinterpretation of the narrator’s warning due to his outsider status.
C. defiant resilience framed as a moral imperative to challenge entrenched chaos.
D. passive-aggressive resignation to his inevitable failure in the face of local hostility.
E. an appeal to divine providence as the sole means of resolving the feud.
Question 3
The narrator’s phrase “a-makin’ things frolicsome over thar” employs irony primarily to:
A. trivialize the feud’s violence by framing it as entertainment for the community.
B. emphasize the narrator’s detachment from the conflict’s emotional toll.
C. critique the mountaineers’ perceived enjoyment of lawlessness.
D. juxtapose the grim reality of the feud with a deceptively lighthearted phrasing.
E. suggest that the feud’s perpetuation is a deliberate choice by the families involved.
Question 4
Which of the following best describes the functional relationship between the preacher’s scar and his determination to hold the meeting?
A. The scar symbolizes past failures, undermining his credibility as a reformer.
B. The scar serves as a physical manifestation of his willingness to endure suffering for his mission.
C. The scar is an incidental detail, included solely to enhance the preacher’s visual distinctiveness.
D. The scar represents a past feud-related injury, aligning him with the very cycle he seeks to break.
E. The scar is a metaphor for the community’s collective guilt, which he aims to absolve through preaching.
Question 5
The passage’s omission of the preacher’s ultimate fate most strongly suggests that the narrator views the conflict as:
A. a test of divine will, the outcome of which is predetermined by providence.
B. an intractable cycle where intervention is futile, rendering the preacher’s efforts symbolically doomed.
C. a temporary disruption that will resolve itself once the feud’s current phase subsides.
D. a spectacle best observed from a distance, as direct involvement is inherently dangerous.
E. a necessary evil that maintains the community’s isolation from external corruption.
Solutions and Explanations
1) Correct answer: E
Why E is most correct: The narrator’s recounting of the judge’s failure is structurally parallel to the preacher’s situation: both are outsiders attempting to impose order (legal or spiritual) on a lawless environment. The judge’s retreat under the courthouse serves as a cautionary anecdote, implicitly suggesting the preacher’s efforts will likewise fail. The repetition of the phrase “what no [judge/preacher] have ever did” reinforces this parallel, making E the most textually grounded answer. The narrator doesn’t outright state the preacher will fail, but the narrative framing strongly foreshadows it through this analogy.
Why the distractors are less supported:
- A: The judge’s escape is framed as a failure (he flees), not a precedent for success. The passage offers no indication the preacher will fare better.
- B: The passage contrasts the inefficacy of both law and religion; it doesn’t privilege the legal system. The judge’s failure is analogous to the preacher’s likely failure.
- C: While the narrator is skeptical, the judge’s story isn’t presented as a personal bias but as an objective historical example of outsider failure.
- D: The judge doesn’t perpetuate the feud; he’s a victim of it. The feud’s cyclical nature is shown through the families’ actions, not authority figures.
2) Correct answer: C
Why C is most correct: The preacher’s response is defiant yet purposeful. He acknowledges the uniqueness of the challenge (“what no preacher have ever did”) but frames it as a moral necessity rather than a reckless gamble. The quiet tone (“sort o’ quiet”) and the narrator’s subsequent frustration suggest the preacher’s resolve is rooted in conviction, not arrogance (A) or misunderstanding (B). His words imply a deliberate choice to confront chaos, aligning with C’s interpretation of resilience as a moral imperative.
Why the distractors are less supported:
- A: “Hubristic overconfidence” misreads the preacher’s quiet determination. There’s no boastfulness, only resolve.
- B: The preacher understands the warning (he repeats the narrator’s phrasing) but chooses to act regardless. His response isn’t a misinterpretation.
- D: His tone isn’t passive-aggressive or resigned; it’s active and resolute. The narrator’s exasperation contrasts with the preacher’s calm.
- E: He doesn’t invoke divine providence explicitly; his focus is on human agency (“I’m a-goin’ to hold a meetin’”).
3) Correct answer: D
Why D is most correct: The phrase “a-makin’ things frolicsome” is darkly ironic. The word “frolicsome” connotes playfulness or liveliness, but the context describes a feud marked by killings. This juxtaposition of light wording with grim reality creates irony, highlighting the normalization of violence in the community. D captures this contrast between language and reality.
Why the distractors are less supported:
- A: The narrator isn’t trivializing the violence for the community’s sake; the irony is rhetorical, exposing the feud’s brutality.
- B: The narrator isn’t detached; his later frustration with the preacher shows investment in the outcome. The irony serves a thematic, not emotional, purpose.
- C: There’s no critique of enjoyment. The irony lies in the mismatch between words and deeds, not the mountaineers’ attitudes.
- E: The feud isn’t framed as a deliberate choice but as an inescapable cycle. The irony underscores its ingrained nature, not agency.
4) Correct answer: B
Why B is most correct: The scar is not incidental (C) or purely symbolic of failure (A). It’s a physical mark of endured hardship, which parallels the preacher’s willingness to face danger to hold the meeting. His determination (“I’m a-goin’ to hold a meetin’”) suggests he expects suffering but proceeds anyway. The scar thus embodies his resilience, making B the most defensible answer.
Why the distractors are less supported:
- A: The scar doesn’t undermine his credibility; if anything, it enhances his authenticity as someone who has faced adversity.
- C: The scar is thematically significant, not merely decorative. Its inclusion serves a symbolic and character-driven purpose.
- D: While the scar could link him to the feud’s cycle, the text doesn’t specify its origin. Its primary role is to signal his endurance.
- E: The scar isn’t a metaphor for collective guilt; it’s a personal attribute tied to the preacher’s individual mission.
5) Correct answer: B
Why B is most correct: The narrator omits the preacher’s fate, leaving it ambiguous. Given the parallel with the judge’s failure and the narrator’s pessimistic tone (“I jes takes my foot in my hand an’ ag’in I steps fer home”), the most plausible implication is that the narrator views the feud as intractable—a cycle where intervention is futile. The preacher’s efforts, like the judge’s, are symbolically doomed from the start. B aligns with this deterministic reading of the conflict.
Why the distractors are less supported:
- A: There’s no mention of divine will or predestination. The focus is on human stubbornness, not providence.
- C: The feud isn’t framed as temporary; the narrator’s language (“al’ays a-startin’ up”) suggests it’s perpetual.
- D: While the narrator avoids direct involvement, the omission of the preacher’s fate isn’t about spectatorship but about the inevitability of failure.
- E: The feud isn’t portrayed as necessary or protective; it’s a “plaguey war” that disrupts even the possibility of preaching. The narrator’s tone is resigned, not approving.