Through-Out Passing Analysis

Through-out Passing we are torn between two characters who both live life so differently. Who lives their life honorable, shows who that person truly is and what their morals are. To pass is something secretly desirable yet also condemning. What has been made popular by society as portraying passing, is different from what it was really like. To pass means you must have a stronger will in your heart and even stronger will-power to leave all you know behind. Not only was passing a selfish choice, but there was specific traits one would most likely possess when passing, such as; how you grew up, gender, views of norms, and the consequences of passing. Clare and Irene grew up in the same area and both saw the horrifying consequences of what it …show more content…
Irene had a good relationship with her father and throughout Larsen’s book we see how much she visits him. Larsen shows what a good relationship they have with each other. Irene’s father is a “dear sweet man” to Clare. (‘Larsen 38) Irene could never fully pass, when she has too much to lose. However, Irene does pass occasionally, “for the sake of convenience, restaurants, theatre tickets, and things like that.” (Larsen 152) According to Harper, “Irene’s instance of opportunistic passing is animated by a more fundamental desire to enjoy the potential for achieving such well-being- which potential we can accurately conceive as the upward mobility that is always the implied stake in the standard racial pass.” (Harper388) Irene could easily be compared to someone that is fully passed. They both trick people to get what they want, Irene’s way just happens to be more convenient. Passing, no matter how long you do it, means you give up, for that instance your family. What you love and cherish is gone for that moment. If a person fully passes, most likely he or she moves away. They never seak to their family, because they are too ashamed. They are too worried that if someone were to see them talking to a black person, what would they think. In order tolive out the life they wanted they would, “sever every previous tie with the past.” (Burma 22) This is exactly what Clare did, until she become …show more content…
In Larsen’s novel is focused on two black woman and there is no mention of a male passing. Many people liked the idea of showing a woman in this situation, because woman are seen as being secretive. Bourdre states, “Passing involves being able to manipulate others” they had to be misguided and mischievous. (Boudre 28) This is the view many had of woman back then. Even Clare was known to “step on the edge of danger” or being “selfish, willful, and disturbing.” (Larsen 7 and 111) It is easier to describe a woman like this than it would be a man, since men had such a higher standing than woman. In passing the woman get away with it more than men, because they do not have to work. They got to do whatever they wanted so they never had to be put in the situation of consistently being in the public eye. Woman also make a better subject to pass, because most times they care more about outward appearances and how people see them. Clare, once a poor girl, after passing is someone that makes other jealous. When people look at her they see “polite insolence with which a few woman are born and which some acquire with the coming of riches or importance.” (Larsen 40) By passing she got what she desired, materialistically. She was now beautiful and could get whatever she wanted. Harper states that “Material objects constitute the most convenient sensible representation of the achievement of social access