I don’t care if my mom wants to wash my mouth with soap. I like it better this way, not having to tell who I really am. Taylor and Susie fascinate me. Their lives are so much more interesting. Plus, I don’t like any of my colored classmates any way.
…
I’m glad Natasha is in our class. I don’t like being with all of THEM with only Taylor. Taylor is too shy. Natasha she seems nice enough. We always eat lunch together, the three of us, in the corner of the schoolyard. We usually just talk amongst ourselves. Come to think of it, Natasha never talks about herself. She is always asking us questions about our lives or families. And she’s determined in her questioning too. After school, whenever we go to someone’s house, it’s always either mine of Taylor’s. I wonder why Natasha never invites us?
I have decided to find out more about Natasha. After all, the three of us need to stay together. However, I am growing suspicious of her. Whenever I ask her a question about her life, she seems to always pause before answering. And a lot of what she talks about seems fake. I’ve never been to her house. Actually, I haven’t ever even seen her parents. But I’m probably just being unreasonable.
It is Friday today. I tell my mom that I will be coming home late today, since I want to go home with Natasha. After school, I tell Natasha that I want to go home with her:
Natasha: “You can’t come with me; I really can’t have anyone over today.”
Me: “Why not? It’s the last day of school. You can’t have anywhere else to be.”
Natasha: “ Uhh…actually I’m not going home today. I have to visit my father at work.”
Me: “I can’t come with too? I won’t be any trouble. And I already told my mom that I wasn’t coming home.”
Natasha: “No, he’ll get really mad. I’ve gotta go now.”
Natasha left that day and was never seen again…
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Sunday, December 6, 2009
WFB and HOD and "Three Ways of Going Wrong"
The Kerr article brought up an insightful connection between the novels that we have read this semester. As Kerr talked about the evolution of the Kurtz and the magistrate, one thought struck me. Heart of Darkness and Waiting for the Barbarians teach the truth that the more time you spend with a group of people, the more you assimilate. This assimilation is shown by sympathy, compassion, and understanding of the native peoples.
In Waiting for the Barbarians, Colonel Joll, immediately is hostile to the barbarians. He arbitrarily view the barbarians as a threat. When he interrogates them, he is certain that he is being lied to; he continues with his pointless investigations. Next, the army officers that visit the Magistrate during the first chapter also hold this view. When the Magistrate offers his honest views of the barbarians, the main officer scoffs and immediately looks down upon the Magistrate. However, the Magistrate is not that way anymore, assuming that he was at one point.
The article quotes the reason for this evolution from the book: “sunk, after years in this backwater, in slothful native ways.” We know that he has spent a substantial amount of time on the frontier, and his time in the frontier has also exposed him to a lot of things. For example, he takes an interest in the archeological artifacts there, and he now speaks the frontier’s patois. The hallmark of this metamorphosis is his taking a barbarian concubine. He is genuinely curious to find out more about this person.
In Heart of Darkness, this theme rings true. Although Marlow is not at the same level of hate of the barbarians as Joll, he is still biased against the Africans. Marlow retains his prejudices about Africans and generally does not seem too concerned about the going-ons over there. At best, he is a passive, sometimes critical observer. At worse, his silence to the other Europeans is symbolic of his acquiescence to the system. However, he adopts a totally different stance once he spends time with Kurtz. As Kerr says, “He develops a curiosity about Kurtz and even finds himself drawn into the role of Kurtz's partisan and fellow-conspirator, as if he really were on Kurtz's side, as his enemies in the company believe.” Kurtz is the Magistrate’s equivalent in Heart of Darkness. He has transformed from a simple European imperialist into an enemy of the company. By the end of Kurtz’s time, everyone agrees that he has gone too far. By the end, he has become the “native” that he is supposed to be only working with.
In Waiting for the Barbarians, Colonel Joll, immediately is hostile to the barbarians. He arbitrarily view the barbarians as a threat. When he interrogates them, he is certain that he is being lied to; he continues with his pointless investigations. Next, the army officers that visit the Magistrate during the first chapter also hold this view. When the Magistrate offers his honest views of the barbarians, the main officer scoffs and immediately looks down upon the Magistrate. However, the Magistrate is not that way anymore, assuming that he was at one point.
The article quotes the reason for this evolution from the book: “sunk, after years in this backwater, in slothful native ways.” We know that he has spent a substantial amount of time on the frontier, and his time in the frontier has also exposed him to a lot of things. For example, he takes an interest in the archeological artifacts there, and he now speaks the frontier’s patois. The hallmark of this metamorphosis is his taking a barbarian concubine. He is genuinely curious to find out more about this person.
In Heart of Darkness, this theme rings true. Although Marlow is not at the same level of hate of the barbarians as Joll, he is still biased against the Africans. Marlow retains his prejudices about Africans and generally does not seem too concerned about the going-ons over there. At best, he is a passive, sometimes critical observer. At worse, his silence to the other Europeans is symbolic of his acquiescence to the system. However, he adopts a totally different stance once he spends time with Kurtz. As Kerr says, “He develops a curiosity about Kurtz and even finds himself drawn into the role of Kurtz's partisan and fellow-conspirator, as if he really were on Kurtz's side, as his enemies in the company believe.” Kurtz is the Magistrate’s equivalent in Heart of Darkness. He has transformed from a simple European imperialist into an enemy of the company. By the end of Kurtz’s time, everyone agrees that he has gone too far. By the end, he has become the “native” that he is supposed to be only working with.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
WFB- Initial Impressionss
The first, probably most, noteworthy stylistic element in the novel is the use of ellipses. I think this stylistic element only adds to the entertainment of the book. The plot moves rapidly since within every chapter there are multiple changes of setting, characters etc. The length of these shifts is varied. At certain times, these shifts in time are longer, whereas other times they are only one page long. Waiting for the Barbarians has easily been the simplest book––in terms of readability––all semester. Although the novel has the occasional three-syllable word, the text is largely understandable without any assistance. The first person narrator seems to be pretty reliable; he is able to describe in detail what he perceives is happening and how it affects him.
The most interesting aspect of the novel so far––for me–– is the Magistrate’s opinion of the barbarians and how that frames the context for the other elements of the story. His view of the differences between the people from the Empire and the barbarians certainly differs from the norm. First, he tells us of his distaste when the barbarians try to deal with the people from the empire: “…the settlers litany of prejudice: that barbarians are lazy, immoral, filthy, stupid.” Furthermore, the Magistrate has a memorable discussion with the young, arrogant graduate from the War College. Here the Magistrate defends the barbarians, much to the disgust of the army conscript. However, his respect for the barbarians translates in an odd manner with the barbarians’ women. The almost blind woman that is his concubine is the most striking example. Also, he has a mistress (or whatever you want to call her) in the motel. His behaviors with respect to these relationships do not seem to be that respectful. Although he respects the woman that lives with him, he is not faithful to her.
The most interesting aspect of the novel so far––for me–– is the Magistrate’s opinion of the barbarians and how that frames the context for the other elements of the story. His view of the differences between the people from the Empire and the barbarians certainly differs from the norm. First, he tells us of his distaste when the barbarians try to deal with the people from the empire: “…the settlers litany of prejudice: that barbarians are lazy, immoral, filthy, stupid.” Furthermore, the Magistrate has a memorable discussion with the young, arrogant graduate from the War College. Here the Magistrate defends the barbarians, much to the disgust of the army conscript. However, his respect for the barbarians translates in an odd manner with the barbarians’ women. The almost blind woman that is his concubine is the most striking example. Also, he has a mistress (or whatever you want to call her) in the motel. His behaviors with respect to these relationships do not seem to be that respectful. Although he respects the woman that lives with him, he is not faithful to her.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Short Summary of Literary Criticism
"Heart of Darkness and Racism"
By Hunt Hawkins
This article responds to a series of statements and comments made by Chinua Achebe (a modern scholar).
-Achebe has repeatedly called Conrad a racist
-thinks he's racist because of the focus on racism and the portrayal of the Africans, while simultaneously not including them in the story
However, the author disagrees.
-Conrad doesn't talk about Africans because of his ignorance about their culture––Congo
-He's staunchly anti-imprerialist––Belgians
-His discussion was concomitant with the birth of evolution as a theory
-He shows the hypocrisy of the "civilizing mission"and how it's a "sham"
-Shows that evolution leads to evolutionary regression for Europeans––Kurtz
-Conrad didn't recognize the link between imperialism and racism
-Blames Kurtz for making the Africans "evil"
-Marlow doesn't exploit the Africans
-Racism inherent at this time
-At least Conrad isn't "extreme[ly] racist"
By Hunt Hawkins
This article responds to a series of statements and comments made by Chinua Achebe (a modern scholar).
-Achebe has repeatedly called Conrad a racist
-thinks he's racist because of the focus on racism and the portrayal of the Africans, while simultaneously not including them in the story
However, the author disagrees.
-Conrad doesn't talk about Africans because of his ignorance about their culture––Congo
-He's staunchly anti-imprerialist––Belgians
-His discussion was concomitant with the birth of evolution as a theory
-He shows the hypocrisy of the "civilizing mission"and how it's a "sham"
-Shows that evolution leads to evolutionary regression for Europeans––Kurtz
-Conrad didn't recognize the link between imperialism and racism
-Blames Kurtz for making the Africans "evil"
-Marlow doesn't exploit the Africans
-Racism inherent at this time
-At least Conrad isn't "extreme[ly] racist"
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Part 3 of Darkness
Mr. Kurtz––man, myth, total beast. Part III of the story seems to focus exclusively on him. However, we learn about him through the eyes of his peers. The reviews seem to be mixed.
On the one hand, Kurtz has a number of positive attributes. He clearly commands the respect and admiration of those whom have spent time with him. For example, the Russian defends Mr. Kurtz for wanting to shoot him; he says, "You can't judge Mr. Kurtz as you would an ordinary man." Then, Marlow is told that: "You don't know how such a life tries a man like Kurtz." At this point, Marlow says, "I suppose it did not occur to him that Mr. Kurtz was no idol of mine." However, this attitude changes. Marlow later says, "I affirm that Kurtz was a remarkable man." For instance, we learn that "Kurtz had been essentially a great musician." Furthermore, even the natives hold a vigil for him.
On the other hand, Kurtz has a variety of idiosyncrasies. The Russian describes one such situation: "I don't mind telling you, he wanted to shoot me too one day––but I don't judge him for that." We learn this was all over a small amount of ivory. He is also described as "contemptibly childish" because of his desire to meet kings at railway stations. Also, he has allegedly hurt the company. The Manager bluntly says, "He is very low, very low... Mr Kurtz has done more harm than good to the company." Shortly thereafter, we learn that "Kurtz had ordered the attack to be made on the steamer."Yet Mr. Kurtz is supposed to be the future of the company.
How much of the Manager's complaints do you buy? What is your opinion of Kurtz? Is he more crazy than he's worth?
On the one hand, Kurtz has a number of positive attributes. He clearly commands the respect and admiration of those whom have spent time with him. For example, the Russian defends Mr. Kurtz for wanting to shoot him; he says, "You can't judge Mr. Kurtz as you would an ordinary man." Then, Marlow is told that: "You don't know how such a life tries a man like Kurtz." At this point, Marlow says, "I suppose it did not occur to him that Mr. Kurtz was no idol of mine." However, this attitude changes. Marlow later says, "I affirm that Kurtz was a remarkable man." For instance, we learn that "Kurtz had been essentially a great musician." Furthermore, even the natives hold a vigil for him.
On the other hand, Kurtz has a variety of idiosyncrasies. The Russian describes one such situation: "I don't mind telling you, he wanted to shoot me too one day––but I don't judge him for that." We learn this was all over a small amount of ivory. He is also described as "contemptibly childish" because of his desire to meet kings at railway stations. Also, he has allegedly hurt the company. The Manager bluntly says, "He is very low, very low... Mr Kurtz has done more harm than good to the company." Shortly thereafter, we learn that "Kurtz had ordered the attack to be made on the steamer."Yet Mr. Kurtz is supposed to be the future of the company.
How much of the Manager's complaints do you buy? What is your opinion of Kurtz? Is he more crazy than he's worth?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Sound and Innocence
Faulkner and the Theme of Innocence Author(s): Lawrence E. Bowling Source: The Kenyon Review, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Summer, 1958), pp. 466-487 Published by: Kenyon College Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4333892
The first thought provoking quote from my article:
" As Benjy, narrator of the first section, personifies the human- ist view of innocence as "want of knowledge and intellect," so Quentin, narrator of the second section, personifies the puritan view of innocence as "moral purity." From the earliest to the latest of his recorded experiences, Quentin is obsessed with the idea that the perfect state which one should strive to preserve or achieve is absolute purity."
It doesn’t take much persuasion to convince someone that Benjy represents innocence; however, it is slightly harder to prove this for Quentin. However, Mr. Bowling does a great job of that in his subsequent discussion of Quentin’s character. First, he cites Quentin’s obsession with cleanliness. This reasoning makes sense when the reader remembers how often Quentin tries to keep things clean. He gets angry when Caddy may get her clothes dirty in the water when they were young, Herbert leaves his cigar on the mantel, or when he gets angry after a fight because there’s blood on his clothes. Also, Quentin is obsessed with cleanliness and order before he commits suicide. Next, there’s not much explanation needed about why Quentin detests Caddy’s promiscuity. He believes that losing one’s virginity is a stain on his purity. I guess I never thought of Quentin's idiosyncrasies as being an attempt at purity––I became convinced. According to the author, Quentin dislikes girls because he believes them to be impure, frequently associating them with “shadows.” Then, the author gets to a similar point that was made by one of the members of the class: “Although Quentin's obsession with innocence does not lead him exactly to idiocy, the result is essentially the same.”
However, other portions of the article were less agreeable:
"The third section of the book is presented from the point of view of Jason, who is at the same time both guilty and innocent. He is guilty in the sense that he wilfully commits innumerable actions which he knows to be immoral and vicious; but he is innocent in the sense that he remains ignorant of basic human principles...Unless moral knowledge is achieved, the "child" does not "know," and in- nocence has not truly been lost. Jason suffers great travail. But out of his suffering comes no important discovery, no truth. Like Benjy, Jason "blunders on" in his own "cluttered obscurity." As a result of all his actions, Jason acquires nothing worth acquiring, learns nothing worth knowing"
I think the author here is trying to make a "square peg fit into a round hole." The problem with articles like this, in my opinion, is trying to take the metaphor, analogy, or example to far. I do not see how Jason would fit under any standard definition of "innocent." I believe he's smart enough to realize when he's being downright cruel. For instance, he knows how badly Luster wants to go the play, yet he still is able to burn the tickets right in front of his face. The author tries to cover himself through the analysis that coming upon truth is key to innocence of basic human principles. There is no reason why Jason would not know what he is doing is downright despicable; he does know this but does it regardless.
However, later in the article I find more to cheer about:
"In Faulkner's writings, the center of the family circle (and the source of its love) is the mother. What is wrong with the Compson family is that it has no center, no mother, no love. Consequently, the family falls apart before achieving integration. As soon as Mrs. Compson has performed the animal function of giving birth to a child, she sees that it is kept out of her sight and outside the house as much as possible."
During our class discussions, the topic of Mother has been broached on a few occasions. However, I do not remember Mother as being directly blamed for the demise of the entire family. It does seem to fit that the lack of any love or affection from mother may have been the cause. Rather than just not being a positive influence, Mother is an entirely negative influence with her spiteful manner and nature. Also, from this quote, the author tells of how disengaged Mother truly is. Another important factor in the story of this dysfunctional family.
The first thought provoking quote from my article:
" As Benjy, narrator of the first section, personifies the human- ist view of innocence as "want of knowledge and intellect," so Quentin, narrator of the second section, personifies the puritan view of innocence as "moral purity." From the earliest to the latest of his recorded experiences, Quentin is obsessed with the idea that the perfect state which one should strive to preserve or achieve is absolute purity."
It doesn’t take much persuasion to convince someone that Benjy represents innocence; however, it is slightly harder to prove this for Quentin. However, Mr. Bowling does a great job of that in his subsequent discussion of Quentin’s character. First, he cites Quentin’s obsession with cleanliness. This reasoning makes sense when the reader remembers how often Quentin tries to keep things clean. He gets angry when Caddy may get her clothes dirty in the water when they were young, Herbert leaves his cigar on the mantel, or when he gets angry after a fight because there’s blood on his clothes. Also, Quentin is obsessed with cleanliness and order before he commits suicide. Next, there’s not much explanation needed about why Quentin detests Caddy’s promiscuity. He believes that losing one’s virginity is a stain on his purity. I guess I never thought of Quentin's idiosyncrasies as being an attempt at purity––I became convinced. According to the author, Quentin dislikes girls because he believes them to be impure, frequently associating them with “shadows.” Then, the author gets to a similar point that was made by one of the members of the class: “Although Quentin's obsession with innocence does not lead him exactly to idiocy, the result is essentially the same.”
However, other portions of the article were less agreeable:
"The third section of the book is presented from the point of view of Jason, who is at the same time both guilty and innocent. He is guilty in the sense that he wilfully commits innumerable actions which he knows to be immoral and vicious; but he is innocent in the sense that he remains ignorant of basic human principles...Unless moral knowledge is achieved, the "child" does not "know," and in- nocence has not truly been lost. Jason suffers great travail. But out of his suffering comes no important discovery, no truth. Like Benjy, Jason "blunders on" in his own "cluttered obscurity." As a result of all his actions, Jason acquires nothing worth acquiring, learns nothing worth knowing"
I think the author here is trying to make a "square peg fit into a round hole." The problem with articles like this, in my opinion, is trying to take the metaphor, analogy, or example to far. I do not see how Jason would fit under any standard definition of "innocent." I believe he's smart enough to realize when he's being downright cruel. For instance, he knows how badly Luster wants to go the play, yet he still is able to burn the tickets right in front of his face. The author tries to cover himself through the analysis that coming upon truth is key to innocence of basic human principles. There is no reason why Jason would not know what he is doing is downright despicable; he does know this but does it regardless.
However, later in the article I find more to cheer about:
"In Faulkner's writings, the center of the family circle (and the source of its love) is the mother. What is wrong with the Compson family is that it has no center, no mother, no love. Consequently, the family falls apart before achieving integration. As soon as Mrs. Compson has performed the animal function of giving birth to a child, she sees that it is kept out of her sight and outside the house as much as possible."
During our class discussions, the topic of Mother has been broached on a few occasions. However, I do not remember Mother as being directly blamed for the demise of the entire family. It does seem to fit that the lack of any love or affection from mother may have been the cause. Rather than just not being a positive influence, Mother is an entirely negative influence with her spiteful manner and nature. Also, from this quote, the author tells of how disengaged Mother truly is. Another important factor in the story of this dysfunctional family.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Getting A-head: With Herbert
Herbert Head is probably one of the least developed characters in the novel. We are introduced to him in the second chapter, but Quentin's mind repeatedly wanders to memories of Mr. Head. At first, he is portrayed as a decent guy; we are told that he offers a job to Jason in his bank and gives Caddy a car. Then, Herbert and Quentin argue at Caddy's wedding. Finally, Quentin reveals to us that Herbert cheated at Harvard on both exams and cards. What is your view of Herbert? What do you think his role was in Quentin's suicide? Are Quentin's descriptions of him biased fabrications or genuine truths?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
