Ok, so the major theme that Ha Jin CLEARLY addresses is the censorship of the Communist Party, and with his newfound freedom of speech *care of the marvelous USofA*, Jin happily writes his innermost thoughts and feelings concerning this issue. I mean, DUH! If Jin tried to write even one of these short stories in his homeland, he might have been another artist, student, teacher, voice sacrificed, not unlike his fellow Chinese that died in Tiananmen Square. (Or should I say, like those who never were killed at the place by the thing that also never existed and the whole thing never happened I mean WHAT? THOU SHALT THINK AS WE TELL YOU TO THINK! ARG!) Ok, I don't think the Chinese are supposed to have Bible/pirate voices. . .
Similarly, Conrad might never have recieved the fame and success of HoD had it been published in Poland because, well lets face it, since when have any of us ever been required to take a Polish Literature class? No offense to Poland, I'm probably just ignorant when it comes to world literature, but the fact remains that other countries stay on the top of the heap here. And where would postco lit be without the racist/non-racist writings of Conrad? Well, I know at least one African writer who would have been pretty bored. . .
So, one of the biggest Communist moments (to me) that Ha Jin discusses takes place in the story "Alive," during the arranged marriage weddings (29-31). No one seems to freakin' care that they have to marry complete strangers!!! We've all heard stories about arranged marraiges before-- NOT FUN!! "However, the wedding wasn't jolly and noisy, as weddings should be. Most of the brides looked rather somber; a few grooms stoof motionless, their arms crossed before their chests, as though they were spectators" (31). Well, yeah, I'd imagine that after losing the real love of my life I might be a little disapointed at being forced to marry a post-earthquake victim who may or may not be a mass murderer or have substantial facial scarring from the horrible event. I don't mean to sound superficial, because it would be different had they already been in love before the accident and loved them despite these characteristics, because as I said in class, LOVE CONQUERS ALL! However, this is not the case! No one questions, protests, nothing! Gross!
Ha Jin makes another huge statement with the story Saboteur. This story is actually most like the Tiananmen Square incident- the police abuse their power wholeheartedly, the people didn't do anything other than stand up for themselves with whatever was left of their voice, and they were forgotten almost as soon as they were disposed of. WEIRD, how these two events might mirror eachother a little bit. Don't know how that happened. . .
Basically, China sucks. The end.
Oh yeah! If you want to go to Avalanche, me and Amy are putting a group together for Tuesday after class. Please come to get your picture and extra credit! We want a semi big group so it's not so expensive!! :)
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Bourne with an Indentity?
Ok, so Ralph hasn't exactly woken up on a foreign ship in the middle of a storm with a common case of amnesia, however he does find himself in the dilemma of not knowing who the heck he his, and considers himself and even his life a shipwreck.
Ralph has a lot of issues, but whether they stem from his childhood or simply from his diverse residencies is unclear. He definitely cares about what other people think-actually, it's almost his entire reason for being. He attests that his "present urge is, in the inaction imposed on [him], to secure the final emptiness" (13). He is constantly trying to create himself, create a new facade to display. He says of the persona Leini invented for him, " I must confess I was pleased then that the character Lieni created had in its own small way become a legend" (26). While he himself often evolved the character that people saw, he was pleased that even the character someone else made for him was just as satisfactory. He says even earlier, "I tried to give myself a new personality. It was something I had tried more than once before, and waited for the response in the eyes of others. But now I no longer knew what I was" (32).
That is what his eventual and continual struggle is. He doesn't know who or what he is. All he knows and remembers is everything and everyone that/who influenced these creations. He was laughed at by his peers in school, he remained withdrawn, and even his name became such a source of embarrassment that he altered it to sound less distinct. He isn't the type of person to attempt to make a mark on the world- he simply wants to observe and copy the accepted mannerisms of worthwhile individuals, becoming one of the "Mimic Men."
He is without a home, without a purpose, without a place in this world. As Stephanie said, he "derives [his] self worth from other people's responses [to his 'character']."How scary and how sad is that. This guy needs to get in touch with Dr. Phil, and fast.
Ralph has a lot of issues, but whether they stem from his childhood or simply from his diverse residencies is unclear. He definitely cares about what other people think-actually, it's almost his entire reason for being. He attests that his "present urge is, in the inaction imposed on [him], to secure the final emptiness" (13). He is constantly trying to create himself, create a new facade to display. He says of the persona Leini invented for him, " I must confess I was pleased then that the character Lieni created had in its own small way become a legend" (26). While he himself often evolved the character that people saw, he was pleased that even the character someone else made for him was just as satisfactory. He says even earlier, "I tried to give myself a new personality. It was something I had tried more than once before, and waited for the response in the eyes of others. But now I no longer knew what I was" (32).
That is what his eventual and continual struggle is. He doesn't know who or what he is. All he knows and remembers is everything and everyone that/who influenced these creations. He was laughed at by his peers in school, he remained withdrawn, and even his name became such a source of embarrassment that he altered it to sound less distinct. He isn't the type of person to attempt to make a mark on the world- he simply wants to observe and copy the accepted mannerisms of worthwhile individuals, becoming one of the "Mimic Men."
He is without a home, without a purpose, without a place in this world. As Stephanie said, he "derives [his] self worth from other people's responses [to his 'character']."How scary and how sad is that. This guy needs to get in touch with Dr. Phil, and fast.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
The Name Game
I'm going to preface this post with the statement: "I hope I am writing about what I am supposed to be writing about."In Spivak's essay, a teenie-weenie bit of emphasis was put on Antoinette's name change (Raiskin 242). I'm rolling with it.
"'Don't laugh like that, Bertha.'My name is not Bertha; why do you call me Bertha?' 'Because it is a name I am particularly fond of. I think of you as Bertha.'" (Rainskin 81). Okay, so here we are, newly married couple, neither of them hardly know each other, why the heck is Rochester calling Antoinette, the girl we know and love, "Bertha?" For one, the name sounds like it belongs to a cow, or at least a very large animal. Secondly, it makes me wonder if he had ever made love to a woman named Bertha previous to his marriage to Antoinette, and if he had then he indeed had slipped up somehow and called her by that strange woman's name by mistake while they wrestled between the sheets and he just lied and said he merely liked the name Bertha. (*breathing*) I mean has that ever happened to any of you no not me never. . . .
But seriously. Even Spivak says it, "Rhys suggests that so intimate a thing as personal and human identity might be determined by the politics of imperialism. Antoinette, as a white Creole child growing up at the same time of emancipation in Jamaica, is caught between the English imperialist and the black native" (Rainskin 242). Well, yeah. What he is basically saying is that he doesn't want her as she is- he wants her as he imagines she should be.Antoinette, forget where you came from, forget those who tainted your past with their black fingerprints. You are English, I hereby Christian you, "Bertha." (*Cough-cow-cough*).
Later in this same scene, Rochester actually croons, "'Of course, on this of all nights, you must be Bertha.'" and she gives in and replies, "'As you wish'" (Rainskin 82). Okay, enough already with the sick role play. Really, you keep writing this crap and kids across the country will be calling each other Bertha just to get all hot and heavy. Gross.
This is the exact same thing we talked about with Things Fall Apart, only now it's in a different country and it's happening to one woman rather than an entire race of people. Identity crisis. It sucks. To all young, impressionable lovers out there, do not let your partner render you powerless in this situation- remember your name.
"'Don't laugh like that, Bertha.'My name is not Bertha; why do you call me Bertha?' 'Because it is a name I am particularly fond of. I think of you as Bertha.'" (Rainskin 81). Okay, so here we are, newly married couple, neither of them hardly know each other, why the heck is Rochester calling Antoinette, the girl we know and love, "Bertha?" For one, the name sounds like it belongs to a cow, or at least a very large animal. Secondly, it makes me wonder if he had ever made love to a woman named Bertha previous to his marriage to Antoinette, and if he had then he indeed had slipped up somehow and called her by that strange woman's name by mistake while they wrestled between the sheets and he just lied and said he merely liked the name Bertha. (*breathing*) I mean has that ever happened to any of you no not me never. . . .
But seriously. Even Spivak says it, "Rhys suggests that so intimate a thing as personal and human identity might be determined by the politics of imperialism. Antoinette, as a white Creole child growing up at the same time of emancipation in Jamaica, is caught between the English imperialist and the black native" (Rainskin 242). Well, yeah. What he is basically saying is that he doesn't want her as she is- he wants her as he imagines she should be.Antoinette, forget where you came from, forget those who tainted your past with their black fingerprints. You are English, I hereby Christian you, "Bertha." (*Cough-cow-cough*).
Later in this same scene, Rochester actually croons, "'Of course, on this of all nights, you must be Bertha.'" and she gives in and replies, "'As you wish'" (Rainskin 82). Okay, enough already with the sick role play. Really, you keep writing this crap and kids across the country will be calling each other Bertha just to get all hot and heavy. Gross.
This is the exact same thing we talked about with Things Fall Apart, only now it's in a different country and it's happening to one woman rather than an entire race of people. Identity crisis. It sucks. To all young, impressionable lovers out there, do not let your partner render you powerless in this situation- remember your name.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Ta-Ta-Ta-Tia!
Ok, so I didn't really want to simply repeat the discussion we had in class today, which is kind of difficult since we covered pretty much everything that was important. However, while I was reading there was a character that stuck out who wasn't ever really explained- Tia. Tia is the daughter of Maillotte, Christophine's friend (Rhys 13). She is black. The reason I found her particularly intriguing is because the relationship that Antoinette and Tia share is so simplistic and a good representation of similar relationships that existed in America between blacks and whites.
After Tia and Antoinette became friends, they met together "nearly every morning" (Rhys 13). They played together and got along as well as any children do, but the turning point is when there is an argument over the bet of the pennies (Rhys 14). Antoinette says, "Keep them you cheating nigger. . . . I can get more if I want to," and the response from Tia is: " That's not what [I] hear.. . [I] hear all [you] poor like beggar." After that, Tia steals Antoinette's clean and freshly pressed dress, and Antoinette walks home hating Tia.
The separation and finalization of whatever friendship they had was displayed and pg. 27, after Antoinette's house had been set on fire. "Then, not so far off I saw Tia and her mother and I ran to her, for she was all that was left of my life as it had been. We had eaten the same food, slept side by side, bathed in the same river. As I ran, I thought, I will live with Tia and I will be like her. Not to leave Coulibri. Not to go. Not. When I was close I saw the jagged stone in her hand but I did not see her throw it. I did not feel it either, only something wet, running down my face. I looked at her and I saw her face crumple up as she began to cry. We stared at each other, blood on my face, tears on hers. It was as if I saw myself. Like in a looking glass."
This just reminded me that young children are often blinded from the same prejudices that thrives in the world of adults- that is, until one day when they come to the realization that it is a part of their culture, and they refuse to see the need for change.
Anyways, I thought this relationship was so simplified in this matter, I thought it needed to be expanded upon further than what had been said in class.
After Tia and Antoinette became friends, they met together "nearly every morning" (Rhys 13). They played together and got along as well as any children do, but the turning point is when there is an argument over the bet of the pennies (Rhys 14). Antoinette says, "Keep them you cheating nigger. . . . I can get more if I want to," and the response from Tia is: " That's not what [I] hear.. . [I] hear all [you] poor like beggar." After that, Tia steals Antoinette's clean and freshly pressed dress, and Antoinette walks home hating Tia.
The separation and finalization of whatever friendship they had was displayed and pg. 27, after Antoinette's house had been set on fire. "Then, not so far off I saw Tia and her mother and I ran to her, for she was all that was left of my life as it had been. We had eaten the same food, slept side by side, bathed in the same river. As I ran, I thought, I will live with Tia and I will be like her. Not to leave Coulibri. Not to go. Not. When I was close I saw the jagged stone in her hand but I did not see her throw it. I did not feel it either, only something wet, running down my face. I looked at her and I saw her face crumple up as she began to cry. We stared at each other, blood on my face, tears on hers. It was as if I saw myself. Like in a looking glass."
This just reminded me that young children are often blinded from the same prejudices that thrives in the world of adults- that is, until one day when they come to the realization that it is a part of their culture, and they refuse to see the need for change.
Anyways, I thought this relationship was so simplified in this matter, I thought it needed to be expanded upon further than what had been said in class.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Ashy Buttocks? That's the Best You Can Come up With?
Ah, the double edged sword of getting to choose what to write about and having to choose something to write about. Today, after our invigorating discussion in class, I have decided to blog about how the missionaries were allowed into the village of Umuofia, and how their arrival affected the tribe.
Well, first of all, I think we pretty much established that there is a distinct reason that the missionaries had common English names (Reverend James Smith and Brown). The actual characters don't matter as much what they represent, which is a collective whole of missionaries. But their characters do serve a purpose, which is to remind the reader of the different approaches to "colonizing" the far reaches of Africa. Brown had a compromising and accommodating way of interacting with the villagers (Achebe 104), and even tried to warn them that if they didn't educate themselves in the way of the Christians now, then it would be forced upon them later on by a stronger power (Achebe 102-3). Smith was the polar opposite, and it seems that his ways are more closely represented by his government rather than his God.
The arrival of the Christian missionaries brought strife and brokenness to the tribe, hence the theme of "Things Fall Apart." The tribe was divided: those who weren't accepted by the "normal" villagers were welcomed with open arms by the "Other," (Achebe 87,90) and even some of those who had grown up conventionally within the tribe chose to convert (Achebe 87-89). This is a huge truth that Okonkwo struggles with throughout his exile and eventual return to his tribe. He feels that the people are weak and cowardly, unwilling to fight for their dying culture. This conflict indeed ends up being the very turmoil that leads him to take his own life, resulting in the consequence of not being able to be buried by his fellow tribesmen in the respectful fashion that is normally due- the same fate he now shares with his father (Achebe 117).
The role of the Christian missionaries is the very theme which we must recognize- that outside influences can and will strip down and destroy cultures if we are not wary and interested in preserving certain valuable aspects of a people. If we do choose to help the advancement of others in need, we must respect the core values that are already set in place.
Well, first of all, I think we pretty much established that there is a distinct reason that the missionaries had common English names (Reverend James Smith and Brown). The actual characters don't matter as much what they represent, which is a collective whole of missionaries. But their characters do serve a purpose, which is to remind the reader of the different approaches to "colonizing" the far reaches of Africa. Brown had a compromising and accommodating way of interacting with the villagers (Achebe 104), and even tried to warn them that if they didn't educate themselves in the way of the Christians now, then it would be forced upon them later on by a stronger power (Achebe 102-3). Smith was the polar opposite, and it seems that his ways are more closely represented by his government rather than his God.
The arrival of the Christian missionaries brought strife and brokenness to the tribe, hence the theme of "Things Fall Apart." The tribe was divided: those who weren't accepted by the "normal" villagers were welcomed with open arms by the "Other," (Achebe 87,90) and even some of those who had grown up conventionally within the tribe chose to convert (Achebe 87-89). This is a huge truth that Okonkwo struggles with throughout his exile and eventual return to his tribe. He feels that the people are weak and cowardly, unwilling to fight for their dying culture. This conflict indeed ends up being the very turmoil that leads him to take his own life, resulting in the consequence of not being able to be buried by his fellow tribesmen in the respectful fashion that is normally due- the same fate he now shares with his father (Achebe 117).
The role of the Christian missionaries is the very theme which we must recognize- that outside influences can and will strip down and destroy cultures if we are not wary and interested in preserving certain valuable aspects of a people. If we do choose to help the advancement of others in need, we must respect the core values that are already set in place.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
To Read or Not to Read? Should it Even be a Question?
We have been posed one of the most frequently asked questions in the literary world: should we, or should we not read Heart of Darkness? Well, normally I wouldn’t have an opinion, because, as Miller says in his essay, “it is impossible to decide authoritatively whether or not we should read ‘Heart of Darkness’” (463). Cool. So when you read that, you realize it’s ok to be neutral, and that the world really is rainbow chip frosting and friendly pandas.
But wait! Miller says in the end that we should read Heart of Darkness! He even says that we have “an obligation to do so” (474). So, I don’t know if you just happen to be like me and hate it when people tell you what to do, but I for sure fit into that category 100%. But it’s all for naught, I change my mind in the end because----- I think Miller is onto something here. (This is my way of still making the choice to read instead of following orders.)
I think that all students of literature do have an obligation, in a way, to read Heart of Darkness. Not only is it obvious that a lot of other really smart and well educated individuals have read it and wrote about it, but there is a TON of value in reading a semi-autobiographical work. Why is this, you may ask? Because you get to learn the “firsthand” experience of someone on the cusp of the 20th century who went to a then unknown region of the expansive globe and was surrounded by inhabitants who were of mysterious origin and “uncivilized” culture and way of life, that’s why. This information is valuable not only to the people of the time it was written, but especially to us of the modern generations because we need to understand the views of the past in order to change the future.
If we had never evolved into a society that finally recognized black people as equal, who knows what the disturbed writings of Conrad would have become over time- maybe nothing. One of the huge reasons Conrad’s work is so famous is because of its controversy. If people hadn’t heard that Conrad were calling negroes savages, creatures, inhumans, shadows, cannibals, etc., then they wouldn’t have been angry or disgusted enough to make a stand and argue against him. If we hadn’t heard of his experiences of regarding the slaves as “less valuable animals,”(33) or traveled through the Congo to Kurtz’s house to find a bunch of negro heads on sticks (58), no one might have ever been enraged to the point of standing in front of a court house to fight in the defense of those oppressed by racial segregation.
It is because of this greater good that I believe we should all read Heart of Darkness. Especially if it’s on the required list of material for one of your classes.
But wait! Miller says in the end that we should read Heart of Darkness! He even says that we have “an obligation to do so” (474). So, I don’t know if you just happen to be like me and hate it when people tell you what to do, but I for sure fit into that category 100%. But it’s all for naught, I change my mind in the end because----- I think Miller is onto something here. (This is my way of still making the choice to read instead of following orders.)
I think that all students of literature do have an obligation, in a way, to read Heart of Darkness. Not only is it obvious that a lot of other really smart and well educated individuals have read it and wrote about it, but there is a TON of value in reading a semi-autobiographical work. Why is this, you may ask? Because you get to learn the “firsthand” experience of someone on the cusp of the 20th century who went to a then unknown region of the expansive globe and was surrounded by inhabitants who were of mysterious origin and “uncivilized” culture and way of life, that’s why. This information is valuable not only to the people of the time it was written, but especially to us of the modern generations because we need to understand the views of the past in order to change the future.
If we had never evolved into a society that finally recognized black people as equal, who knows what the disturbed writings of Conrad would have become over time- maybe nothing. One of the huge reasons Conrad’s work is so famous is because of its controversy. If people hadn’t heard that Conrad were calling negroes savages, creatures, inhumans, shadows, cannibals, etc., then they wouldn’t have been angry or disgusted enough to make a stand and argue against him. If we hadn’t heard of his experiences of regarding the slaves as “less valuable animals,”(33) or traveled through the Congo to Kurtz’s house to find a bunch of negro heads on sticks (58), no one might have ever been enraged to the point of standing in front of a court house to fight in the defense of those oppressed by racial segregation.
It is because of this greater good that I believe we should all read Heart of Darkness. Especially if it’s on the required list of material for one of your classes.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Heart of Darkness+ Benjamin Kidd= A Yummy Heather Commentary Sandwhich
Ok, so I read the Benjamin Kidd piece entitled "Social Progress and the Rivalry of the Races," and basically all Benny was trying to say is that rivalry is a natural part of any species existence, and that is always has and always will be. I think the point in him even saying this at all is so that all of those hippies who protest against war and potheads who believe in free love would at least be informed that the strong were always going to pick on the weak, and there was nothing, not any treaty or cross-cultural marriage, will ever change that. As hard as people try, they are inherently competitive and will remain so until the end of time.
I think that after making such a bold statement about human tendencies and way of life Kidd was a little afraid of the repercussions of saying that all humans are animals, waiting for their next time to feed and become even stronger. So then he threw in the idea that conflict is the first condition of progress (230). Whoa. That brings a whole new perspective to the world's way of thinking. He's saying that there is a purpose to the fighting and conquering and dividing and exterminating. It is simply a means to an end- a road that must be followed on the everlasting journey to societal progression. One must fight in order to make the world a better place. . . . ?
So how does this all relate to the long-winded tale of pirates and slaves that is "Heart of Darkness?" Well, pretty much the entire work was published so that Joseph Conrad might enlighten the people of the new 20th century of all the good that the white people were doing down in Africa, that they were making excellent progress to humanizing the unhumans, and that they were getting very rich in the name of their homeland. Sound fun, however this is that part of progress that isn't actually gummy bears and Saturday morning cartoons. This book was all about the fighting and the blood of many barbarian cannibals, where the lollipops turned out to be heads on sticks. If all of their journey was meant to bring about progress, I suppose that progress is what it could be called-- but for who? Not the bloodthirsty savages that cried out from their fair or unfair chastising and whooping from their triumphant rebellious kills when they attacked the steamer. No no, their story did not end well at all.
In the text "Heart of darkness," Marlow clearly explains to his listeners that "The conquest of the earth, which mostly means taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look at it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea that at the back of it, not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea- something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to. . . ." (pg. 7). An unselfish belief in the idea. To conquer a piece of the world that wasn't yours, but in the interest of progress, must become so.
Kidd made an extremely interesting point when he stated "Rivalry too, not chiefly conducted between different species but between members of the same species" was an obvious but true statement, but the question that millions streched across the destroyed and bloody earth have asked: why?
Why must humans continue to destroy one another? Why do certain nationalities feel superiority simply because they haven't plawed the same earth and worshipped the same diety? Is it truly for the aim of progress? And if so, is this type of progression that human beings should feel proud of in the end? I do not believe that going to an unknown place and calling other members of our same species "savages, creatures, inhumans, shadows, cannibals, and excuse me, 'niggers,' " will ever be considered a true sign of globalized progress.
I think that after making such a bold statement about human tendencies and way of life Kidd was a little afraid of the repercussions of saying that all humans are animals, waiting for their next time to feed and become even stronger. So then he threw in the idea that conflict is the first condition of progress (230). Whoa. That brings a whole new perspective to the world's way of thinking. He's saying that there is a purpose to the fighting and conquering and dividing and exterminating. It is simply a means to an end- a road that must be followed on the everlasting journey to societal progression. One must fight in order to make the world a better place. . . . ?
So how does this all relate to the long-winded tale of pirates and slaves that is "Heart of Darkness?" Well, pretty much the entire work was published so that Joseph Conrad might enlighten the people of the new 20th century of all the good that the white people were doing down in Africa, that they were making excellent progress to humanizing the unhumans, and that they were getting very rich in the name of their homeland. Sound fun, however this is that part of progress that isn't actually gummy bears and Saturday morning cartoons. This book was all about the fighting and the blood of many barbarian cannibals, where the lollipops turned out to be heads on sticks. If all of their journey was meant to bring about progress, I suppose that progress is what it could be called-- but for who? Not the bloodthirsty savages that cried out from their fair or unfair chastising and whooping from their triumphant rebellious kills when they attacked the steamer. No no, their story did not end well at all.
In the text "Heart of darkness," Marlow clearly explains to his listeners that "The conquest of the earth, which mostly means taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look at it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea that at the back of it, not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea- something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to. . . ." (pg. 7). An unselfish belief in the idea. To conquer a piece of the world that wasn't yours, but in the interest of progress, must become so.
Kidd made an extremely interesting point when he stated "Rivalry too, not chiefly conducted between different species but between members of the same species" was an obvious but true statement, but the question that millions streched across the destroyed and bloody earth have asked: why?
Why must humans continue to destroy one another? Why do certain nationalities feel superiority simply because they haven't plawed the same earth and worshipped the same diety? Is it truly for the aim of progress? And if so, is this type of progression that human beings should feel proud of in the end? I do not believe that going to an unknown place and calling other members of our same species "savages, creatures, inhumans, shadows, cannibals, and excuse me, 'niggers,' " will ever be considered a true sign of globalized progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)