The Road

During class today we touched on the topic of the true humanity of the father. I think that this idea could be explored further because many people seemed to have a lot of thought and opinion on the subject. I personally feel that the father did what he felt necessary to save his son, and yes, somethings were not good, but he was not behaving as many of the others. We can analyze what the father did but none of us could really say because we haven't come close to experiencing what they go through in the novel. He would have killed himself if it wouldn't have been for his son. If he hadn't made some of this choices he did, his son might not have survived.

Also, as we said in class, religion played a huge role throughout the novel, and can be interpreted in so many ways because McCarthy left the theme very ambiguous. I did get the sense that the boy represented God or holiness because he seems like the main ray of goodness and hope throughout the novel. He always wanted to help those that they came across even though they could not be helped. The father told the boy that they couldn't help, but it wasn't a selfish decision because they wouldn't be able to live if they gave their resources to others. Also, ironically, the father sacrificed himself for his son. Their relationship and religion are intertwined throughout the entire novel and are important themes throughout.

The Road

The Road was by far my favorite novel we read all year.  I fell in love with Cormac McCarthy's style of writing.  Although the majority of the book was quite depressing,  I still quite enjoyed reading it.  One of the main questions that I thought about while reading(this also became the topic for my paper) is the idea of keeping compassion in times of suffering.  There is evidence for both keeping and losing this compassion in the book.  The father and the son are juxtaposed in this respect.  The father survives entirely by instinct and in some cases ruthlessness, but I would not say he is bereft of joy.  He still finds happiness in his beloved son.  His acute awareness of what they must do to survive could stem from his imminent condition of death that he tried to keep from his son, or his desire to see his son safe before he passes away.  The son is not as aware of these troubles, so perhaps he can more afford to be lenient and merciful.  He has never even known a better world than this, so it may come as a surprise that he can still attempt to save others when in his world people are always the enemy.  Both ways of dealing with their circumstance can be defended because boht are necessary.  Without the compassion that the boy still has, life ceases to be worth living, but without the father's necessary cruelty in some cases there would be no living.  Their struggle for survival is the main plot point of the book.  

Another interesting aspect of the book was the interaction between the father and his son.  The father seems to want to hide many of the cruelties of the world from his young son, but his ability to do this slowly declines throughout the book as his belief in their eventual triumph fades and his illness worsens.  He stops providing as much encouragement and faces him with the bare truth that, yes, the men are coming to kill them and sometimes they must kill or be killed.  

The father feels as if he must show the boy the horrors of the world in order for him to survive, and this is not altogether a false conception.  

The Long and Winding Road G/A G/A

So, just to start out with, I don't know if any of you are Beatles fan but the title of this post is taken from their song and the G/As that follow is what is immediately played after those lyrics, so yeah, just making sure everyone knew what I was doing with that.

It has been a very long time that I have read a book that I could not put down. Most books I have read since about mid high school have been required for class and many of them, if not all of them, felt like chores rather than something I would enjoy doing. I went all day without eating when I was reading this book for two reasons: I couldn't force myself to stop reading, it was just too perfect of an experience and I was so caught up in the father and son's plight that I felt it was only right to join them in their starvation.

Anyway, I could honestly go on hours and hours about exactly how much I loved this novel but I do not feel like that is the point of these posts. So to get down to it.

To begin with, the way that McCarthy paints the picture of the post apocalyptic world made the novel the most believable post apocalyptic story I have ever read or seen. So how is it exactly that he is able to pull this off so well. From what I can tell, it has to do with two key writing elements. The first obviously being just his ability to describe everything so eloquently and poetically. His language is remarkable, beautiful, and I dont think that anyone could really contest that. Anyway, the other thing that he does that is so blatant, is that he tells you only what the main characters know and sometimes not even that much. He gives none of the characters names. He doesnt tell how the world got to be in the state that it is in, though he alludes to it when the man is remembering the day that it all happened as well as in the end when the bearded man with the shotgun was described as a veteran. Overall though, you are given no knowledge of anything, except what the boy and the man run across on their journey. The main point of the journey is not even revealed. The man keeps on talking about the boy carrying the fire, and the man seems to think that the child is heaven sent as a prophet or something of this manner. McCarthy never tells you though. WHERE they are is never revealed. It could be argued that they are in America and are traveling down the Eastern Coast, but where on the Eastern Coast, and where is this South? Is it the American South or is the man talking more Mexico/Central America?

All of this ambiguity bugged me for the longest time. I kept reading hoping that something would be revealed. Eventually I realized that it wasnt going to happen and it drove me crazy. Why did McCarthy do this? In my personal opinion, after I thought back on it, this book is not about the end of the world, nor is it about the specifics of the journey of the two characters, nor is it about the race of man. This book is a story about the love between a father and his son. Nothing else in the world matter to those two characters so why should McCarthy spend anytime describing anything else? The environment, and their basic needs were the only things that were described in detail other than their general emotions. The environment and their basic needs played a huge roll in their lives so McCarthy called attention to this.

Brilliant.

This novel is a testimony to the human condition. I believe that McCarthy is saying with this novel that no matter what man is put through, no matter what he should endure, and no matter how much evil walks amongst him, there will always be some good, some hope. McCarthy paints a picture of the absolute worst environment imaginable. He paints a picture of a burnt and decaying world populated by cannibals and monsters that would just as soon rape and eat children. He tells a story of a world that has lost all that is good, and yet a child that is wholy good is born of this horror. A child that grows up never experiencing anything other than brutality and the basest of the human condition, can still see the light in the world. The sun is blocked by the ash of man's doing and the child can still see the light in the world. It is an amazing book.

The entire time I was expecting a No Country for Old Men ending throughout the entire length of the novel. When I finally got there I was relieved. McCarthy wrote the most beautiful ending to any book I have ever read. The fire that the boy was carrying was not extinguished, and his father's pilgrimage across the land was not in vain.

I really don't know what else to say right now. There are far too many things circulating around in my head to pin anything else down. I am very interested in what everybody else will have to say about this.

"Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery."

The Road - Questions to Get You Thinking

Wow, where to start with this book? This book was a lot like “Never Let Me Go” because I couldn’t turn the page fast enough to try and figure out what was going on. Like in “Never Let Me Go,” the more we read the more we find out, but in the end we are still deprived of the information that we want so badly. McCarthy spends so much time just describing the everyday activities of their lives (granted it is no the “everyday” things of our lives). Even though this book is a lot about the routine in their lives, there is some very powerful writing in it. One of my favorite example was the bottom paragraph on page 130 starting with the sentence “He walked out in the gray light…” I have a lot of things to talk about from this book but I want to propose some questions for you to think about while you read:
1) Is this a Christian parable? What connections can you draw? Obviously, this is a post-apocalyptic novel and the Bible has a whole book devoted to that. But past that, what do you see?
2) Is this a morality story? What morals do we learn? The boy seems to always want to help people but the father is more reluctant to do so. Is the father callous? Immoral? Selfish?

Now think about some of the motifs/trends in this book:
-The motif of dreams. Dreams are mentioned many, many times in this book, especially towards the end. What do each characters have to say about good dreams and about bad dreams?

-Tied closely to the theme of dreams, the father has a line where he says “What you can put in your head you can never take out.” To what extent does the father try to protect his son from seeing some of the atrocities and why does he do it? I think this applies to the reader as well. McCarthy is creating an image in our head that we will always remember

-The relationship between the father and the son – the boy seems to be growing apart from his father even though his father has only the best intentions in mind. After his father confronts the man who stole their cart on the beach, the father says to the son “You’re not the one who has to worry about everything” and the son replies defiantly “I am the one.” Do you think they grow apart because the son disapproves of his father’s interaction with other people, or do you think this is just part of the boy growing and maturing (we all went through a phase where we got annoyed by our parents)

What other comments did everyone have about the book? Did you like it? Were you frustrated by it? Go to this website and look at the screenshots from the movie coming out and I think you will really like it. It helps put a visual on some of the most memorable scenes

http://the-road--trailer.blogspot.com/

The Road

I enjoyed reading The Road, despite the depressing storyline. Normally I like happy endings, something which this class has a shortage of. One thing that stood out to me was how McCarthy matched diction and syntax to the tone of the book. Set after a worldwide catastrophe, maybe a nuclear fallout, the book maintains a bleak, almost apathetic view towards the end. McCarthy only gives one character in the book a name, referring to the main characters as “the man” and “the boy.” The only named character, a hobo that the man and the boy meet on the road, gives them a fake name because he “doesn’t want them to be able to use [his real name].” The sentences are concise and to the point, not using much figurative language, because the characters focus on the facts and staying alive. In syntax, McCarthy doesn’t use apostrophes in his contractions, which fits in with the book’s hopeless air. Why bother using apostrophes when it’s the end of the world?
I found the relationship between the man and the boy interesting. Both try and keep their humanity and morality in the face of a harsh world. The man is forced to be calculating and sometimes cruel to ensure his family's survival. The boy, in spite of the fact that he is used to an existence of cold and hunger, is idealistic and compassionate, always wanting to help others. Unlike the man, the boy reaches out to people they meet on their travels, and volunteers to do without to give others more of a chance to survive. He is upset by the man’s actions to protect his family, from shooting the cannibal to taking everything back from the thief on the beach, including his clothes.
I wondered what thoughts people had about the phrase “carrying the fire,” that the man and the boy use to describe themselves. I thought it symbolized carrying the torch of humanity, or maybe the morality that most of the human race has lost--hence the man's separation of the remaining population into "the good guys" and "the bad guys". I thought it was interesting that “the fire” is one of the few images with a color connotation in the novel. A lot of the description in the novel deals with gray and black ash, and the gray refugees and cannibals.

I was a little hesitant about this novel when we first started because I had never read a graphic novel before and I was not a comic book fan as a child. I was surprised that I actually enjoyed the layout of the book. It was entertaining to pair the dialogue with the pictures. That is definitely a major thing I have gotten out of this class; expanding my book genres. Although I was not as big of a fan with the content of the novel as the format, it was still an engaging read.

Alison's relationship with her father was definitely the main pillar of this novel to me. She seemed to have a love-hate relationship with him. For one thing he was the same as her in a way. They shared this bond of homosexuality, that however present it was in her mind, always seem to exist there. For example, they shared a love for men's clothing. It was quite entertaining to see Alison and her father picking out his outfits together. Alison's hatred for female clothing was apparent as well. Interestingly this is the one thing they really discuss when they have their conversation about Alison "coming out" in their car ride. Her father admitted to dressing in girls' clothes as a child and she exclaimed, "I wanted to be a boy! I dressed in boys' clothes!" This is a funny way for them to relate. Do you think this was because it was a concrete, tangible example that they both could bring up?

Alison's father's love for books was ever present in this story as well. He literally based his entire life around them. For some reason it made his character more likable I feel. Did anyone else feel this way? I mean in the real world if you heard about a man engaging in activities with underage boys it would be very difficult to find him at all a likable character. His disillusioned love for these fictional characters though gave his craziness a breeding place at least. It also gave Alison and her father another reason to bond. Even after Alison was annoyed with her father's interest in her English class in college, she later admitted to missing it. Also, it was Alison's father who gave her Colette to read. She later asked him if he did this on purpose, which he said he was not conscience of.

Another thing I just wanted to throw out there for opinion was Alison's relationship with her siblings. I found it so odd that she did not mention her siblings more. Most children are highly influenced by their brothers and sisters. They typically share a lot of memories with them and they form each other's character. Alison hardly mentioned them though. Do you think there was a reason for this? Were they just not important figures in her life?

Last I want to touch on the end of the story. The very last page ties back to Alison's relationship with her father. I think this last page illustrates what Alison's father meant to her. Yes, he did end up dying, giving up. At the same time though, while he was around, their stories intertwined and he was there for Alison. He grew up in a very different time, where going to Gay rallies and dances and meeting at the Union in college was not as acceptable. He hid his true self. Alison on the other hand was able to free herself and be who she really was. I think in a weird, twisted way he helped her do that and she is acknowledging this at the end of the story. Any thoughts?

Graphic Novel – Sexuality – Death

Is this a graphic novel or a comic book? Being a comic book geek while growing up, I was really excited when I realized that we had to read one for the class. Though once I started reading it, it didn’t exactly feel like a comic, but more like a graphic novel. Comics for the most part do not make you think too much, and pretty much spoon feeds the entire book for the reader without having to strain the brain. Graphic novels such as Fun Home clearly do not qualify for such a description of a comic book, as the reader is forced to read between the lines to be able to figure the theme and story of the book. Additionally this book does not follow a chronological order. That combined with a difficult structure of the character’s conversations, makes this more of a novel than a comic book.

A major theme in the book is sexuality, especially around the concept of homosexuality. Sometimes it is difficult to see why the author illustrates very graphic sexual ideas and images which might be offensive to many readers. Is this really needed or what is Bechdel exactly trying to portray with these images? It almost seems like she is taking a risk by putting the readers outside of their comfort zone by utilizing these images, while the purpose may not be exactly clear.

Through sexuality, Bechdel does question and show how people discover their own sexual preferences. For example, the father is a closeted homosexual, as Bechdel found out later in her life, and the examples from his army and school days clearly portrays his homosexuality early. On a similar note, at a comparatively young age the narrator tries to figure out her sexuality, especially by reading books. It seems to show that it is during adolescence that most people figure or try to figure out their sexuality, but only some might be ready to openly accept theirs. Though in this case, the time period the father grew up in, was far more conservative than the narrator’s time. Also, Bechdel shows that discovering one’s sexuality can be very complex and is a mixture of many other things which might surprise readers. In this novel we see that loving art and literature, the way a home is made, and even the history of the family all can play into one’s discovery of their sexuality.

Another major theme of the book is the concept of death and irony. The readers are introduced to the “fun home” which is short for funeral home, a bit ironic type of statement. Funeral home is obviously related to death, but it is made into fun home. Also, the father works at the funeral home, and when he dies, the narrator thinks it is ironic that he will be having a funeral there. She is also trying to find the reason of his death, was it suicide, why suicide, was it artistic, was it because she told him about her sexuality and found out his, or was it a complete accident.

I Love Graphic Novels

I'm the resident comic book geek in this class. I took it under the impression that graphic novels were the focus. I was a bit disappointed that they weren't, but I adapted, and now my patience has paid off with this book.

Like many of the books we've read, the format of Fun Home has not been traditional. Most stories out there follow the buildup-climax-denouement formula that is generally built to hold the reader's attention. Fun Home, by contrast, starts out in an ethereal haze of buildup and stays there forever. Each of the seven chapters, rather than outlining a specific period of the author's life, cover the whole thing and emphasize different parts of it with the same theme. So the chronology jumps around quite a bit, but each new chapter you read casts the previous ones in a different light. It was fun for me to go over the previous chapters of the book in light of the new information we learned about the Bechdel family life, especially the first chapter, where the themes of sexuality and until the end, Bruce's death, are nowhere to be seen.

I found that the style of illustration fits the slice-of-life genre very well. The characters' expressions are subtle, and there's a gorgeous amount of detail in the backgrounds. It's also pretty amazing how much of her life the author has either remembered or estimated, and I'm not entirely sure her diary is entirely to thank for that, especially since she admits that it grew less reliable over time. People always compliment my memory, but it's nowhere near that good. Maybe the diary taught her to have a good memory, and the reason it got less reliable was because she didn't need it anymore?

Speaking of the diary, I couldn't help but notice how relativistic she made it by putting "I think" after every other sentence. I'm surprised that she was able to grasp relativism so early in her life, but I think she may have overused it. Unless she thought she couldn't trust her memories, I would think that there were some events in the day that she would be able to say definitely did or didn't happen. But then, I've never placed much truck in relativism, especially that of the moral variety.

Also, I can't help but think of Alice's brothers, who are so infrequently mentioned that I've forgotten their names. I think one of them was called Christian? Anyway, we never really get a good grasp of their personalities since the author puts the focus of the story on her father and mother (mostly her father). The only real hint I got was in the page where each of the family's artistic interests are laid out in silhouette; one brother is playing the guitar while the other is tinkering with model airplanes. I realize that her brothers aren't really important to the themes of the book, namely homosexuality, but it still bugs me that Alice didn't pay more attention to her siblings in here.

If you want to know more about how comic books can be considered art, go read Maus (another book about the author's father, except this time the father was a Holocaust survivor) or Watchmen. Oh, and see the Watchmen movie, too, since it's managed to stand on its own legs pretty well, even if it isn't a comic book.

Not so" Fun Home"

This was the first time I have ever read a story juxtaposed with drawings. I have never read a comic or a graphic novel so I had a difficult time not staring at the pictures the entire time, not getting distracted by certain images and finding out what I should read first. But once I was used to the format, I found the pictures to be very helpful in interpreting the novel. Through the text alone Bechdel is not very forthcoming with her feelings about certain aspect of her life; but it is the pictures that show what she feels about certain issues and moments. In the pictures, the way the characters bodies are positioned, their facial expressions and how the sequence of events play out explain what she was trying to say in the lines of text that she included with those pictures. Also I felt that the way that the comics were drawn, with the dark colors, worked to show the gloomy and murky aspects of her family life. The title is Fun Home but all the ideas that one has about this novel from the title are shattered when one glances inside.

When we look inside, we are introduced to a family with its share of issues primarily that of a homosexual man married to a heterosexual woman. Bechdel's father is the main target of her attention and scrutiny. It is not really clear how she feels about her father. It is certain that she feels animosity towards him but I could not figure out of that animosity was a result of him treating his family like figurines in his perfectly decorated home, or a result of his sissy cowardice that never let him venture out of the closet. Despite the ill will she harbors towards her father, we know that he is one of the few that she can identify with and who understands what she was going through. The father and daughter duo are able to form a simple relationship through the sharing of books and their mutual love for literature. We witness throughout their lives that the one thing they are able to communicate about is their book fetish. While they too share in common that they are gay, her father is still too closeted to speak of it to his daughter. The one time he does speak of it, it is very brief and about what he did in his youth. When her father dies, in her opinion a suicide, she is left with a feeling that it could be because she told him that she was a lesbian. I am quite certain that it had to do with his inner demons and the unhappiness in his life due to his inability to overcome the demons.

Sexuality and all its complexities is a very interesting theme of this novel. Bechdel does a great job of universalizing the problems of sexual discovery though she is speaking to her and her father's homosexual experiences. The sexual experiences she mentions are relatable to anyone, yes even heterosexual, who has gone through puberty and a first relationship. It is because she is speaking to her own insecurities and uncertainties about her sexuality and new found feelings of personal fulfillment and adventure that anyone can relate to what she felt as a new lesbian. Sexuality is more obscured when it comes to her father. Because he is so conflicted and straddles the lines between gay and straight that one is left confused about what to think. I was wondering what people have to say about the way her father carries out his life. It is justifiable or just understandable? Should he have divorced his wife? If you were him would you have been more open with your lesbian daughter about your own life experiences as a gay man? Do you feel his violent outbursts are a result of his anger toward himself or his anger at having a fake family life?

Junebugin'

I love a good independent film, and Junebug was definitely a good one with an excellent cast as far as I'm concerned.

The thing that I found most confusing throughout the movie were the family relationships. I was very baffled about who exactly was related to who. It seemed much more fitting for Ashley and George to be siblings, while Johnny appeared to be a distant outcast within the family. This was especially evident when George was comforting Ashley in the hospital. Honestly, this seemed like the most heartfelt "family" moment that occurred within the entire movie, because in that moment there were no contrived feelings. As typical in a Southern family, so many things are left unsaid in such a passive aggressive nature--making this meeting in the hospital a pivotal turning point, as I saw it, in our view of the family. Thus, I found it interesting that George and Ashley weren't actually related.

Overall, Ashley proves to be the strongest character. She maintains an amazing amount of energy that proves to be shocking from such a downtrodden and overwhelmingly tame family. Indeed, in many ways Ashley doesn't fit into the family just like Madeline doesn't. Ashley handles her situation much better. Obviously, she has known the family longer and has adapted to living in the Johnsten house. However, she is able to embrace her situation and the ways in which her life has turned out with an optimism and spirit that the rest of the family lacks. The culture barrier between Madeline and the Johnstens proves to greatly hurts her when trying to gain the same kind of acceptance that Ashley has.

Lastly, I found the cinematography to be excellent. The slow paced nature of each shot provides a real glimpse into country life. Scenes involving nature and drawn out transitions add to an overall effect of realism. The lack of any sort of special effects also serve to not interfere with the viewer's suspension of disbelief regarding the reality of the movie. I found the lack of effects to actually be the most powerful effect of the entire movie. This was probably a risk on the part of the directors, but I believe the realistic design choices made by the crew paid off in the final product.

Junebug

After watching the movie and listening to the discussion in class, I found it interesting how easy it was for viewers (including myself) to be overly critical of the actions of Madeleine and even George at the end of the film. At first, I disliked Madeleine for her decision not to accompany George to the hospital. Throughout the movie, she seems to remain somewhat cold to George's family and their way of life. Madeleine appears primarily concerned with the artist that she is trying to recruit and meeting George's family is somewhat of a secondary priority. All of these things made it difficult to like Madeleine immediately. However, after further thought, I started to consider how anyone would act in Madeleine's situation. She is entering a world that is completely alien to her. George's family would be hard for anyone to accept after meeting them for the first time. Peg's reception of Madeleine is not exactly warm and Johnny's first words to her was a request for cigarettes. George himself has not returned to his family for three years so why after only a few days would Madeleine feel a sudden dedication to the family? After thinking about it, I decided that she behaved similarly to how I would of acted in the given situation. As for George, his relief that he is finally leaving should come as no surprise. He has left a life in Chicago where he has a happy marriage and only his own problems to worry about. Upon returning home, he encounters nothing but problems. His relationship with Madeleine is suffering, he has a fight with his brother, and George is relied upon for emotional support during the tragedy that hits the family. For me, it is no surprise that he wants to return to his life in Chicago.

Another character who I found interesting was Peg. For me, some of her actions are much more baffling than either George or Madeleine. She is a character that I believe was a facilitator for much of the tension in the family. The relationship she maintains with Ashely seems to me to be more tense than I would have expected. Peg often talks down to Ashely and treats her as a nuisance rather than the mother of her grandchildren. I would have thought that Ashely and Peg would have had a better relationship given that they live under the same roof but Peg remains overly cold towards Ashely in my opinion. Peg's reception of Madeleine is also something that I believed created a lot of unspoken tension. Her conversation with Eugene where Peg reveals that she has yet to accept Madeleine as part of the family is an important indicator of her true feelings. She seems unwilling to accept that this woman is now a part of her son's life. When the whole family leaves for the hospital, Peg is the one who fails to invite Madeleine to join them at the hospital with George. While a subtle notion, I believe it says a lot about her feelings towards Madeleine. Also, I found Peg's decision to leave George at the hospital rather than staying herself as very intriguing. I would think that Ashely and Peg would have a closer relationship than George who hasn't seen Ashely in 3 years. Furthermore, I would think that Peg would be more sympathetic since she is a mother and should understand what Ashely is feeling better than George. What did everyone else think about her character? Was anyone else surprised by her lack of feeling towards Ashely?

A Junebug by any other name...

Now that we've all watched Junebug and had a bit of time to reflect, I'd like to discuss and seek opinion on the significance of the movie's title. The "character" was referenced by name only briefly in a single scene, and the writer's decision to name his masterwork after a miscarried fetus seems a bit strange. The story wasn't even about the child so much as inter-familial relationships, right? That was my general impression, but the more I thought about it, the more it seemed to me that the baby was a significant driver and explanatory source of character behavior.  Accordingly, I've constructed a character review from this perspective:

Johnny and Ashley:

Johnny clearly feels trapped in his current situation, evidenced by the fact that he's happiest at work, away from the family.  Living constantly in the shadow of his "golden boy" brother who escaped from the rural south, Johnny sees having a baby as a trump card, a means to restore balance in the family, and perhaps as a path to happiness.  This explains in my mind why he threw the wrench at George after the miscarriage: a physical manifestation of his frustration that George would remain "the better sibling." It also explains why he asks Ashley, in an incredibly insensitive manner, if she would be willing to try again immediately.

Ashley, like Johnny, sees Junebug as a means to achieving happiness.  Even the name is (besides just being "cute" to Ashley) symbolic: a June Bug is a beetle known for its timely hatching and flourishing during the late spring, a time of natural rebirth and the dawn of a new season.  For Ashley, the rebirth (as she confides to George) is that of her and Johnny's high school love.

George and Madeline:

George's relationship with the baby is that of metal drawn to a magnet: the baby draws him into his family.  George is actually a somewhat minor character in the film by virtue of his continual absence performing mundane errands.  Aside from singing the hymn at the church supper, the first real quality time he spends with the family as a whole is at the hospital for the delivery.  Not surprisingly, the trip to the hospital is the first real fight he and Madeline have, and it's not her fault at all.  Under normal circumstances, there would probably have been no question as to what George would have encouraged her to do.  Because of the baby, however, George had been momentarily transformed into a "family man."  This assertion is reinforced by his insistence on staying at the hospital with Ashley, leaving Madeline to fend for herself.  Once the baby is stillborn, George effectively "snaps out of it," demands that they return home the next day and expresses his supreme pleasure at being gone once they're on the road.  The George that didn't venture home for 3 years and was a stranger to his family has returned.  Roger Ebert, in his review of Junebug, asked "How important is Ashley and Johnny's baby to George?"  I would respond, "terribly."

Madeline's experience is reciprocal to George's.  While not being a blood member of the family, the experience naturally doesn't affect her as strongly as the rest of the family, but she still experiences the riff that develops between her and George as a result.  Unquestionably the most consistent character in the film, she assumes George will want to stay for the burial and is dumbfounded to discover that whatever spell transformed him had dissolved.

Eugene and Peg:

Peg obviously has a severe dislike and disapproval of Madeleine.  Though never explicitly mentioned, Peg does not find Madeleine's qualms about motherhood acceptable.  This is thinly disguised in her unfavorable description of Madeleine as "older," "strange."  Perhaps most telling is her comment regarding Madeleine's silver spoon baby shower gift: "Oh my...that won't go in the dishwasher."  Essentially, she's implying here that Madeleine is clueless and unsuited to child-caring.

Eugene plays a rather small but crucial part in the movie.  Besides his line which essentially encapsulates it, "She (Peg) hides herself.  She's not like that inside...Like most," all Eugene does is search for his long-lost phillips head.  Ultimately, it's discovered underneath the crib he constructed for Junebug using his woodworking skills.  Eugene declines to come to bed when Peg asks and declines to talk to Madeleine about Peg's disapproval of her and Johnny's relationship.  Ultimately, it appears Eugene just does what he wants.  Apparently, that's constructing a crib for his future grandchild.

The film did an amazing job, I think, in crafting believable characters and drawing on cultural stereotypes in a manner that did not judge them.  It seems only fitting to me that the scriptwriter would name a film about character interaction after its uniting element: Junebug.

What kind of a question is "To be, or not to be?"?

Alex, Danielle, and Jonathan have given us a very good look at the “big picture” of the book as a whole I feel, therefore, I would like to expound upon a smaller snapshot that helps comprise the “big picture”.  First, though, I would like to comment on Alex’s question of whether this book could be considered “ethnic lit”. 

Personally, I think this book refuses to be classified as anything, but at the same time it can be argued that Don’t Let Me Lonely is “ethnic lit within ethnic lit”.  Yes, Rankine delves into American culture and presents negative aspects of our American society including depression, suicide, and murders committed by our own police force.  But at the same time, I feel she somewhat focuses on the experience of being Black in America.  Most of the pictures of people in this book are of black people, as she brings up the case of Abner Louima, the Haitian immigrant who was sodomized with a broken broomstick by the NYC police, Ahmed Amadou Diallo, the West African immigrant who police fired 41 rounds at and killed.  She mentions people like Mahalia Jackson, a famous gospel singer involved with the Civil Rights Movement with Martin Luther King Jr., and Thabo Mbeki, the successor to Nelson Mandela as the President of South Africa.  Even in the first paragraph of the book she writes “The years went by and people only died on television – if they weren’t Black, they were wearing black or were terminally ill.”  These references lead me to believe that while, on a whole, I do think this book is a comment on American culture, I also think she invokes the experience of being Black in America and incorporates that through these references.

Death appears in this book/poem/lyric over and over again.  Rankine talks about her concern when she was little for the mortality of actors in films, the suicide hotline, the “Do not resuscitate” option, the deaths of her sister’s husband and children, the accidental death of Princess Diana, the purposeful killing of Diallo, the little boy who killed his six year old sister, etc.  Obviously, mortality is on her mind.  I think she explores the ways our realization of our own mortality affects us.  She makes it clear that we have the power to take someone else’s life or end our own at any given point in time.  This is a strange morbid power to think about.  Do think Rankine is trying to show how this power affects American society?  How about the role it plays in world relations?

So on one hand, our death could be completely planned out and premeditated.  On the other hand, it is an event that can be so random no sees it coming.  Rankine writes about those mourning the death of Princess Di saying, “Weren’t they simply grieving the random inevitability of their own deaths?” 

We might know where, when, why, and how (Colonel Mustard in the Billiards Room with the candlestick), or we might just feel the breath knocked out of us one day and that’s the end of it.  Does this revelation affect the way people live their lives?  How does Rankine think this revelation affects America?  Has it affected her life?  

Claudia Rankine's Don't Let Me Be Lonely

Here we delve into another book, with another interesting style of writing, and a bizarre physical placement of words on the page. Claudia Rankine, typically a poet, writes Don’t Let Me Be Lonely almost in a stream of consciousness. Unlike Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, this too is not a story that flows as well as some others, however it is a narrative of a single person’s life, in this case, Rankine’s. I appreciate that this is typically how many of us would write about our own experiences. Today’s society, being the A.D.D. culture that we have become, is anxious for the answer and only discusses a certain topic for a limited amount of time before losing interest and jumping to a new topic.

Although the book is written about Rankine’s reactions to various different experiences, it is hard to tell how much time has elapsed between each new section. Perhaps the pictures of the static TV’s and the addition of blank pages between sections indicate a new chapter in the author’s own life. However, I feel that these chapters are obviously very relatable and many of us can remember our own experiences at the time. Perhaps this is how we reflect on our past, where we only have snippets and a few short moments of memory with static in between.

Death is a prominent theme throughout, although it is touched on only briefly at each mention. It is the most common thread throughout the text. Rankine progresses from not knowing anyone who has passed away, to not being able to attend her own mother’s funeral. Her detachment is present in various sections. Usually death is something someone will spend a long time discussing, an emotion-filled process. I do not think because these segments were not drawn out indicates that she has an emotional void or lacks feeling, but possibly, they just did not have a monumental affect on her. The use of other national events, that most everyone is aware of, are devoted a longer portion of the book and are discussed more thoroughly or with more facts.

The imagery used throughout the book, not only the pictures but also the TV’s from section to section and physical leaving of blank spaces, leaves everything up to interpretation. I feel that it gives one the opportunity to present one’s own ideas, almost as if that blank space is an area for the reader to include his memories on the subject.

As we have discussed with many of the other novels, America has been mostly viewed in a negative light. Here we see patriotism coupled with hatred for those who “appear” to be terrorists. We have the cops sodomizing a man and then President Clinton pushing for the allowance of generic HIV/AIDS medicine in Africa. What does this say about our melting pot culture?

With regard to the title, Don’t Let Me Be Lonely, I feel that Rankine chose this title because even though we are surrounded by hundreds of people daily, and often the same people at that, we still have this unimaginable fear of being alone, or greater yet, dying alone. Since death is mentioned several times and vaguely discussed, perhaps the author is showing us that we have nothing to fear and that it is simply the unavoidable.

I feel as though this “American lyric” will be one, if not the most, discussed books that we have read. It can be interpreted in numerous ways and most likely will be the most interesting to debate with many counter-interpretations.

Lonely

Claudia Rankine chose to put a quote by Aime Cesaire at the beginning of the book. It is obvious that this quote has significance to the book itself, but like the majority of this lyric, the interpretation is debatable. I was just curious as to what other people thought of this quote and its relevance to the rest of the novel, if you can call it a novel. In my opinion this quote is saying that life is more than just merely entertainment. That the pain, the raw emotion that others feel should be respected and honored. The grief is not a proscenium, or a type of theatre- meaning that as spectators we should connect and be emotionally impacted by these events. The book goes on to allude to death and disaster that has taken place in recent years. While when something happens on the news it may seem distant from us, we must beware letting the impact go unnoticed to our sometimes apathetic attitudes.

Now the book itself. This book seemed to me to be somewhat of a first hand account of famous current events in the past ten years are so. I found it very interesting the way that the seemingly unconnected stories found in each paragraph along with the photographs did flow so smoothly. There were definite common themes throughout the book and they most likely added to this continuity. One of these major themes being depression. There are numerous references to antidepressant drugs, and even a list of pharmaceutical companies. But I especially liked the images of the warning labels for the drugs. I think this is saying that with drugs and with life, you can find a solution to a problem but there is never a guarantee. There are also side effects that come with a choice or usage of medicine. Ultimately it comes down to the decision of is the choice worth the effects that will result.

The image of the television with the static was also a big part of this book. It gave me the impression that we were watching a TV and the channel kept being changed. Each new channel gave us a new story or issue. And most of these issues are things that we are familiar with. I think by using such common stories, the author is invoking the feelings we have and causing us to relive how we felt when we heard about such impactful events. What feelings do we have? What other historical events spark similar emotions inside of us?

"Don't Let Me Be Loney" reaction post.

So I feel that it is safe to say that within the first few pages of Claudia Rankine's text it becomes extremely clear that this is unlike any text that we have read thus far. Its elongated form, and multimedia presentation place it in a category of its own.

Although the idea of a more-or-less direct narrative is
not exactly present in this text, It is probably closest to Selah Saterstrom's approach in her choice of presenting The Pink Institution. Rankine utilized images, minimal amounts of text, and a hybrid prose/poetry form. This isolates the text from any seemingly obvious classification and provides a great foundation for discussion---whether positive or negative---before even considering the actual content of the story.

In regards to what we have been discussing in class
as of late regarding the basis of determining "what is ethnic lit?"
I am curious to see if any of you would consider this as "ethnic lit"?
It seems to me that it fits a lot of the criteria we discussed,
although this time it is turned on our culture.
-It contains a lot of content directly related to and focused on aspects of a particular
culture (American culture, post-"turn of the millennium" and mostly post-9/11) and an experience in or shaped in large part by this culture.
-It obviously shows a critique of this culture through the way in which the culture is presented in the text.
-Rankine is part of the culture she is writing about (she was born in Jamaica and partially raised there but migrated to New York City at an early age).

So again, I am just curious as to how you all feel about this being in the same "ethnic lit" category as say, Diaz's piece. I'm not saying it is one way or the other---I'm still on the fence myself and hopefully will have made a concrete conclusion regarding this issue by Thursday, but as of now I can at least identify that most of the indicators are present.

As far as the content of the text, I enjoyed it very, very much. I really enjoy the stream of consciousness style writing, and Rankine does a phenomenal job of presenting her "story" in this way.

An obvious theme that began to surface after only a few pages was the blurring of the line between unity and isolation. making purposeful shifts from referring to "you", speaking as "I" to speaking as "we", even saying "whats the difference?"(pg.92). There is discussion about the "I" as a personal pronoun and "I" as a blanketing statement, and identifying yourself with/as an embodiment of a country ("The America that I am"-pg 92).

The previous parenthetical statement encapsulates the much of the political
critique peppered throughout the book. Not only does Rankine critique the
administration of the time explicitly, but she also focuses on a critique
of Individual American's reactions to the administration, the media that cultivates the ideology planted by those in power, and our obsessions and preoccupations as individuals and as a society.

This concept of covering all levels of the self is what I mean when I reference the blurred line between unity and isolation.

There is the self and your concerns, needs, reactions and emotions; the subgroup and its concerns, needs, reactions and emotions; the large group and its concerns, needs, reactions and emotions; and lastly the entire society and its concerns, needs, reactions and emotions.
The level at which the preoccupation with fear and media-birthed concepts, the obsession with television, the tendency to tire of things quickly and to become easily disinterested, and the emotional instabilities and requisite prescription quick-fixes all occur at is left completely in a haze.

does the text provide primarily autobiographical snapshots or snapshots of American culture as a whole?

most of the text can be taken as an overarching statement, at the very least regarding a subgroup. arguably many things can be taken as reference to a large group, and oftentimes it is clearly about society as a whole.

One feature of the book which is also apparent from the first page is
the use of images. I feel the inclusion of imagery not only accentuates the
genre-stretching aspect of the text, but also helps to illustrate
part of Rankine's point (both literally and figuratively)
that as a culture we depend on the visual stimulation of the media
to a degree that it is absurd. The tendency to tire of things
quickly and to become easily disinterested----the force driving pop
culture almost entirely---Is also represented in this form through the static
televisions. I took these to be "channel switches" essentially.
Rankine switches the focus of her "story" after each of these and
I feel that they are not excluded from the socially critical content of the book.

Overall I feel that the book is very successful in what
it attempts to communicate to the reader, and does so in
a way that is unique and intriguing in the reading process.
I feel that although it is a very different reading experience than many
are used to, It is no less valuable as a result.

Hopefully all of this wasn't too difficult to follow, and hopefully this can get some conversation started on the book. I hope that there will be plenty of interesting interpretations and ideas surrounding the experience of reading Don't let Me Be Lonely come Thursday and I hope the majority of you enjoyed the text as much as I did.

-Alexander

This is supposed to be a comment under 'The Boat, Nam Le' by Alyse Borkan

For some reason, there is a glitch, and the system does not allow me to post under Alyse's opening post. Here is my comment:

The author does leave a lot of unanswered questions, which I believe creates a much more powerful impact and allows the readers to utilize the creativity. I felt the only story that had a relatively clear ending was ‘Cartagena’. ‘Love and Honor...’ too had a decent ending as the reader has to verify that the father burnt the story (or maybe through it into the river). But most of the other stories, especially ‘Meeting Elise’, ‘Hiroshima’, and ‘Tehran Calling’, leave the story without a proper ending, which would tie up all the loose strings throughout the text. Though, I believe, this is the style of contemporary literature to not provide the readers with everything, there is no ‘spoon feeding’ anymore, like it might have been in the good old days of fictional stories such as Sherlock Holmes, where you would be provided with each and every detail, and then there would be an answer to all the mysteries in the story. But in reality, it never works that way, and I believe both Nam Le and much of contemporary literature reflect this.

The Boat

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed Nam Le's The Boat. I found that the presentation of the stories was very similar to that of The Pink Institution. Several of the stories in The Boat including "Love and Honor..." and "Hiroshima" begin with a straight forward style of a narrative and at some point the style of telling the story shifts to a inner train of thought much similar to some of the pieces that are from The Pink Institution. After noticing this, I began to ask my question "what are some of the consistent characteristics of contemporary literature?" and "what differentiates contemporary literature from other literature beside the time period in which each type was written?" A similar style of writing using the continuing thoughts of the narrator without a filter for what is relevant to the subject being discussed was also used in Drown. Perhaps, this style of writing is present in classical literature, but it seems it has been prevalent in the several works that we have examined.

After reading the first story in which the narrator is tentative about writing about his culture and background because he does not want to be one of those "ethnic writers," I thought of a quote from the film Orange County. The protagonist, Shaun, of the film thinks the only way that he can become a great writer is by leaving his dysfunctional family. A English professor at Stanford, says to Shaun, what if Twain had left Missouri or if Hawthorne left Massachusetts would they have produced masterpieces, who knows but their surroundings and background provided them with the experiences to create great works of literature. I feel that for the most part great fiction is based on the experiences of the writer if the author is Vietnamese then those experiences are going to somewhat reflect a Vietnamese upbringing and this can be said for most authors. However in a whole, The Boat exhibits an author that is able to write about other cultures besides his own.

Row Row Row Your Boat

... Gently down the stream.

Ok, ok, all jokes aside, I found Nam Le's work to be excellent, if a bit tedious in certain sections. Some of the things that struck me most about his writing, especially in contrast to that of other works we've read, included the (relatively, more on that later) format, intense detailing and depth of character, various points of view(again, more on that later) and the utter diversity in each and every story. I seriously doubt that any other author could manage to convince me in so few pages that I am in so many drastically different environments. From Hiroshima to Britain, New York to barrio's of Columbia, the levels of cultural immersion are staggering and heavily lend to a sense of believability.

(Some interesting things I'd like to start conversation on, in no particular order.

A constantly shifting perspective seems to permeate the pages of this novel, skipping idly from a person perspective in the initial three stories, to a third person perspective for the rest of the book. As to why Nam Le decided to do this, I'm completely unsure. However, I doubt that a wordsmith such as Nam Le, with his precise detail and exquisite control would lapse into another perspective without good reason. To me, this might have been a detachment from some of the characters, as opposed to embodying them with a first person perspective. Perhaps this serves as a metaphor for Nam's growth as a writer, an understanding of and acceptance of ideas that he cannot relate to on a personal basis, and therefore must express in a more narrator-esque way. Any ideas, anyone?

Furthermore, in an effort to illicit a sense of culture (I assume), Nam Le changes punctuation, sentence structure, and even the thought process's of each character. For example, the initial story rings of a hollow and almost dark/futuristic feel to me, with everything is properly indented, properly capitalized, and put in quotation marks. Most notably, however, the father speaks in Vietnamese, but it is seamlessly translated for us. The way in which the first story speaks is a tightly constructed narrative with concise and crisp analogies, similes, and metaphors appropriate to the character.

The next story, however, disregards all rules regarding distinguishing who is speaking, aside from indentation, and leaves us potentially puzzling over a number of words that we may or may not know. In a similar sense, the character's thought process and the writing itself changes to suit the situation and context again.

In the third story, a pattern seems to almost be forming, with the highly literate painter shifting back to compact and blunt prose defined by an abundance of punctuation. This pattern continues, as the thoughts and style reflected in "Halflead Bay" seem appropriate[to me, anyway] to the character of Jamie. The pattern continues with Hiroshima lacking punctuation OR indentation, etc. etc.

Why does Nam Le do this? Is it simply a matter of defining your character in their perspective space, or do the shifting styles speak to something deeper in the text? This strikes me as an, if not the most, interesting question throughout the text.

One more quick point: (Until I remember the one I forgot, anyway)

Water seems to play a role in a number of stories, but most significantly in the first, third, and fourth (the river, the bathtub, the bay). To what extent does water signify something, if anything? To me, water seemed to be a calming element for a number of characters, as Nam's father would often venture to the river, Henry would often submerge himself in a bath, and Jamie's nostalgia in the bay.

The Boat, Nam Le

I really enjoyed reading The Boat. What I appreciated the most was the ability of Nam Le to include so much detail and description in each story. I felt that unlike the other short story collections we read this one really gave us a full background, character portrayals, and multiple plotlines. His use of description of the setting was so impeccable that without even telling where the story took place we would have been able to figure it out. His ability to intertwine individual aspects of the plot within each other really made each story interesting and fulfilling. For instance in Tehran Calling, Sarah’s relationship with Paul, paralleled by her relationship with Pavlon gave the story depth and made it more than just what is structured as one chapter in the book. Going back to what we said in class today about portraying violence and atrocity in literature and comparing The Pink Intuition’s use of blunt detail to Nam Le’s use of storytelling, I really feel as Nam Le’s technique was more effective because it hooked his reader into a web of drama, relationships, and serious problems that tapped on our emotions and made us somehow, relate it to our own lives, not necessarily because of the problems themselves as more worldly but because they are surrounded by emotion. In The Pink Institution the emotion that the characters felt was displayed in their actions but not necessarily through the words of the author which although had a powerful effect, did nothing for us since most of us do not attempt suicide, or take the same paths of actions the characters in the Pink Institution did. While emotions are universal, actions are individual.

Going back to the first story, I realized after the class discussion, that not only did his dad burn his story which signifies that he can’t turn experience into words, but he also keeps referring to the fact that he was mad at his dad because of what he didn’t know at the time but found out later. On page 28 he says, “If I had known then what I knew later, I wouldn’t have said the things I did.” I wonder if maybe this means he wrote a different novel and then realized this and then from there wrote The Boat? It would be interesting to read into that line.

I also noticed that Nam Le changed some things in each story but also kept the structure the same. For instance in Cartagena he took out all quotation marks and used Spanish language, keeping the words, grammar and sentence structure parallel with the lives of the characters. In Hiroshima father, mother, brother, etc. were all capitalized which is representative of the lives of the characters in the sense that their parents and family played a different role in the lives of people in Japan and earned more respect. In the story that takes place in Australia the dialect changed again. Words such as mate were substituted for friend and mum for mom. One thing I found that was common to all the stories however was that he jumped between past and present, in most cases without any real transition or warning. This was effective since he didn’t really have much space for transition, but I also thought it took away from some of each story since before I figured out the pattern in each individual story I was often confused. Another common aspect to each story was the lack of an ending. I also found this effective for the author's purposes but I personally didn’t like it since I was left with all these questions that had been answered would have made a bigger impact on me.

The Role of Sex in The Pink Institution

The most striking thing about novel to me was that in four generations, there did not seem to be any change in the situations of the people. Their environment may have been changing but the same sense of desperation, poverty and perversion surrounded them. There was a loss of innocence that came with just being a part of this family. The patriarch of the family evoked the image of Frank Henrickson on HBO’s Big Love; a mean, violent and perverse old man. There is also an absence of dignity that prevalent throughout the novel.

The role of sex and the way characters interact with each other sexually in this novel illustrates the perverse nature of their environment and the loss of innocence. It seems that nothing is off limits or sacred, even Billie asks his wife to have sex with his cousin to make him straight, the narrator is forced to play make out games with their cousin, Billie is involved in homosexual acts with the neighbor while he wife is in a drunken stupor. The children are exposed to all sorts of sexual acts and no one seems embarrassed or bothered by these things that are going on around them. It just all seemed so bizarre that no one ever spoke up or showed any signs of being bothered except when the little girl ran away from her grandfather and was terrified to eat dinner with him. Also, the incestuous behavior was also shocking and I wondered what drives people to do this? Maybe if your family members were the last people on earth but there were clearly other people in the town; is this just the cultural norm that is being bred? It is so easy for parents to pass bad habits on to their children and I think this accounts for the sad state of affairs that took place in this family and continued through all the generations. 

Narrative Structure in the Pink Institution

Selah Saterstrom’s Pink Institution is very provocative in its ability to test various literary boundaries. The most obvious of these boundaries is pure structure. Saterstrom experiments with several different styles in each chapter which forces the reader to challenge their idea of what is actually entailed in a “book” or “novel.” The class discussion began to shift towards this but never had the opportunity to fully address many of the issues that are encompassed within this challenge. My main concern can be summed up as this: How effective is a challenge of this nature and what were Saterstrom’s main objectives in using these different structures?

In terms of the efficacy of the unique narrative structure, a lot needs to be addressed. Has she gone too far with her challenge? It seems that there was a good mix of people who enjoyed this new type of novel and those that had difficulty following it. Within this “novel,” there are definitely several powerful messages surrounding Southern culture and family history. She definitely manages to convey these ideas in the guise of incomplete sentences, seemingly random spaces, and pictures through the book. The issue becomes whether or not people choose to internalize the issues she brings forward or if they are too put off by the structure to truly feel impacted. Saterstrom had to expect to lose a certain amount of readers by breaking literary tradition but it is an interesting to consider whether she is losing more than she would expect. This brings us back to the idea of identifying what her objectives were in writing this type of novel.

Aside from considering what size audience Saterstrom was attempting to reach with this structure, it is important to try to discern what else she might have been trying to achieve in the context of the story. The short vignettes that she utilizes create an effect of reading someone’s memories. This was also touched upon in class but merits further expansion. This idea of memories is furthered by the titles given to them in the second part of the book. For instance, “Spiderland” is a childhood name for a place that she uses to label the short story about. The stories tend to cover particular events then simply cut off, much like memories. The before and after of each story do not matter. It is the actual event that is told that is impactful on the storyteller’s life. The reader does not feel obligated to connect all of the stories she tells. This is simply one explanation for one type of structure. Do the other styles tie in to this or do they have a different purpose? Saterstrom has definitely created a story that should be easily discussed due to its uniqueness so it will be interesting to hear people’s opinions about some of the questions that have been posed.

The Pink Institution

I really enjoyed Selah Saterstrom’s The Pink Institution. At first, like many of you mentioned in class, I was confused and bothered by the seemingly random style of writing. But soon I came to realize that the way she wrote her stories--not just her diction and prose, but also the way the words were laid out across the pages--was similar to a work of art. Not to mention, of course, the haunting pictures included before each section (I’m especially thinking of the pictures of the little girl, facing forward and backward). The way Saterstrom described (or did not describe) certain situations and memories was poignant but concise, reflecting the way someone would actually remember or learn about the past.

Surprisingly, I found that this book displayed more emotion than any of the others we have read thus far. Most of the other books offered insight to characters’ feelings and emotions, but The Pink Institution seemed void of any inside thoughts from any of the characters. However, through the characters’ actions in The Pink Institution, I think it is obvious that this set of characters has more realistic emotions. For example, in Never Let Me Go, after Kathy realizes that she and Tommy cannot get their donations delayed, she gives up, and lets life take its course. But in The Pink Institution, when Aza doesn’t like the way her life is going, she tries to commit suicide (multiple times). Although suicide does not seem like the best way to deal with things, it does show that Aza cares how awful her life is, and wants to do something to stop the pain she is experiencing.

The entire time I was reading this book, I couldn’t help but relate it to The House of the Spirits by Isabel Allende. The House of the Spirits tells the story of the Trueba family, over 3 or 4 generations. The story takes place in a Latin American country going through a revolution. One of the most prominent resemblances between the two books was the fact that they told stories over a few generations, mostly told from the female perspective. Both books also take place in countries which have just gone through major trauma--The Pink Institution takes place in the southern United States after the Civil War, and The House of the Spirits takes place in a Latin American country, which is still in the throes of a revolution. Another parallel I saw between the books was a general awareness of the supernatural. Magic realism is a reoccurring element throughout The House of the Spirits, while it shows up every once in a while in The Pink Institution, especially when Willie sees Death. If any of you have read The House of the Spirits, I’d be interested to hear your comparisons.

Repetition in Interpreter of Maladies

One common theme throughout Lahiri's stories was repetition. Characters would go through certain actions in an almost religious manner. This can be seen in A Temporary Matter with the confessions that Shoba and Shukumar shared; every night the lights would go out and they would follow the same routine (which is interesting because this new routine was in a way an escape from the monotonous routine of their now empty life together). In When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine, the repetition consists of him coming over for dinner every night, watching the news, and also the young girl eating the candy every night in an almost ceremonious way. Repetition creates comfort for the characters in that story; it almost breeds a sense of security.
However, repetition tends to lead to disaster in many of the stories.
In Mrs. Sen's her daily chopping routine somehow seems very tragic and it almost seems like she is trying to work out the pain of her immigrant position and alienation in the United States by keeping herself busy with a knife that is symbolically attached to India. Her repetitive attempts at driving end the connection with the narrator because of her crash, and this creates a very sad moment in the story that only the reader can interpret (the child narrator is somewhat sad but does not seem to understand the weight of his connection with Mrs. Sen, and the mother is very indifferent to her).
One of the most interesting stories which deals with repetition is Sexy. Miranda and Dev start out their relationship in a very intimate way, and slowly week after week, there seems to be less wonder and romance associated with Dev's visits, and they undergo a deterioration which is very disheartening. Miranda's desperation for Dev's weekly visit at first seems slightly exciting, but quickly turns pathetic, and when she ends the repetition and stops asking him to come over, it is almost like a load is lifted. Repetition and monotony are so interesting in this novel because sometimes they lead to destruction, deterioration, and devastation, while sometimes they craft a real, meaningful relationship (Mr. Pirzada)

The Third and Final Continent

I enjoyed following nJunot Diaz' Drown with Jhumpa Lahiri's Interpreter of Maladies. Though both collections address the dynamic of the American experience for foreigners or individuals with foreign backgrounds, the styles of the two authors could not be more different. The fact that both collections are so highly acclaimed illustrates the salience of this topic in modern America; as the United States becomes more and more diverse, the clash of different cultures and the search for individual identity through heritage have become increasingly pertinent. However, the conclusions of the two compilations provide two very different perspectives on the ultimate result of the immigrant experience in America. 

Although many of the stories in Interpreter of Maladies finish with the same general sense of discontent and ambiguity that characterized the stories in Drown, the final story of Lahiri's collection, "The Third and Final Continent," actually ends triumphantly. This in itself was a shock. I'm used to working hard to reach hopeful readings of renown literature; it was refreshing to have the author actually spell one out herself. However, Drown could have arguably had this same conclusion if "No Face" was the final story rather than the penultimate one. After our class discussion on Diaz' work, I had the impression that his perspective of the immigrant experience does not end on such a high note, hence his choice to end the compilation with "Negocios." Lahiri's choice, on the other hand, to conclude her compilation with "The Third and Final Continent" provides a different view of the immigrant experience. With the narrator encouraging his son that "there is no obstacle he cannot conquer," his family's achievement is proof that it is possible to find happiness three continents away from home. It is interesting to note how powerful the order of the stories is in determining the ultimate tone and message of the collection.

interpreter of maladies by Jhumpa Lahiri

In my opinion, Lahiri's Interpreter of maladies was thought provoking and detailed, but  I did not enjoy reading it as much as the previous compilations. I feel that this is because I could not really find a connection between each of the short stories. There were several overarching themes that continued to present themselves in each story, but each short story seemed to be a completely separate entity from the previous. Some themes that popped up throughout the stories were infidelity, cross-cultural roles, and the search for belonging (with someone or in a particular place). I feel that the notion of wanting to belong to a particular group or place is an important theme that should be considered. From experience and stories of friends, it is common to feel out of place or uneasy in a new setting, such as moving from India to America or any other country. Therefore, it is important to notice how this plays into each short story, and how the characters handle themselves in these situations.  

I found it interesting that even though each short story focused on narrower factors such as infidelity or love relations, almost all of the short stories revolved around or included some notion of cross-cultural differences between the Indian culture and the American culture. It seemed as though it was extremely important to layout and clearly define the lines that separated each culture. By doing so, this helped the readers understand how important culture is in different societies, and how different they can be interpreted amongst socially diverse groups. 

Overall, Lahiri's compilation of short stories was interesting, but the it did not keep me fully engaged throughout the entire book. After a while, some of the plot lines began to run together, which made it difficult for me to stay alert and attached to the reading.