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?
I too agree that this piece of literature could be considered ethnic literature. Rankine is definitely pulling from the experience as a black women in America. But what is fascinating about this entire concept is that it is only after one researches the author and finds that she is a black woman does that characteristic really stand out.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the book I was not thinking this is ethnic literature and this person is not white. I was thinking that this is an interesting interpretation of an experience as an American. I would have felt that this was ethnic literature, coming from an American, based on the reading but never would have picked up on the fact that she is black. That is why I really feel that ethnic literature is determined by the reader and not so much the author. It is only after we see, read or learn about the author do we interpret what we are reading as something different, ethnic.
About death in this novel: I do feel that her focus on death has some to do with actual death but also has a lot to do with people being dead, living beings. It is easy to be dead and yet continue to live. And I feel that is what Rankine was really afraid of. Not so much the actual death that follows life, but the death that occurs when people are not living as human beings.That is why she focused a lot on medications because pills make people dull, and deadened to the world. Those people who are medicated are not really living for themselves anymore. They are living but are not really alive.
I think that everyone has been on the money with the responses to this book. I agree that there is definitely a focus on the black experience in the USA, but many of the themes and things she discusses are relevant and pertain to all of humanity. Rankine has a way of stripping away all of the details of topics and describing them in the simplest way that strikes at the core of the argument. For example, when calling the suicide hotline, she says that all of the questions that the people ask boil down to saying "are you okay?"
ReplyDeleteThe way this book is written goes hand in hand with her "simpling" things down. The book is a lot of choppy thoughts and her commentary on them that is so simple that she doesn't need transitions in the book. We as the reader are able to see the recurring themes from piecing together the stories. Death is a theme, but an even bigger theme is finding purpose in life. Death is ultimate end, but Rankine also focuses on what people do up until their death.
On a completely random note, I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed the size of the book and the shape of the pages. This sounds funny, but those long pages with writing only at the top made it perfect for reading while lying down and propping the book up on your chest. You could pretty much keep your eyes straight instead of straining them looking down. Maybe she did that on purpose or maybe it was just luck, but I really enjoyed it!
Like Caldwell, I feel like the responses to this book have been really on point. Although I can definitely see how the book can be categorized as ethnic literature, some part of me just doesn't want to box an author's work into a category they have not personally chosen. I don't understand the reason for this demarcation in literature; why do we need to know exactly what kind of book we are about to read? Furthermore, after our numerous discussions on what exactly ethnic literature is, do we really even know what to expect from a book that is "ethnic literature?" I agree more with Hope's perspective that this book "refuses to be classified as anything."
ReplyDeleteAlso, I really enjoyed her discussion of death (both physically and mentally) in the book. I think Marissa's point on her focus on medication to describe the deadened sense of life is spot on; this book provides a serious warning against living a dead life. This is the ultimate source of loneliness. I especially enjoyed the dry humor that pervaded this discussion. With something as depressing as death, you have to find ways to laugh about it. And if these sources of laughter come from places that you didn't know you could even laugh about, even better.
Death is obviously a very strong theme throughout the book, and I think one thing that Rankine is trying to do is to express the power of death; the feeling of death within life. While there are many depictions of actual death, I agree with Michael in his statement that she is warning against "living a dead life" as he puts. She equates the emptiness of living such a thing to the emptiness of death. While this may sound really cliche, the book does a great job of showing the importance of living one's life to the fullest. However, at the same time, it is a commentary on the inability of some people to find any happiness in life. Overall, I enjoyed the book a lot, and also thought that the format was very interesting. I am glad that we are reading books like this and The Pink Institution that are multi-genre because I feel it adds a lot to the experience of reading the novel.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, I would like to point out that I never took the book as overwhelmingly ethnic literature until I discovered the author's ethnicity. It wasn't that I was specifically ignoring particularly ethnic themes or overtones, but rather focusing more intently on others. I found this book, for example, to be infinitely more concerned with concepts of life and death, the difference between living and existing. As such, I took it as what might be considered a cultural book not on the basis of being black in America or being a woman in America, but rather focused around the nature of depression. The constant references to death, violence, and debate whether one is alive or not lead me to believe that this wasn't necessarily intended as ethnic literature, but more of a cultural literature.
ReplyDeleteThough, at the same time, in retrospect with new information on the characteristics of the author, I notice a number of things that numerous other people have pointed out, and can easily understand the characterization of the book as ethnic literature.
I agree that the discussion of death in the book is very important. I think Rankine's point is to get people to live life while they can, instead of attempting to forget or escape the remindersof death through medicines such as botox and antidepressants. Those medicines are temporary solutions that address the symptoms, not the root, of the fear.
ReplyDeleteI don't really see the book as "ethnic lit" because although Rankine does focus on what it means to be Black in America, the book isn't directed at simply telling the story of the black ethnicity. It points out the loneliness that exists for all Americans, and all over the world--she uses the example of Princess Di's deaht in Britain as yet another instance of fear of death.
I feel the theme of death is indeed an important aspect of the book but I do not feel that Rankine is presenting a sort of hopeful "live life while you can" message. I think it is precisely the opposite message. Rankine is commenting on people have capitalized on this mentality in a consumerist culture. The idea of "living life to the fullest" is often what drives people to pay for plastic surgery and other amenities to improve appearances and make small but expensive improvements. The inevitably and unpredictability of death makes Rankine skeptical of these decisions. The Princess Diana example is particularly poignant because Rankine points out that people are distraught and upset over the idea that someone who is protected and guarded like Princess Diana can die so quickly. It makes them think twice about spending the extra money for Botox and causes them to question the spend now mentality that they have lived with much of their lives.
ReplyDeleteIn response to what Vanessa said about the book not really being ethnic lit because it isn't focused her being black in America:
ReplyDeleteI feel like we probably didn't do such a good job of getting the point across in our mentioning of whether or not this is "ethnic lit"---but we (or at least I) feel that it is ethnic lit regarding the AMERICAN experience, not the black experience in America.
Most of the references are to cultural aspects that any American could be effected by or at least be aware of, regardless of their race. And although I suppose the knowledge of her race sort of brought that aspect of the book out in our discussion, by no means was my idea of this book being "ethnic lit" in regards to Rankine's race. Instead it is more about the culture she is apart of.
Just to clarify, as I feel based on a few comments I have seen that many people had the wrong idea of why I had questioned whether it was indeed "ethnic lit".
and in a few comments people have seemed to differentiate "ethnic" and "cultural" lit, but to
me, ESPECIALLY in the case of the united states,
there is an unbelievably blurry line between the two and I feel like there is little to no difference in many situations.
In my mind, Don't Let Me Be Lonely is unquestionably ethnic lit. Though we touched upon it in class, I think it's important to illustrate that Interpreter of Maladies would likely be questioned as ethnic lit were it being read in India. I believe "ethnic," among many other things, can simply be interpreted as "something foreign to a person."
ReplyDeleteRankine's American Lyric, then, would be read as ethnic lit by the other 7 or so billion human being beings living outside the U.S. Given that, what a bleak, depressing and, well, morbid portrayal of the United States she offers! I shared my feelings on this in class today, but I'll reiterate my belief that our perception of emotion is largely based on comparison to the reciprocal emotion.
We're Americans, on a worldly scale, we have everything and are tremendously over-privileged. But that's life. To us, living under a plastic sheet in a slum with no car, no money, and a severe concern as to the source of your next meal would be enough to illicit depressive feelings. I dare say it would take far less. For Rankine, it simply took contemplating her own morbidity. I recently read an article on the child actors in Slumdog Millionaire, and their lifestyles in India. In fact, the young boy who starred in a portion of the film does indeed live in the conditions I described. Is he constantly depressed? Probably not, because that's life (to him). The movie production company was nice enough to fly these impoverished children and their families to the United States for the Academy Awards, taking them to posh restaurants and, for the climax, Disney Land. Interviewed after their experience, the children were beyond ecstatic. Elated, hardly able to speak as they recounted their experiences time and time again.
Would the same experience as a child have been as meaningful to Rankine? It probably would have aroused some happiness, but probably would not have been a life-defining event as it was for these underprivileged kids.
My point is this: Could America's status as a "Prozac Nation" be in some ways a sad consequence of our materialistic and overindulgent lifestyles? We come to accept a certain standard, a certain norm as our quality of life. We start taking that status for granted. It doesn't make us happy, it is what it is. Ultimately, maybe the only path to happiness will be a drug-induced reprogramming of our chemical makeup.
Thanks, Hope, for a thoughtful response. The "death theme" in literature is probably one of the most tired of all, but for obvious reasons, is inexhaustible; I find Rankine's attempts to come to terms with it particularly fascinating for some of the reasons that all of you are indicating.
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to address Ben's note about "drug-induced reprogramming"--it's pretty interesting to talk about the very chemical nature of happiness and actually leads me back to think about Ishiguro--
ReplyDelete