Mix Bag Post

Since I am caught right in between finishing a major research paper and reading Song of Solomon, this post is going to be a bit of a mixed up mess. Let's start with Song of Solomon: In the latest reading, I couldn't help but notice so many jabs that Toni Morrison took on slavery. As horrible as it sounds, I actually laughed out loud at some of these jabs. An example would be when Reba says "Negroes don't like water" when the whole Dead family was talking about summer homes by the water. I saw this as a reference to the slave ships that African slaves were brought on. Another example that made me laugh out loud was when Pilate told Guitar and Milkman "You all must be the dumbest unhung Negroes on earth." This of course is a reference to the horrible conditions slaves had to endure. Then there was the pig named General Lee (priceless)! I also thought it was interesting to hear the story of how the Deads got their last name:
"Then he asked him who his father was. Papa said, 'he's dead'".
I think that this is Morrison's way of showing just how African Americans have been labeled with meaningless American surnames that tell them nothing about their heritage.

As for my research paper, I am liking my little experimental strategy. For one thing, it is almost fun (and I say ALMOST) to write what is supposed to be a formal paper in a completely informal tone. Also, this way I have exactly what I want to say on my paper. Most of the work in writing these kind of papers is trying to present it in a formal tongue, which often trips me up and makes my writing unclear. It's sort of like the Elephant Droppings method Mr. Rayburn told me about all the way back in subbie year. I have heard so many times that the hardest part about writing a research paper is staring at that blank piece of paper/word document. I guess what I did was just my version of elephant droppings. Also, it was fun to see my peer editor's reactions to my complete disregard for formality. Sometimes, I add stuff in the rough draft just to mess with my peer editor. Last year in nonfiction writing, I made a reference to 2 girls 1 cup. Long story short, he was not happy about it. I laughed my butt off. Writing papers can be hard, so you have to have fun with it when you can.

Waters Cleared

I know that my lack of insightful comments during class implied that I was not caught up on the reading for Wide Sargasso Sea, but I really did keep up. I simply didn't know what to make of the story. I didn't feel like any comment I could have made would have been insightful, and I felt like anything I could have said was already said by someone else in a more insightful manner. For a while, I just didn't know where Rhys was going with the story. Then I read the ending and then it all became clear to me. Rhys was creating a whole back story for a woman from Jane Eyre who was "crazy". For me, the whole story revolves around the very end. It was sort of like in Beloved how the whole story revolved around the incident where the mother slits her baby's throat to prevent her from becoming a slave. Antoinette's (I refuse to call her Bertha) whole story was just a way to show how someone can be driven crazy and question whether or not they really are crazy or if that is simply a label that is put on people we can't quite understand. I may have burned down that house like Antoinette if my life took a terrible turn like that. It was interesting to see how Antoinette tragically developed to be like her mother and repeated the same actions she did. I haven't read Jane Eyre, but if one of the characters was driven to madness and did the same thing Antoinette did, then that would be cool (it wouldn't be cool in real life) because then it would be like a whole tragic cycle.

Forget the whole Tarzan and Jane analogy I made in my previous blog post because I have a better one. Antoinette is like Lucifer from Paradise Lost and Rochester is like God. All Antoinette wanted was to be safe from people who might try to hurt her because of who her father was, which is analogous to Lucifer wanting to be as powerful as God. Now that think about it, Antoinette's father drove both Antoinette and her mother crazy in a sense, but I digress. Her situation has always been precarious, but Rochester had the power to give her Security in England (analogous to Hell), which is analogous to how God had the power to give Lucifer what he wanted. In the end of the book, we see Antoinette go to England, where she is safe from her situation in Jamaica, but her security comes with a the terrible price. This is like how Lucifer was given all of God's power, but his kingdom was Hell (which was detestable even to Lucifer himself). So like the devil himself, Antoinette gets what she wants in its worst possible form. When she lights the house on fire, the flames may hint at Hell.

(sorry this post is late I thought I posted it Saturday)

Murky Waters

Before I start discussing Wide Sargasso Sea, I would like to express a few things that have been bothering me about the whole writing process I have experienced in this class. Lately I have been feeling like a broken record in the sense that I feel like I keep repeating something that either I said or someone else said in my 20th Century Novel class. One way in which I feel like a broken record is that I tend to base my reflection essays on blog posts; which I don't mind because I believe that is part of the purpose of having this English blog. But other times, I feel like a broken record because I will regurgitate a critical point that either I or someone else has said in class in the form of a blog post, which then turns into a (more or less) polished paper. For example, I did a panel presentation on The Sun Also Rises which talked about Imagism, then I mentioned Imagism in a previous blog post, which then turned into a paper which I had to revise. I know that just sounds like a regular writing process, but I just hate the nagging feeling that I get that says that I am not being original with my content. So therefore, I will try and be original with my content in this blog post.

Throughout part one of the book, Rhys uses a very choppy writing style to disorient the reader. Maybe it's just me, but part two doesn't seem to be nearly as choppy as part one. Everything in part two is much clearer. I think this tells us a lot about Antoinette's psychology compared to Rochester's psychology. Antoinette and Rochester clearly have two different backgrounds. Antoinette grew up in Jamaica in a tense social climate. Antoinette seems to have inherited so many different things that caused her to have a completely understandable identity crisis. She inherited her parents' white skin, her fathers hate among the slaves he owned, and Christophine's songs, stories, and recipies. On the other hand, Rochester was born and raised in England where he didn't have to face any of this kind of tension and confusion. When they marry, they seem to complete each other. I keep getting the idea in my head that Antoinette is like Tarzan and Rochester is like Jane*. Like Tarzan, Antoinette was stranded on a foreign land and adopted certain customs to get by. Like Jane, Rochester is the British denizen who travels to a faraway land and falls in love. They are both polar opposites and they seem to complete each other.

*I would like to take this time to shoot down the elephant in the room. The Tarzan and Jane analogy falls apart when you draw parallels between Tarzan being raised by apes and Antoinette being raised by Christophine (a black woman). I am aware of what this analogy implies, and I do not think or condone the thinking that black people are like primates. I just thought it would still be interesting to share this analogy.

Camus the Philosopher

When reading The Stranger, I sometimes find it hard to believe that Meursault is even human. The way he reacts to certain situations just seems to be unreal. Some people in my class have mentioned things like Meursault seems to be autistic in the way that his way with dealing with people is just off. But I think that if he were autistic, there would be some sort of indication that there is something going on beneath his surface; because autistic people are human too. Camus makes no effort to indicate that there is anything under Meursault's apathetic exterior. Whenever I read about him, I feel like he is just a hollow man with no emotion, no passion, no discrepancy (which I somewhat admire), and no deep intellectual thoughts. In fact, the deepest we have gotten so far in Meursault's mind is when he is in his cell and he remembers things (we don't even know what)! He only observes things on a surface level and is tempted by shallow needs. Meursault's whole manner is just wrong. Nothing matters to him.

After learning that Camus was a philosopher in his time, I could suddenly make some sense out of Meursault's character. This is because even though I don't quite understand Meursault, I understand philosophers and what they do. One thing philosophers do is they show people how to think. During this process, philosophers will metaphorically take everything you know, throw it on the ground, and stomp all over it. When a person's way of thinking is challenged as such, the natural reaction is to reject the new way of thinking. They may think something along the lines of "no, that can't be!", or "That's wrong!", or maybe even just the basic "No!". This is exactly the kind of reaction that Meursault generates among readers of The Stranger. Meursault is merely a literary vehicle for Camus' philosophy.

Now that it is obvious that Camus is trying to convey a philosophical message, the obvious question remains. What is the underlying philosophy that Camus is trying to convey? I believe that the philosophy Camus is trying to convey is a very atheistic one. The underlying message seems to be that life is meaningless and humans are so futile that nothing they can do can stop the meaningless cycle (maybe he would have thought a little differently a few years later if he wrote this after the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Camus even goes as far as to make Meursault shoot and kill a man for no good reason as he thought it didn't make a difference whether or not he pulled the trigger. I also believe that the underlying philosophy is atheistic because of Meursault's encounter with his lawyer, who I believe is Meursault's polar opposite. The lawyer is a passionate, opinionated, borderline hysterical Christian who believes there is some rhyme and reason to life. Their encounter shows how much their philosophies conflict with one another: 

"I was about to tell him he was wrong to dwell on it, because it really didn't matter. But he cut me off and urged me one last time, drawing himself up to his full height and asking me if I believed in God. I said no. He sat down indignantly. He said it was impossible; all men believed in God, even those who turn their backs on him. That was his belief, and if he were ever to doubt it, his life would become meaningless."

On the other hand, instead of trying to make the reader believe this atheistic philosophy, Camus may be using Meursault as a litmus test for the philosophy. Meursault's experiences and thoughts may be Camus' way of saying that this is not what you should believe. But regardless of what Camus is trying to say, there is definitely some underlying message in the story.

NO!

The ending of the Metamorphosis is all messed up and sad. Gregor is the most unfortunate character of any book ever. Before he transformed, all he ever did was work his butt off to pay off his "helpless" family's debt so that they can live a decent lifestyle and this is the thanks he gets. Then when he needs them the most, they lock him up in a room, pretend like he doesn't exist, and starve him to death. Some people may say that such a reaction is understandable since Gregor is a giant cockroach and can't show any human emotions. The sad thing is that Gregor is the most human person in the entire book and his parents are the monsters that exploited his human compassion and forced him to work off their debt so that even as a human, he might as well have been a miserable cockroach. Then it is apparent that Gregor was cheated from his youth since his parents and sister could obviously take care of themselves after Gregor turned into a roach. But then Gregor, this sad, loving creature that felt nothing but love for his monstrous parents, dies. The parents mourn Gregor for two sentences (I would think about five minutes according to logic). Then, after that, the sun comes out, his parents are happy that he is gone, they go for a nice drive out in the country since "they could never do it with Gregor around". They even start thinking about getting a new apartment. I feel so sorry for Gregor. I wish that Gregor would beat up his father when he was human. I wanted to beat up Gregor's father for making Gregor Daddy's little sweatshop worker. It's one thing if the has to work with the father (my dad had to work for his father when he was very young to support the family), but if you are perfectly capable of working and you make your son work for you, you are a despicable worthless human being. The child is supposed to owe the parents a debt that can never be repaid. It should never be the other way around like we see in The Metamorphosis.

Kafkaesque

Reading Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis is a bit of a unique experience for me. For one thing, I don't think I've ever read a book with such a specific, gloomy mood as Kafka's book. Secondly, besides the first two Harry Potter books, I haven't read anything else that has had such a significant impact on pop culture. The whole class discussion on what makes something "Kafkaesque" combined with the intriguing alternate world presented in The Metamorphosis is really making me interested in finding some Kafkaesque influences in pop culture.

For starters, I should probably start out with defining what makes something Kafkaesque. From what I found, something that is Kafkaesque takes something very familiar and distorts it into something somewhat unsettling. Kafkaesque images are usually in/on a dark background and have little to no color variation as well as being physically distorted. Every Kafkaesque image I came across was either black and white or brown (which often included dark swirling lines). Also, Kafkaesque media (especially music) seem to attach itself to childlike innocence. For example, we have all probably seen an old horror movie or two where there is a child's music box that plays creepy music. Basically, Kafkaesque things take something and distort it and make it literally, spiritually, or metaphorically darker.

A familiar example of something that is Kafkaesque is Edward Scissor-hands. He is a perfect example of a Kafkaesque character both aesthetically and personality-wise. In terms of physical appearance, he has pasty white skin, swirling jet black hair, and wears all black, which are both attributes of a dimly colored Kafkaesque painting. In terms of personality, Edward Scissor-hands is basically a child trapped in an adult's body (plus he has scissors for hands). Edward Scissor-hands is actually a lot like Gregor Samsa in the book because he accidentally hurts people in the movie, which causes people to fear what he is much like Gregor's family fears him for what he is and does. Both are misunderstood and both just want to please people.

Here is an example of how even hip-hop can become Kafkaesque. This song is from the classic Cypress Hill album Black Sunday. This type of theme is unusual for Cypress Hill, and even more unusual in hip-hop. Despite its unusually dark theme, this album went triple platinum and contains the classic single Insane in the Brain. This album is very Kafkaesque because it took the well-known art form of gangsta rap music and gave it a dark twist. The album cover is very dimly colored and has different shades of brown combined with the swirling clouds in the background, which are all key attributes to Kafkaesque works of art. This particular track is very Kafkaesque because if you listen to the lyrics by themselves, they make up a typical gangsta rap song. But the instrumental part of the song sounds like it's straight out of a horror movie, which gives the familiar genre a bizarre twist.

I actually don't know too much about this work of art. I couldn't find out who drew it, and it's not exactly pop culture, but it is a perfect example of Kafkaesque art, and this particular example is directly inspired by The Metamorphosis. It has all the elements of a Kafkaesque work of art. It has the familiar businessman suit, tie, and suitcase twisted by the image of the cockroach combined with the swirling red aura in the background, which is a welcome change to swirling black lines. This picture is obviously portraying Gregor from the book in his traveling salesman attire in his metamorphic state. That may even be a fabric sample he is holding on the right. This picture adequately portrays the feeling I get whenever I read the book.

I believe that Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events shows how Kafka has affected other authors. In case it wasn't obvious enough, Snicket's juvenile readers' series deals with some rather dark subjects; this is of course an aspect of being Kafkaesque. The three main children are orphaned and then forced to live with their uncle, who is a shady character that is just after their money. There are thirteen books in the entire series (the last was released on a Friday the 13th), The kids are always on the run from their (to say the least) abusive uncle, and I believe at least one person dies in each book. This series is about as dark as preteen books get. Another thing that makes this Kafkaesque is that it has that same distorted dream-like reality to it. I reacall in the third book, the children go into a house built over the edge of a cliff and kept from falling by a few two-by-fours. The house was unstable, a refrigerator crushed someone to death, a doorknob exploded. Then the children had to escape their uncle by rowing a dingy through sea monster-infested waters. A connection I see between this book and The Metamorphasis is the messed up family dynamic between the characters in both books. Which family is even more messed up is debatable.

This last picture isn't exactly Kafkaesque, but I believe it is partially Kafkaesque in the sense that it twists something we know; in this case what it means to be Kafkaesque. Basically, this little comic is a twist on a twist, which some may argue is VERY Kafkaesque. It is a clever parody of the opening line to the book The Metamorphasis which I thought would be interesting to share.













There are many examples of things out there that are Kafkaesque. I think that many times when people create something that is Kafkaesque, they don't even realize it. These are just a few examples of how Franz Kafka's tormented mind helped mold pop culture that can still be seen today.

Bulls On Parade

I now see how the whole bullfighting analogy fits with the story in The Sun Also Rises. What comes to mind when I think about this are the brilliant analogies that Joey came up with in the third period class. From what I remembered, Joey said something along the lines of the bullfight representing what is happening to the main characters. Both Cohn and Michael are bulls who are charging for Brett, who represents the matador. Both Jake and Bill are just steers that draw the "bulls" closer to the "matador". When Cohn falls for Brett, she sticks a metaphorical sword in Cohn's shoulder. Everything revolves around Brett, who is of course the Matador. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

I think this analogy can go beyond the book itself. I believe that reading this book is like a bullfight, where the reader is the bull and Hemingway is the clever Matador that steers and goads the reader the way he wants. His whole writing style seems to steer the reader towards certain thoughts like a Matador steers a bull into a certain position. One way Hemingway does this is with his Ezra Pound-inspired Imagism, which is a literary sleight of hand where the writer writes about one thing and then writes about a different thing, thus blending the two together. This can be seen when Hemingway quickly goes from describing the bullfight to describing Michael and Cohn's little quarrel in the stands, or from when Hemingway goes from visually describes the gay men in the bar to talking about Jake's thoughts. Much like a Matador swiftly moves his cape from one position to another to maneuver a bull, Hemingway swiftly moves the focus of the book from one event to another to maneuver the reader's thoughts.

Another way that Hemingway steers the reader like a Matador is with his whole iceberg effect that hints at things under the surface. Since Hemingway rarely spells these subtle happenings out loud, the reader's mind naturally fills in the blanks. But this isn't purely random. Hemingway uses subtle hints to steer the reader's mind in a certain direction. For example, when Bill says something along the lines of "Why doesn't she go with you-- I mean me...", it implies that Bill knows about Jake's condition because he spoke without thinking and tries to correct it so he doesn't offend his friend. Or when Jake talks to Montoya and calls himself a "Descojonado" (Spanish for "one without genitals"), it implies that Montoya knows as well (Chapter 11). It's all one big bullfight.

Oh and I want to take a fun little poll: if you were making a movie version of The Sun Also Rises, who would cast to play who? (They don't have to be actors). My poll:

Jake: Sam Worthington/Daniel Craig
Cohn: Keanu Reeves
Bill: Charlie Sheen
Brett: Kesha/Charlize Theron
Michael: John Travolta
Pedro: Ramon Rodriguez