Parallel to the ground
perpendicular to the wall.
Eyes closed,
obscurity.
Light.
Eyes open,
parallel to the wall
perpendicular to the ground.
miércoles, 1 de junio de 2011
Player
You have a one track mind like me
girl you are amazing
You are so damn pretty
I'm (all) yours
I would catch a granede 4 you
My world revolves around you
And I say hey, you say:
"I love the way you lie"
girl you are amazing
You are so damn pretty
I'm (all) yours
I would catch a granede 4 you
My world revolves around you
And I say hey, you say:
"I love the way you lie"
martes, 31 de mayo de 2011
No thing, but me
No make-up, no dress,
No hair-style, no heels,
Will play the role I should,
Will undo the mistakes I've done
Will keep me from crying, or dying.
No wax, no brush,
No bra, no cream,
Will perfection-ate my imperfection,
Because my imperfection is perfect,
My brain has no eyelashes to thicken,
My spirit needs no haircut
My soul wears no gown
I am my inside
What you don’t see at first sight
No hair-style, no heels,
Will play the role I should,
Will undo the mistakes I've done
Will keep me from crying, or dying.
No wax, no brush,
No bra, no cream,
Will perfection-ate my imperfection,
Because my imperfection is perfect,
My brain has no eyelashes to thicken,
My spirit needs no haircut
My soul wears no gown
I am my inside
What you don’t see at first sight
martes, 26 de abril de 2011
De Poem
Before I write what I was assign to write I want to point out something. I was skimming the package of passages and saw this one and read the first line and was carried away till the last line, amazingly. I connected with the poet, I think. “Dis Poem” made me feel in a rush, feel pressed to read it I finished it and I swear my heart was pounding harder.
Now to the academic.
Mutabaruka’s tone is critical and accusatory, I may even say remorseful. He uses onomatopoeia, repetition and cacophony “Lumumba Kenyatta Nkrumah”, he also applies aposiopesis “dis poem shall survive…u…me” and breaks down the word “history” into “his-story”, I really liked that but I don’t know what literary device is that. He definitely uses free verse and continuous enjambment. The conflict of the poem is racism but it also makes allusion to humanity, endless and unpredictable, it is what it says. I might just be Mutabaruka’s new fan.
martes, 12 de abril de 2011
Morrison Writes...
Gaps filled. Milkman’s past revealed. Hagar suicides. Guitar disappears. Solomon flies. Reyna cries. Sweet complains. Jack died. And later floated. Life saved, past saved. Lives taken. History repeats. Corinthians loves a madman. Places named after people. People named after things, symbolically. Circe watched dogs. Milkman regrets his “own stupidity” (Morrison 335). Pilate dies. And he sings:
Sugargirl don’t leave me here
Cotton balls to choke me
Sugargirl don’t leave me here
Buckra’s arms to choke me
Reyna’s same song for Solomon. But for Pilate, from Milkman. Guitar’s the murder. Milkman flies. And never dies.
martes, 5 de abril de 2011
Just A Color
Toni Morrison is a hell of a strong women. Her only appearance reflects that. Even though the interview was about her new novel Mercy, she talks a lot about the essence of her writing and the main theme she touches, apparently in all her novels: race.
Charlie Rose asks her at one point if this recurrent theme was due to her own race and African-American ancestors, and she affirms it, she implies her direct relationship with racism and she sustains that this problem has “survived 3 hundred to 4 hundred years”. Although she evidently does not esteem the whites so much, she surprisingly does not blame them for their supercilious attitude towards the blacks. She even talks about them as victims of a law imposed in the XVII century that said “Whites can (…) and kill blacks for any reason” making the “poor whites feel superior” over the blacks. She blames this law for the racial hierarchy that was created. I agree with her that it is “just a fantasy” , “just a dream” and that it is “pathetic”. I think most of us, around the world, now feel the same about racism since there has been such a fight against it. And as Morrison and Rose were discussing, since Obama’s victory, a new era, regarding racism, has begun, hopefully. So Morrison even feels shame for the whites, “no matter how poor, and no matter how condemned a white person was, they were tricked into feeling superior than blacks”, thanks to that law, she argues. To feel diminish a person or a group of persons, backed up with another group of persons makes you feel powerful, you put down someone else and it makes you be more secure. Without racial hierarchy, without the color distinction and discrimination, the whites would end up in misery. It is much nicer and safer to diminish someone else. This point brings me back to the work we read about Freud, were he discussed about human’s necessity, or maybe instinct, to have a common enemy.
Linking this all to Song of Solomon, I would say that it relates to the whole novel, obviously, but I keep thinking about Guitar. Like the whites, which are fooled into thinking they ought to put down the black for their inferiority, he is completely convinced he has to kill random, innocent whites, for a greater good of the world, “‘But why?’(says Milkman) ‘I just told you. It’s a necessity; it’s got to be done. To keep the ratio the same.’” (Morrison p.155) No matter how absurd what he is doing is, from his core he believes it’s got to be done. To change someone’s so instilled ideas from their minds is very difficult. Milkman tried, and he has an advantage, he is also a black man and he is his best friend, it is not a random white guy defending his race, it is his own. And he fails to.
As Morrison does, I ask myself, all this mess, for just a color.
Charlie Rose asks her at one point if this recurrent theme was due to her own race and African-American ancestors, and she affirms it, she implies her direct relationship with racism and she sustains that this problem has “survived 3 hundred to 4 hundred years”. Although she evidently does not esteem the whites so much, she surprisingly does not blame them for their supercilious attitude towards the blacks. She even talks about them as victims of a law imposed in the XVII century that said “Whites can (…) and kill blacks for any reason” making the “poor whites feel superior” over the blacks. She blames this law for the racial hierarchy that was created. I agree with her that it is “just a fantasy” , “just a dream” and that it is “pathetic”. I think most of us, around the world, now feel the same about racism since there has been such a fight against it. And as Morrison and Rose were discussing, since Obama’s victory, a new era, regarding racism, has begun, hopefully. So Morrison even feels shame for the whites, “no matter how poor, and no matter how condemned a white person was, they were tricked into feeling superior than blacks”, thanks to that law, she argues. To feel diminish a person or a group of persons, backed up with another group of persons makes you feel powerful, you put down someone else and it makes you be more secure. Without racial hierarchy, without the color distinction and discrimination, the whites would end up in misery. It is much nicer and safer to diminish someone else. This point brings me back to the work we read about Freud, were he discussed about human’s necessity, or maybe instinct, to have a common enemy.
Linking this all to Song of Solomon, I would say that it relates to the whole novel, obviously, but I keep thinking about Guitar. Like the whites, which are fooled into thinking they ought to put down the black for their inferiority, he is completely convinced he has to kill random, innocent whites, for a greater good of the world, “‘But why?’(says Milkman) ‘I just told you. It’s a necessity; it’s got to be done. To keep the ratio the same.’” (Morrison p.155) No matter how absurd what he is doing is, from his core he believes it’s got to be done. To change someone’s so instilled ideas from their minds is very difficult. Milkman tried, and he has an advantage, he is also a black man and he is his best friend, it is not a random white guy defending his race, it is his own. And he fails to.
As Morrison does, I ask myself, all this mess, for just a color.
sábado, 2 de abril de 2011
Jumping Around
Researching about Song of Solomon I stumbled upon this essay which I found interesting:
Levels of Language and Meaning in Song of Solomon
It relates a lot with what we discuss in class.
Levels of Language and Meaning in Song of Solomon
It relates a lot with what we discuss in class.
Analyzing The Names
As I posted on my previous blog, the names in Song of Solomon are funny. I learned long ago that the names of the characters in a fiction novel are not chosen randomly. I will attempt to figure out why Morrison chose these to name her characters.
Starting with the Dead family:
Macon Dean Jr. is a very controversial guy, African-American, merciless, violent, brought up in hard circumstances . He has a tragic story, his father was shot and he lived at times of slavery. Morrison tells the story of where the name came from: the man who filled in the register forms for the slaves in 1869 was drunk when his father, Macon Dead I registered, “Well, the Yankee wrote it all down, but in the wrong places. Had him born in Dunfrie, wherever the hell that is, and in the space for his name the fool wrote, ‘Dead’ comma ‘Macon.’” (Morrison 53) This story is absurd, therefore satirical, comical. It is like a joke that your name was turns out wrong because of a drunk register man and you suddenly end up with “Dead” as a last name and he decides to keep the tradition by naming forward his male son Macon Dead Jr. and so on.
Despite this explanation, I believe there is another meaning. The Dead family has issues. The original Macon was a slave whose father died early and he himself died early being shot. So the first Macon is dead, literally and comes from a chain of dead ancestors due to their tone of skin which they are condemned forever, like a last name is. Macon Dead Jr. is not dead yet, but he lives in a depressing mood. Hates his sister and calls her a “snake”, hates his wife for suspecting she had a incestuous relationship with his father in law, scolds his son and feels no proudness to be his father. He might be a wealthy man but lives in torment for making more and more money and owning more and more properties. He might as well just be dead, literally.
Pilate is another member of the dysfunctional Dead family. Her name was picked randomly out of the Bible and caused disagreements between her parents: “No. Not like no riverboat pilot. Like a Christ-killing Pilate. You can’t get much worse than that for a name. And a baby girl at that.” (p.19) This is also absurd, and very funny. I have to confess I smiled while reading this. According to her brother, she does have “Christ-killing Pilate” ‘s characteristics. He compares her to the snake in “the story about a snake” (p. 55) that betrays a man that takes care of her. He says she is someone who can “cut your throat” at any moment.
Ruth Foster is the mom of this generation of the Dead Family. Foster, literally, is kind of the opposite of dead. In the Dictionary it says: “To bring up; nurture, To promote the growth and development of; cultivate” Morrison matches the definition of the last name with what the character does. “(…) her shoulders hunched under the burden of housework and care of others, brutalized by a bear of a man.” (p. 75) and complements what Macon doesn’t. Her father, Dr. Foster also nurtures others, he was a well-known doctor, a little controversial but what he did is what his name means too.
And then comes Milkman whose name is also funny, it was his nickname because he drank his mother’s milk past the age of breastfeeding. Milkman, like Milk-man, it’s just funny. Taking it deeper, I could say that Milkman is in search for the very basic of his past life, the beginning of the African-American history and linking it to himself. Milk is the basis of life too, the first thing you eat when you are born, for all humans and most animals. There is a connection!
What about Guitar? Wtf! A musical instrument. I can’t find any connection to this white-killer boy with his name. It is absurd too.
And a bunch of other names that most have their meaning and purpose , like Freddie, Hagal, Reba (Rebecca), Corinthians (that one must have a reason), Lena (short for Magdalena), and new minor characters like Hospital Tommy, Feather, among others, whose names also intrigue me.
Starting with the Dead family:
Macon Dean Jr. is a very controversial guy, African-American, merciless, violent, brought up in hard circumstances . He has a tragic story, his father was shot and he lived at times of slavery. Morrison tells the story of where the name came from: the man who filled in the register forms for the slaves in 1869 was drunk when his father, Macon Dead I registered, “Well, the Yankee wrote it all down, but in the wrong places. Had him born in Dunfrie, wherever the hell that is, and in the space for his name the fool wrote, ‘Dead’ comma ‘Macon.’” (Morrison 53) This story is absurd, therefore satirical, comical. It is like a joke that your name was turns out wrong because of a drunk register man and you suddenly end up with “Dead” as a last name and he decides to keep the tradition by naming forward his male son Macon Dead Jr. and so on.
Despite this explanation, I believe there is another meaning. The Dead family has issues. The original Macon was a slave whose father died early and he himself died early being shot. So the first Macon is dead, literally and comes from a chain of dead ancestors due to their tone of skin which they are condemned forever, like a last name is. Macon Dead Jr. is not dead yet, but he lives in a depressing mood. Hates his sister and calls her a “snake”, hates his wife for suspecting she had a incestuous relationship with his father in law, scolds his son and feels no proudness to be his father. He might be a wealthy man but lives in torment for making more and more money and owning more and more properties. He might as well just be dead, literally.
Pilate is another member of the dysfunctional Dead family. Her name was picked randomly out of the Bible and caused disagreements between her parents: “No. Not like no riverboat pilot. Like a Christ-killing Pilate. You can’t get much worse than that for a name. And a baby girl at that.” (p.19) This is also absurd, and very funny. I have to confess I smiled while reading this. According to her brother, she does have “Christ-killing Pilate” ‘s characteristics. He compares her to the snake in “the story about a snake” (p. 55) that betrays a man that takes care of her. He says she is someone who can “cut your throat” at any moment.
Ruth Foster is the mom of this generation of the Dead Family. Foster, literally, is kind of the opposite of dead. In the Dictionary it says: “To bring up; nurture, To promote the growth and development of; cultivate” Morrison matches the definition of the last name with what the character does. “(…) her shoulders hunched under the burden of housework and care of others, brutalized by a bear of a man.” (p. 75) and complements what Macon doesn’t. Her father, Dr. Foster also nurtures others, he was a well-known doctor, a little controversial but what he did is what his name means too.
And then comes Milkman whose name is also funny, it was his nickname because he drank his mother’s milk past the age of breastfeeding. Milkman, like Milk-man, it’s just funny. Taking it deeper, I could say that Milkman is in search for the very basic of his past life, the beginning of the African-American history and linking it to himself. Milk is the basis of life too, the first thing you eat when you are born, for all humans and most animals. There is a connection!
What about Guitar? Wtf! A musical instrument. I can’t find any connection to this white-killer boy with his name. It is absurd too.
And a bunch of other names that most have their meaning and purpose , like Freddie, Hagal, Reba (Rebecca), Corinthians (that one must have a reason), Lena (short for Magdalena), and new minor characters like Hospital Tommy, Feather, among others, whose names also intrigue me.
jueves, 31 de marzo de 2011
lunes, 28 de marzo de 2011
A Common Enemy
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Heart of Darkness, The Age of Wonder and King Leopold’s Ghost talk about slavery. The most obvious connection is this common theme. Further into this complex theme is human nature, human instinct and natural urge of behavior. WE discussed in class the aggressiveness of humans. Today that aggressiveness has a wrong connotation, goes against the law, is worthy of prison, unacceptable. But before we were “civilized” or “sivilized” as Huck Finn calls it, that violence within us, against each other, was comprehended, common among us. Freud argues that we are born this way. If you think about it, animals, the other living things that resemble humans the most, are in fact aggressive among themselves. They kill each other for survival, they fight for a female, they wrestle to prove their male superiority, etc.. Watch Animal Planet or National Geographic. Our inner self, the ID as Freud calls it, does tend to put down another human being.
I have not yet established Conrad’s opinion of slavery. I am sure he disagrees with the imperialistic ways of his time and is aware of the atrocities happening at the Congo for ivory, yet he also portrays the Africans as cannibals and untamed beasts. What I was surprised to find out was that the Africans, among themselves, before the Europeans came along, practiced slavery, “Some Congo basin peoples sacrificed slaves on special occasions, such as the ratification of a treaty between chiefdoms; (…) Some slaves might also be sacrificed to give a dead chief’s soul some company on its journey into the next world.” (Hochschild 10) The Europeans only imposed the trading of slaves, buying and selling people and their treatment of the slaves was even less harsh than that of the Africans. Some slaves could gain freedom and they supposedly had a monetary value. The Europeans then are not the ones to blame for the atrocious practice of slavery. It was part of the culture before they converted it into an industry. The difference was that when they came along they are the common threat for all the Africans, the common enemy, and as Freud discusses in one of his theories, a common adversary to hate. The Europeans’ fear of the African natives, and image of them as Conrad exposes them, was reciprocal, “The whites were thought to turn their captives’ flesh into salt meat, their brains into cheese, and their blood into the red wine Europeans drank.” (Hochschild 16) Makes me nauseous.
It all gets me thinking, what if the normal guys are those violent criminals we call mentally sick, and those that are wrong are the rest of us? I guess war does not only have political and economic reasons, but one of natural violent behavior of human nature. Have we become further and further away from our instincts? I guess so, and it is not wonder we are so thrilled with the topic, like Twain, Conrad, Freud and Hochschild are.
I have not yet established Conrad’s opinion of slavery. I am sure he disagrees with the imperialistic ways of his time and is aware of the atrocities happening at the Congo for ivory, yet he also portrays the Africans as cannibals and untamed beasts. What I was surprised to find out was that the Africans, among themselves, before the Europeans came along, practiced slavery, “Some Congo basin peoples sacrificed slaves on special occasions, such as the ratification of a treaty between chiefdoms; (…) Some slaves might also be sacrificed to give a dead chief’s soul some company on its journey into the next world.” (Hochschild 10) The Europeans only imposed the trading of slaves, buying and selling people and their treatment of the slaves was even less harsh than that of the Africans. Some slaves could gain freedom and they supposedly had a monetary value. The Europeans then are not the ones to blame for the atrocious practice of slavery. It was part of the culture before they converted it into an industry. The difference was that when they came along they are the common threat for all the Africans, the common enemy, and as Freud discusses in one of his theories, a common adversary to hate. The Europeans’ fear of the African natives, and image of them as Conrad exposes them, was reciprocal, “The whites were thought to turn their captives’ flesh into salt meat, their brains into cheese, and their blood into the red wine Europeans drank.” (Hochschild 16) Makes me nauseous.
It all gets me thinking, what if the normal guys are those violent criminals we call mentally sick, and those that are wrong are the rest of us? I guess war does not only have political and economic reasons, but one of natural violent behavior of human nature. Have we become further and further away from our instincts? I guess so, and it is not wonder we are so thrilled with the topic, like Twain, Conrad, Freud and Hochschild are.
domingo, 27 de marzo de 2011
Banks and Marlow
In an expedition, in search of something, in a foreign country and living among natives that are completely different from them despite the fact that they are also human, Marlow and Banks are protagonist their respective novels. In which way do they differ?
Marlow comes from a middle class family in England while Banks comes from a high class family and inherited lots of money and properties at early age.
Banks is an educated and well known scientists and Marlow is only an explorer searching for adventure and for himself.
Marlow’s purpose on his voyage is developed while the journey goes. Banks’s purpose is clear and determined: scientific discoveries.
Banks’ relationship with the Natives is quite open and respectful, he tries to understand them and be friends with them. Marlow never really tried to relate with them and kept a distance most of the time, partly because of fear and partly because he did not understand them.
They share the enlightenment factor. Marlow real voyage is a self-reflection and discovery, full of metaphors and anagnorisis. Bank’s voyage will end up in the same revelations, apart from the botanical discoveries. As we have discussed earlier, in journeys what you really discover is yourself, regardless the social class, the destination, the means and the objective.
sábado, 19 de marzo de 2011
Metaphorical Romance
There’s gotta be a romance in every novel. Conrad’s is a little odd. Definitely it’s not the focus of the story, but it plays an important role at the end of the novel. It concludes it. “ ‘His last word-to live with,’ she insisted. ‘Don’t you understand I loved him-I loved him- I loved him!’ “I pulled myself together and spoke slowly.” ‘The last word he pronounced was-your name.’” (pg. 157) We know that’s not true. But she needed to hear that. A long time after Kurtz’s death and she was still mourning, painfully for him , Marlow decided to grant her the satisfaction to believe that Kurtz’s actual last word was her name. I found that interesting. Marlow doesn’t appear as a comprehensive or sentimental fellow, I would have expected him to just tell her his actual last words, but he didn’t. He felt sorry for her too. Why does she appear again in the end? She kinds of represents the legacy Kurtz left, emotionally after dying.
Conrad, through Marlow is trying to answer the QUESTions that I’ learned in 9th grade: Why are we here? Where are we going? Where did we come from? And above that, Who I am? Who are we? Marlow’s tale is a constant self-reflection. I might cover that in another blog. Referring back to the mistress, I think she is answering the where are we going question? In a rather different way. The lover’s constant remembrance of Kurtz is what is left of him. That is where he ends up when he dies, In her heart. I know it’s cheesy but it can make sense. It’s a romance with metaphorical background.
Conrad, through Marlow is trying to answer the QUESTions that I’ learned in 9th grade: Why are we here? Where are we going? Where did we come from? And above that, Who I am? Who are we? Marlow’s tale is a constant self-reflection. I might cover that in another blog. Referring back to the mistress, I think she is answering the where are we going question? In a rather different way. The lover’s constant remembrance of Kurtz is what is left of him. That is where he ends up when he dies, In her heart. I know it’s cheesy but it can make sense. It’s a romance with metaphorical background.
martes, 15 de marzo de 2011
Entity: Kurtz
What if Conrad decided to personify the enlightenment and self-discovery that Marlow is after? What if one of the characters isn’t real but a representation of the voyage Marlow is having, through the Congo and through his mind? And what if this personification is a character that has had us intrigued since the first pages of the novel?
I am about to start reading chapter III and Conrad left me in suspense, “‘He is up there,’ he replied, with a toss of the head up the hill, and becoming gloomy all of a sudden.” (pg. 127) the harlequin refers to Mr. Kurtz. I’m starting to believe that Kurtz is a like a Buddha. Everybody talks about him like a superior being, amazed at his skills and his achievements. They look after him, as a role model. A few have said to Marlow, “I tell you,’ he cried, ‘this man has enlarged my mind.” (pg.128) When Kurtz is mentioned, it seems like if he were an entity. Marlow mentions his English and French lineages and adds that “All Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz;” as if Kurtz were a product, that I, as much as Marlow, can’t wait to meet.
When Marlow remembers the report that Kurtz had written for the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs (which is a very weird society) he admires the “beautiful piece of writing.” and flatters it with these description: “The peroration was magnificent, (…). It gave me the notion of an exotic Immensity ruled by and august Benevolence.” (pg. 123) note that he capitalized “Immensity” and “Benevolence” which could be two words that describe Kurtz himself, if seen from the point of view I’m looking at him, as a personification. I mean, these two words also could fit in a description for an entity as Buddha. These words were not describing Kurtz but his report, which revealed his “unbounded power of eloquence-of words-of burning noble words.” Funny that Kurtz’s strongest skill involves words, right? Is Conrad trying to personify himself too?
The amazing report takes a 180 degree turn with its final four words: “Exterminated all brutes!” demonstrating Kurtz’s final insanity. Is this Marlow’s fate in the voyage? Maybe.
As for Kurtz’s real identity, I am positive he is not just a character, “Whatever he was, he was not common.” (pg. 124)
I am about to start reading chapter III and Conrad left me in suspense, “‘He is up there,’ he replied, with a toss of the head up the hill, and becoming gloomy all of a sudden.” (pg. 127) the harlequin refers to Mr. Kurtz. I’m starting to believe that Kurtz is a like a Buddha. Everybody talks about him like a superior being, amazed at his skills and his achievements. They look after him, as a role model. A few have said to Marlow, “I tell you,’ he cried, ‘this man has enlarged my mind.” (pg.128) When Kurtz is mentioned, it seems like if he were an entity. Marlow mentions his English and French lineages and adds that “All Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz;” as if Kurtz were a product, that I, as much as Marlow, can’t wait to meet.
When Marlow remembers the report that Kurtz had written for the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs (which is a very weird society) he admires the “beautiful piece of writing.” and flatters it with these description: “The peroration was magnificent, (…). It gave me the notion of an exotic Immensity ruled by and august Benevolence.” (pg. 123) note that he capitalized “Immensity” and “Benevolence” which could be two words that describe Kurtz himself, if seen from the point of view I’m looking at him, as a personification. I mean, these two words also could fit in a description for an entity as Buddha. These words were not describing Kurtz but his report, which revealed his “unbounded power of eloquence-of words-of burning noble words.” Funny that Kurtz’s strongest skill involves words, right? Is Conrad trying to personify himself too?
The amazing report takes a 180 degree turn with its final four words: “Exterminated all brutes!” demonstrating Kurtz’s final insanity. Is this Marlow’s fate in the voyage? Maybe.
As for Kurtz’s real identity, I am positive he is not just a character, “Whatever he was, he was not common.” (pg. 124)
jueves, 10 de marzo de 2011
Quotes!
Quotes I’ve liked so far from Heart of Darkness:
“Their talk, however was the talk of sordid buccaneers: It was reckless without hardihood, greedy without audacity, and cruel without courage; there was not an atom for foresight or of serious intention in the whole batch of them, and they did not seem aware these things are wanted for the work of the world.” (pg. 99)
“I don’t like work-no man does-but I like what is in the work-the chance to find yourself. Your own reality-for yourself, not for others- what no other man can ever know.” (pg.97)
“There is a taint of death, a flavor of mortality in lies-which is exactly what I hate and detest in the world- what I want to forget.” (pg. 94)
“And outside, the silent wilderness surrounding this cleared speck on the earth struck me as something great and invincible, like evil or truth, waiting patiently for the passing away of this fantastic invasion.” (pg 89)
“Uneasiness. Not a definite mistrust-just uneasiness-nothing more. You have no idea how effective such a…a…faculty can be.” (pg.88)
“It had ceased to be a blank space of delightful mystery-a white patch for a boy to dream gloriously over. It had become a place of darkness.” (pg.71)
Note that most are reflective and self discoveries or confessions.
I will be posting more quotes as I find them.
“Their talk, however was the talk of sordid buccaneers: It was reckless without hardihood, greedy without audacity, and cruel without courage; there was not an atom for foresight or of serious intention in the whole batch of them, and they did not seem aware these things are wanted for the work of the world.” (pg. 99)
“I don’t like work-no man does-but I like what is in the work-the chance to find yourself. Your own reality-for yourself, not for others- what no other man can ever know.” (pg.97)
“There is a taint of death, a flavor of mortality in lies-which is exactly what I hate and detest in the world- what I want to forget.” (pg. 94)
“And outside, the silent wilderness surrounding this cleared speck on the earth struck me as something great and invincible, like evil or truth, waiting patiently for the passing away of this fantastic invasion.” (pg 89)
“Uneasiness. Not a definite mistrust-just uneasiness-nothing more. You have no idea how effective such a…a…faculty can be.” (pg.88)
“It had ceased to be a blank space of delightful mystery-a white patch for a boy to dream gloriously over. It had become a place of darkness.” (pg.71)
Note that most are reflective and self discoveries or confessions.
I will be posting more quotes as I find them.
Marlow's Suspected Purpose
Marlow has identified his real purpose on his voyage: to exploit the resources of the land, regardless the means to achieve it. And he does not like it. “It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind-as is very proper for those who tackle a darkness.” (pg. 69) He also mentions that he felt his role in the exploration was not what he expected to be and suspected he would end up just like the others. So this dream of discovering the world is replaced with killing and stealing to get ivory.
Imperialism I believe has been well covered for a long time. I remember doing a project on modern imperialism in Global Studies with Mr. O’Connor and how shocked I was at the statistics and facts I had really no idea of. If today’s imperialism is gross I imagine Marlow’s experience of it must have been slaughtering. This novel could, in between lines, be a critic of the reality behind the voyages along African’s rivers. In Marlow’s 100.page story, he constantly reflects upon his own reality and self and his position regarding what he started to realize. Even though he avoids disagreeing explicitly with the traders and pilgrims around him, he definitely opposed their actions.
“The word “ivory” rang in the air, was whispered, was sighed. You would think they were praying to it. A taint of imbecile rapacity blew through in all, like a whiff from some corpse. By Jove! I’ve never seen anything so unreal in my life.” (pg 89)
Marlow talks pejoratively to this ambition and greed for ivory. He describes it as an “imbecile rapacity”, like a satisfaction for this stupid greed. I like his subtle but harsh judgment on it. It appears that all the boat’s members and all the people in charge and part of the exploitation were proud of their roles, including Marlow. But Marlow is proud of where he finds himself because of his ambition as a child, not for the monetary reward he could be granted. Conrad manages to takes us along in the journey. I ask myself, will Marlow do something against the imperialism taking place? Or will he simply be indifferent? I guess he will, otherwise he would not be the protagonist, right?
Imperialism I believe has been well covered for a long time. I remember doing a project on modern imperialism in Global Studies with Mr. O’Connor and how shocked I was at the statistics and facts I had really no idea of. If today’s imperialism is gross I imagine Marlow’s experience of it must have been slaughtering. This novel could, in between lines, be a critic of the reality behind the voyages along African’s rivers. In Marlow’s 100.page story, he constantly reflects upon his own reality and self and his position regarding what he started to realize. Even though he avoids disagreeing explicitly with the traders and pilgrims around him, he definitely opposed their actions.
“The word “ivory” rang in the air, was whispered, was sighed. You would think they were praying to it. A taint of imbecile rapacity blew through in all, like a whiff from some corpse. By Jove! I’ve never seen anything so unreal in my life.” (pg 89)
Marlow talks pejoratively to this ambition and greed for ivory. He describes it as an “imbecile rapacity”, like a satisfaction for this stupid greed. I like his subtle but harsh judgment on it. It appears that all the boat’s members and all the people in charge and part of the exploitation were proud of their roles, including Marlow. But Marlow is proud of where he finds himself because of his ambition as a child, not for the monetary reward he could be granted. Conrad manages to takes us along in the journey. I ask myself, will Marlow do something against the imperialism taking place? Or will he simply be indifferent? I guess he will, otherwise he would not be the protagonist, right?
miércoles, 9 de marzo de 2011
BOO-BOO
I walked in class and after a very brief discussion on the novel Heart Of Darkness by Joseph Conrad I realized I had been reading the wrong novel.
But that's okay, I'll just have to start again and forget the hour I wasted reading the wrong novel.
martes, 8 de marzo de 2011
Women-Boat
The narrator seems to hold a close, intimate relationship with his ship. Almost like a lover. The ship is personified as a woman. Instead of referring to the ship as “it” Joseph Conrad uses “she”. The ship is the narrator’s companion.
Eighteen months on a boat leaves no alternative but to bond with “her”. Conrad exposes the feelings of the captain, dealing with himself, with the people on board and the new discovery of anchored women-boat. This affection to the ships implies, obviously, their role in the novel. As the back cover of the book says “In the steaming jungles of the Congo or the vast reaches of the sea, it is the man’s capacity for good and for evil that is his enduring theme.” The “jungles of the Congo” have not been personified yet so I care more for the sea and with it the women-boats.
First of all why would a boat be feminine and not masculine? I would have classified a boat as masculine: tough, big, precise, and sharp-formed. A flower is feminine: delicate, imprecise, irregularly shaped, but not a boat. For the narrator it would make no sense to be so related to the ship if it were masculine, unless he were gay which is unusual. In his loneliness, as he stated twice in one page: “And then I was alone with my ship,” and “At that moment I was alone in her decks.” (p. 20) His desired companion must be feminine. And so far his crew and the new comer swimmer murderer have not fulfilled his desires.
Eighteen months on a boat leaves no alternative but to bond with “her”. Conrad exposes the feelings of the captain, dealing with himself, with the people on board and the new discovery of anchored women-boat. This affection to the ships implies, obviously, their role in the novel. As the back cover of the book says “In the steaming jungles of the Congo or the vast reaches of the sea, it is the man’s capacity for good and for evil that is his enduring theme.” The “jungles of the Congo” have not been personified yet so I care more for the sea and with it the women-boats.
First of all why would a boat be feminine and not masculine? I would have classified a boat as masculine: tough, big, precise, and sharp-formed. A flower is feminine: delicate, imprecise, irregularly shaped, but not a boat. For the narrator it would make no sense to be so related to the ship if it were masculine, unless he were gay which is unusual. In his loneliness, as he stated twice in one page: “And then I was alone with my ship,” and “At that moment I was alone in her decks.” (p. 20) His desired companion must be feminine. And so far his crew and the new comer swimmer murderer have not fulfilled his desires.
martes, 15 de febrero de 2011
Once It Is Over
Anagnorisis: the moment when a character of the play realizes something.
“GAEV. (…) Before the orchard was sold, we were all worried and wretched, but afterwards, when once the question was settled conclusively, irrevocably, we all felt calm and even cheerful. I am a bank clerk now-I am a financier-cannon off the red.” (Chekhov 112)
Once Gaev says it, Chekhov points out how obvious this statement is. What’s funny is that throughout the whole play the characters fight the idea of selling their beloved orchard and try to avoid the possibility as a solution for their worrying economic situation, and they pity themselves for the terrible decision they have to make and when sold, Gaev recognizes their relieve and Lyubov agrees. It reminds me when I was little and I kicked and cried and screamed when I had to cut my hair and when it was over I walked out of the salon smiling at my new hair and my mom burst out laughing because of the exaggerated and unnecessary drama she had to put up to to cut my hair.
Gaev’s anagnorisis reveal their real situation and his own position as a “bank clerk” only, an employee and his conformism with it. So that’s it! They are not entirely happy, but they are not worried either, what next? The play ends with quiet the same emotion and tone as it began. A decision was made because it had to be made for the sake of everyone. I live a similar situation at my own real home, when my parents talk about business and selling property and they complain and then are relieved and then complain again. Chekhov revives a quotidian event and Gaev comprehends the simplicity of it after it’s over.
“GAEV. (…) Before the orchard was sold, we were all worried and wretched, but afterwards, when once the question was settled conclusively, irrevocably, we all felt calm and even cheerful. I am a bank clerk now-I am a financier-cannon off the red.” (Chekhov 112)
Once Gaev says it, Chekhov points out how obvious this statement is. What’s funny is that throughout the whole play the characters fight the idea of selling their beloved orchard and try to avoid the possibility as a solution for their worrying economic situation, and they pity themselves for the terrible decision they have to make and when sold, Gaev recognizes their relieve and Lyubov agrees. It reminds me when I was little and I kicked and cried and screamed when I had to cut my hair and when it was over I walked out of the salon smiling at my new hair and my mom burst out laughing because of the exaggerated and unnecessary drama she had to put up to to cut my hair.
Gaev’s anagnorisis reveal their real situation and his own position as a “bank clerk” only, an employee and his conformism with it. So that’s it! They are not entirely happy, but they are not worried either, what next? The play ends with quiet the same emotion and tone as it began. A decision was made because it had to be made for the sake of everyone. I live a similar situation at my own real home, when my parents talk about business and selling property and they complain and then are relieved and then complain again. Chekhov revives a quotidian event and Gaev comprehends the simplicity of it after it’s over.
miércoles, 9 de febrero de 2011
Dear Chekhov,
I just finished reading Act III of your play The Cherry Orchard and I, if I may, want to bother you with some doubts. Repeatedly your characters ask questions between each other and the one being questioned fails to answer and instead talks about something completely different.
And then Lyubov argues with Trofimov about his freakiness and superiority, or inferiority, to love.
But Dunyasha trembles and gets anxious and nervous, over nothing, and feels glad that she was compared to a flower by a post-office clerk. And Yasha yawns in jealousy.
Mr. Chekhov I sense each character lives in a world of their own, and care only of the things that directly relate to them. “EPIHODOV. I have a misfortune every day, and if I may venture to express myself, I merely smile at it, I even laugh.” (pg. 103) Charlotta is a ventriloquist, and Varya a nun wannabe.
And you a realist.
What was your purpose in creating a character like Firs? An old man who mutters all the time without any filtration his thoughts and emotions. Well why not? His mutterings reveal the memory of a guy who witnesses a transformation of his country: “In old days we used to have generals, barons and admirals dancing at our balls, and now we send for the post-office clerk and the station master and even they’re not overanxious to come.” (pg. 101) and, rightly, feels mortified. Everyone else feels mortified for their economic situation, relationship status, mortgage, identity, and billiards.
May I ask you why Lopahin, an ordinary merchant happens to be the one that buys the orchard? Surprisingly? I guess I should have seen his protagonist role since he begins the play. I didn’t. That’s realism right?
The unexpected.
You probably had a Cherry Orchard as a garden when you were little at your grandparents’ house, and some random guy bought it, and you had to tell you grandma “And joy, quiet, deep joy, will sink into your soul like the sun at evening! And you will smile, (grandma)! Come, darling, let us go!” (pg. 106)
You didn’t that coming, did you?
Thank you for your response,
Reader.
domingo, 6 de febrero de 2011
Dunyasha's Conduct
I read Act II but the long Russian names and quick jumping from person to person dialogues and the incoherence in some responses confused me. So, I saw the play. I realized then I had been making the mistake of reading the play as a novel and forgotten the fact that it should not be read but watched. It’s meant to sense the character’s personality, to hear their tone, to interpret their facial expressions and to feel the drama that is going on. And I understood.
Dunyasha triggers me, she is a maid, comes from a peasant family, and has served Madame Ranevesky since she was little because her family was servants too, but, she seems to be part of the higher class. Dunyasha’s role is key to the theme Chekhov plots of social classes. Yet, it confuses me. The play starts out with a dialogue between her and Lopahin. Watching this dialogue on YouTube it seemed to me that Lopahin, a merchant, felt attracted to Dunyasha. He had a peasant origin like hers but unlike her, he owns wealth now as a merchant. And then Epihodov, more so like Dynuyasha, in terms of money, proposes to her, but it does not appeal to her. In Act II a character is introduced in to us in the emotional life: Yasha. Yasha is a valet, according to the book, but watching the play he seems more like a high class man, well-dresses, smoking cigars, and even disrespectful and arrogant in front of the higher class people. Dunyasha loves this man, his overconfidence attracts her. “I’m passionately in love with you, Yasha; you are a man of culture- you can give your opinion about anything.” He then brags about the validity of his opinion and diminishes her for “loving anyone”, and pushes her away when he hears others approaching. So, why would Dunyasha like this guy? Is it because she is used at being degraded? Although Yasha is her same social class, he behaves contrary to it, making her fall for him. Poor Epihodov who sings to her but she finds him ridiculous, and so does Yasha, who is too of a “cultured” man to like Epihodov.
Social classes implicate a feeling of superiority or inferiority. Duyasha is caught between the two feelings, “I have quiet grown out of peasant ways, and, my hands are white, as white as a lady’s.” She knows her status but feels differently. Yasha on the other hand, feels differently to his status and believes himself from a higher one. Ironically he tells Dunyasha “Of course a girl must never forget herself; what I dislike more than anything in a girl being flighty in her behavior.” (pg.83)That is exactly what his behavior is like. Epihodov acts accordingly and has no rush to be superior. There is a desirability to be from a higher class and rejection to lower the status, we can see that throughout the play. Dunyasha’s conduct portrays this class belonging ambiguity the Russians are going through at the time.
Dunyasha triggers me, she is a maid, comes from a peasant family, and has served Madame Ranevesky since she was little because her family was servants too, but, she seems to be part of the higher class. Dunyasha’s role is key to the theme Chekhov plots of social classes. Yet, it confuses me. The play starts out with a dialogue between her and Lopahin. Watching this dialogue on YouTube it seemed to me that Lopahin, a merchant, felt attracted to Dunyasha. He had a peasant origin like hers but unlike her, he owns wealth now as a merchant. And then Epihodov, more so like Dynuyasha, in terms of money, proposes to her, but it does not appeal to her. In Act II a character is introduced in to us in the emotional life: Yasha. Yasha is a valet, according to the book, but watching the play he seems more like a high class man, well-dresses, smoking cigars, and even disrespectful and arrogant in front of the higher class people. Dunyasha loves this man, his overconfidence attracts her. “I’m passionately in love with you, Yasha; you are a man of culture- you can give your opinion about anything.” He then brags about the validity of his opinion and diminishes her for “loving anyone”, and pushes her away when he hears others approaching. So, why would Dunyasha like this guy? Is it because she is used at being degraded? Although Yasha is her same social class, he behaves contrary to it, making her fall for him. Poor Epihodov who sings to her but she finds him ridiculous, and so does Yasha, who is too of a “cultured” man to like Epihodov.
Social classes implicate a feeling of superiority or inferiority. Duyasha is caught between the two feelings, “I have quiet grown out of peasant ways, and, my hands are white, as white as a lady’s.” She knows her status but feels differently. Yasha on the other hand, feels differently to his status and believes himself from a higher one. Ironically he tells Dunyasha “Of course a girl must never forget herself; what I dislike more than anything in a girl being flighty in her behavior.” (pg.83)That is exactly what his behavior is like. Epihodov acts accordingly and has no rush to be superior. There is a desirability to be from a higher class and rejection to lower the status, we can see that throughout the play. Dunyasha’s conduct portrays this class belonging ambiguity the Russians are going through at the time.
lunes, 31 de enero de 2011
Pride And Prejudice- Chekhov
Cherry Orchard has an element that has repeatedly appeared in many novels we have read so far: social class. I guess there is no way getting round it. Social status makes part of the structure of a society, of cultures and differentiates people and points of views, of reality. Chekhov introduces the influence of it right from the beginning in Act I. When Lopahin reflects about his past as a peasant and then reminds Dunyasha that “One must know one’s place.” (pg. 64) referring to her origin and social reality. And then it comes up again when Dunyasha expresses her dilemma in accepting Epihodov’s offer in marrying her or not. And then again Anya mentions her concern in her mother’s money situation, and Lyubov does too, and Pishtchik needs an loan “to pay the interest on (his) mortgage.” (pg. 77) And so on.
But apart from this issue being part of the play, I noticed a similarity to Pride and Prejudice’s main theme of marriage. Varya telling Anya, “All day long, darling, as I go about looking after the house, I keep dreaming all the time. If only we could marry you to a rich man, then I should feel more at rest.” (pg. 68) Just like Mrs. Bennet tells her daughters. The link that Jane Austen does between marriage and economic tranquility resembles Chekhov’s. Plus, Anya’s reaction is that of indifference, she pays no attention to what her sister tells her and changes the subject to the “birds singing in the garden”, kind of like Elizabeth does with Mrs. Bennet’s insisting demand to marry a wealthy man. Yet I don’t venture to compare more of Pride and Prejudice with Cherry Orchard for now.
But apart from this issue being part of the play, I noticed a similarity to Pride and Prejudice’s main theme of marriage. Varya telling Anya, “All day long, darling, as I go about looking after the house, I keep dreaming all the time. If only we could marry you to a rich man, then I should feel more at rest.” (pg. 68) Just like Mrs. Bennet tells her daughters. The link that Jane Austen does between marriage and economic tranquility resembles Chekhov’s. Plus, Anya’s reaction is that of indifference, she pays no attention to what her sister tells her and changes the subject to the “birds singing in the garden”, kind of like Elizabeth does with Mrs. Bennet’s insisting demand to marry a wealthy man. Yet I don’t venture to compare more of Pride and Prejudice with Cherry Orchard for now.
viernes, 28 de enero de 2011
Paris- Matthew Sergio Zuniga
The first thing I notice when reading this poem is how it differs to all the other poems I’ve read before in which sophisticated and antique language dominates all of the poem. Paris by Matthew Sergio Zuniga uses essentially my same language. He uses modern words and terminology that I feel familiar with. And I like it.
I will do an attempt to write down my thoughts as I read the poem:
The poem is in past tense except the last two lines which express future. So Zuniga is remembering a hot afternoon in Paris within that memory he remembers something else and imagines the events in his surroundings. He definitely is a foreigner: he refers to the people around him as “French”, hence the strangeness of the environment.
In line 5, the first line to go alone (after and before four line verses) Zuniga mentions that “It was hot.” The exception of this line, in terms of structure emphasizes its importance to the poem. The climate was hot, the place setting was hot and he was hot that is why he takes off the shoes in the first place. Why do you take off your shoes? Because you are resting, because you are tired, because you want to cool down your body, as Zuniga did. Hotness often links to being tired and your mind wonders off, off from the normal track of thoughts. Zuniga calls back an unexpected memory that has few to do what he had been talking about. But he justifies his fussiness in the next two lines that, as line 5, are also alone (not in quatrains): “Even in the shade/ I got a little delirious” this statement links to the one Zuniga did in line 5 about the heat. So the overheating is a key fact because it affects what he thinks.
Zuniga associates that hot, lazy day of his with a “living museum” (line 22) referring to everybody around him, including himself as part of the exhibition. It is like is he were in fact high and had an outside body experience I think they call it. The sensation that you are watching everything from behind of a glass, in an omnipotent kind of way. And then comes another exception verse, a one like verse: “or the friendly stranger named amphetamine.” (line28) Zuniga puts in doubt his lucidness. Amphetamine is a drug usually used to get high, a psych stimulant drug. He includes in his association with the “living museum” animals and God. Zuniga hints his resemblance to them because “they” don’t know they are part of the museum as he. They do the same as he does to “pass time”, take off their shoes. He feels like God and animals, unaware of his presence in a “living museum”, just there, under the influence of amphetamine and heat.
I will do an attempt to write down my thoughts as I read the poem:
The poem is in past tense except the last two lines which express future. So Zuniga is remembering a hot afternoon in Paris within that memory he remembers something else and imagines the events in his surroundings. He definitely is a foreigner: he refers to the people around him as “French”, hence the strangeness of the environment.
In line 5, the first line to go alone (after and before four line verses) Zuniga mentions that “It was hot.” The exception of this line, in terms of structure emphasizes its importance to the poem. The climate was hot, the place setting was hot and he was hot that is why he takes off the shoes in the first place. Why do you take off your shoes? Because you are resting, because you are tired, because you want to cool down your body, as Zuniga did. Hotness often links to being tired and your mind wonders off, off from the normal track of thoughts. Zuniga calls back an unexpected memory that has few to do what he had been talking about. But he justifies his fussiness in the next two lines that, as line 5, are also alone (not in quatrains): “Even in the shade/ I got a little delirious” this statement links to the one Zuniga did in line 5 about the heat. So the overheating is a key fact because it affects what he thinks.
Zuniga associates that hot, lazy day of his with a “living museum” (line 22) referring to everybody around him, including himself as part of the exhibition. It is like is he were in fact high and had an outside body experience I think they call it. The sensation that you are watching everything from behind of a glass, in an omnipotent kind of way. And then comes another exception verse, a one like verse: “or the friendly stranger named amphetamine.” (line28) Zuniga puts in doubt his lucidness. Amphetamine is a drug usually used to get high, a psych stimulant drug. He includes in his association with the “living museum” animals and God. Zuniga hints his resemblance to them because “they” don’t know they are part of the museum as he. They do the same as he does to “pass time”, take off their shoes. He feels like God and animals, unaware of his presence in a “living museum”, just there, under the influence of amphetamine and heat.
lunes, 24 de enero de 2011
sábado, 15 de enero de 2011
Poor Readers
Often in the class we discuss about words since the class revolves mainly around words and their composition. Shakespeare’s play Hamlet touches the ambiguity that words can be when Polonius asks Hamlet what he reads and he answers “words, words, words” (Act II, ii.) simultaneously referring to what we read, words. Literature is words, communication is words, interacting is words, basically it all narrows down to words. As cliché as it may sound, what are words without meaning? And the meaning they are given depends on the situation, the context, and the point of view of its receiver. Insults for example are very complicated words, and the tone, time and intention that they are used make the difference. So what is the problem with the word “nigger” in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn if its intention was not an insulting one?
To ban the novel or to feel uncomfortable with the language bad enough to publish a new edition altering the original vocabulary seems to me as an act of close minded people. Or a way to make money selling the new edition with the excuse that it is an “expurgation of more than 200 'hurtful epithets' will counter 'pre-emptive censorship' that has seen Mark Twain's classic dropped from curricula”. If some people want to make a fuss about it, go ahead and do it, but it is ridiculous. Twain lived in the XIX century, slavery was a reality along with African American’s discrimination, the novel reflects that, positively because one of the protagonists was a slave and the whole novel describes his noble character and Huck Finn’s determination to protect him and set him free. Twain does not write in a racist point of view at all, the use of “nigger” is simply used to refer to the slaves and African Americans, not to insult them. Slavery is not an issue anymore, and discrimination either, it's different time periods. I agree with Dr Sarah Churchwell (senior professor of US Literature) when she stated that “The fault lies with the teaching, not the book.” Poor teachers are the ones that have complained then, and poor readers that have felt insulted. I insist, it was a marketing strategy and not a moral issue.
To ban the novel or to feel uncomfortable with the language bad enough to publish a new edition altering the original vocabulary seems to me as an act of close minded people. Or a way to make money selling the new edition with the excuse that it is an “expurgation of more than 200 'hurtful epithets' will counter 'pre-emptive censorship' that has seen Mark Twain's classic dropped from curricula”. If some people want to make a fuss about it, go ahead and do it, but it is ridiculous. Twain lived in the XIX century, slavery was a reality along with African American’s discrimination, the novel reflects that, positively because one of the protagonists was a slave and the whole novel describes his noble character and Huck Finn’s determination to protect him and set him free. Twain does not write in a racist point of view at all, the use of “nigger” is simply used to refer to the slaves and African Americans, not to insult them. Slavery is not an issue anymore, and discrimination either, it's different time periods. I agree with Dr Sarah Churchwell (senior professor of US Literature) when she stated that “The fault lies with the teaching, not the book.” Poor teachers are the ones that have complained then, and poor readers that have felt insulted. I insist, it was a marketing strategy and not a moral issue.
jueves, 13 de enero de 2011
Funny Ignorance
I laughed with Bones and his girl. The description of a minstrel show reminded me of my brother. He likes African American music, their way of talking, their way of dancing and specially their comedians. He listens to Chris Rock, Dave Chapelle and Chris Tucker for hours. The minstrel show has some resemblance because mainly what is funny about them is more their way of talking than what they are actually saying. It also applies to funny Hollywood movies where there is an African American and his accent and vocabulary makes the movie hilarious. While reading Bones In Love by J. Harry Carleton I imagined Chris Rock talking and I laughed. It is a little degrading that Bones is portrayed as a dumb man who makes mistakes talking and pronouncing and lacks knowledge about obvious things to white persons:
“Bones. Yes, dat's de reason she was so fond of me. She was a poickess, too.
Interlocutor. A poetess, you mean.”
While enslaved, they had no education which explains their ignorance which is made fun of, which is mean. Jim suffers from the same privation and his dialogue with Huck Finn resembles Bones’ for that reason and their accent. For example “dat’s” intead of “that’s” or “dey” instead of “they”, “git” intead of “get” among many other modifications of the language. Jim’s facility to believe in fictive beliefs, like the rattlesnake’s bad luck, or chicken’s foretell of the rain or the hairy bodies that will be rich and other beliefs prove his naïve ignorance.
Here is a perfect dialogue between Huck Finn and Jim very similar to the Bones’ minstrel.
“Ef you’s got hairy arms en a hairy breas’, it’s a sign dat you’s a-gwyne to be rich (…)”
“Have you got hairy arms and a hairy breast, Jim?”
“What’s de use to ax dat question? Don’t you see I has?
“Well, are you rich?”
“No, but I ben rich wunst, and gwyne to be rich ag’in. Wunst I had foteen dollars, but I tuck to specalat’n, en got busted out.”
“what did you speculate in, Jim?”
“Well, fust I tackled stock.”
“What kind of stuck?”
“Why, live stock-cattle, you know. I put ten dollars in a cow. But I ain’ gwyne to resk no mo’ money in stock. De cow up ‘n’ died on my han’s.” (pg. 58-59)
And I laughed. I agree with Blackface Minstrelsy article’s author that “it seems to me that in Huck's lines one hears the correct accents of Mr. Interlocutor, and in Jim's replies, the comic inadequacies of Mr. Bones.” Jim’s inadequacies are cute, he is my favorite character :)
“Bones. Yes, dat's de reason she was so fond of me. She was a poickess, too.
Interlocutor. A poetess, you mean.”
While enslaved, they had no education which explains their ignorance which is made fun of, which is mean. Jim suffers from the same privation and his dialogue with Huck Finn resembles Bones’ for that reason and their accent. For example “dat’s” intead of “that’s” or “dey” instead of “they”, “git” intead of “get” among many other modifications of the language. Jim’s facility to believe in fictive beliefs, like the rattlesnake’s bad luck, or chicken’s foretell of the rain or the hairy bodies that will be rich and other beliefs prove his naïve ignorance.
Here is a perfect dialogue between Huck Finn and Jim very similar to the Bones’ minstrel.
“Ef you’s got hairy arms en a hairy breas’, it’s a sign dat you’s a-gwyne to be rich (…)”
“Have you got hairy arms and a hairy breast, Jim?”
“What’s de use to ax dat question? Don’t you see I has?
“Well, are you rich?”
“No, but I ben rich wunst, and gwyne to be rich ag’in. Wunst I had foteen dollars, but I tuck to specalat’n, en got busted out.”
“what did you speculate in, Jim?”
“Well, fust I tackled stock.”
“What kind of stuck?”
“Why, live stock-cattle, you know. I put ten dollars in a cow. But I ain’ gwyne to resk no mo’ money in stock. De cow up ‘n’ died on my han’s.” (pg. 58-59)
And I laughed. I agree with Blackface Minstrelsy article’s author that “it seems to me that in Huck's lines one hears the correct accents of Mr. Interlocutor, and in Jim's replies, the comic inadequacies of Mr. Bones.” Jim’s inadequacies are cute, he is my favorite character :)
The Voice
I can’t help to notice the negative connotation an African American ethnicity still has regardless the efforts to avoid it. Anthony DePalma publishes in his article A Scholar Finds Huck Finn's Voice in Twain's Writing About a Black Youth Professor Shelley Fisher Fishkin comparison between Huck Finn’s voice with Twain’s servant, a black 10-year-old boy, arguing that they are almost identical. The novel’s importance seems to decay if the voice of the narrative indeed resembles or copies a boy servant. It would infer, based on “Hemingway's line that 'all modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called "Huckleberry Finn."’”, that American English roots from African American of the late 19th century, which creates controversy.
Slavery and African Americans are obviously one of the main themes in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. But I agree with Twain’s supporters that his language is satirical, not degrading to the African American but more defendant of them, in contrast to his society. His protagonist does everything in his power to protect and hide Jim even though he is expected to be treated as an object and not a man. Surely the novel caused disagreements when published and it still does with this new hypothesis about Huck Finn’s Voice coming from a black boy.
I believe Professor Fishkin’s argument is very likely to be right. The voice undoubtly is a kid’s voice and thought, naïve and uneasy, his vocabulary isn’t sophisticated and even childish in some ways, if I were to see the evidence that Professor Fishkin provides I would be easily convinced of its resemblance with the boy. American language was influenced by Twain’s novel, there is no way back. Whether it came from Twain’s head or from Twain’s servant makes no difference, either way a big percentage of American are African American so their way of speaking has shaped modern English.
I can’t help noticing also the change in DePalma’s voice within the article. I know this has little to do with my previous argument but it caught my attention. The introducing paragraph tries to copy Twain’s child voice: “You don't know about this without you have read a book by the name of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn"; but that ain't no matter.” That is how the actual novel begins, (but ‘The Adventures of Tom Sawyer’ instead), and he goes on with the same tone next sentence: “Mr. Mark Twain wrote it and he got considerable praise for using a boy's voice to tell a tangled story about race and about America and nobody kin say for sure where that voice come from.” The tone is recognized because he uses three times the conjunction ‘and’, uses ‘kin’ instead of ‘can’ and the fact that the sentence is long, like a kid spilling rapidly out everything he wants to say at once. Then the tone gets more formal and less Twainish. Just pointing out.
Slavery and African Americans are obviously one of the main themes in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. But I agree with Twain’s supporters that his language is satirical, not degrading to the African American but more defendant of them, in contrast to his society. His protagonist does everything in his power to protect and hide Jim even though he is expected to be treated as an object and not a man. Surely the novel caused disagreements when published and it still does with this new hypothesis about Huck Finn’s Voice coming from a black boy.
I believe Professor Fishkin’s argument is very likely to be right. The voice undoubtly is a kid’s voice and thought, naïve and uneasy, his vocabulary isn’t sophisticated and even childish in some ways, if I were to see the evidence that Professor Fishkin provides I would be easily convinced of its resemblance with the boy. American language was influenced by Twain’s novel, there is no way back. Whether it came from Twain’s head or from Twain’s servant makes no difference, either way a big percentage of American are African American so their way of speaking has shaped modern English.
I can’t help noticing also the change in DePalma’s voice within the article. I know this has little to do with my previous argument but it caught my attention. The introducing paragraph tries to copy Twain’s child voice: “You don't know about this without you have read a book by the name of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn"; but that ain't no matter.” That is how the actual novel begins, (but ‘The Adventures of Tom Sawyer’ instead), and he goes on with the same tone next sentence: “Mr. Mark Twain wrote it and he got considerable praise for using a boy's voice to tell a tangled story about race and about America and nobody kin say for sure where that voice come from.” The tone is recognized because he uses three times the conjunction ‘and’, uses ‘kin’ instead of ‘can’ and the fact that the sentence is long, like a kid spilling rapidly out everything he wants to say at once. Then the tone gets more formal and less Twainish. Just pointing out.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)