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.
lunes, 31 de enero de 2011
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)