Since we have read and discussed Benjamin and her theory about the binaries, every story has either had an underlying or very prominent binary. These binaries have repeatedly had extreme importance to the development and view of characters within the short stories. Our ability to understand and analyze these binaries has become a key part in becoming better readers and thinkers. In Old Woman Magoun, binaries are again on the surface of the stories plot. It is clear from the beginning that Old Woman Magoun is in control of a dominating "Parent"/ child relationship. Although she is not the real parent, her dominance over Lily puts her in closed box that is forbidden to be opened. She is kept a youthful child well beyond the normal age of growing up. Old Woman Magoun's manipulation of Lily is so evident, that Lily never even recognizes the situation she is with her father. Magoun makes sure to hide her from any change in character or affect in personality. She even dominates her to her death, due to the fact that she more or less murdered Lily. This Binary again deems impossible to get out of or create mutual recognition in. There is yet to be a perfect example of mutual recognition, emphasizing the difficult to achieve it, even in writing.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
The Price of Security is Insecurity
When considering Benjamin's binaries, simple polar classification of relationships is an “easy-out” from dealing with the existential reality of contradictory nature: the co-existence of a need for recognition and a yearning for independence.
Thus, the first step towards equality is to embrace paradoxical reality.
Consequently, one needs to recognize that, by its paradoxical nature, this mindset will eventually break down.
It’s bound to confuse. One must therefore recognize its fragility, yet also strive to embrace the ethereal reality-- recognize the fine balance necessary to live in mutual recognition may slip away at any moment, but also know the mindset can be “recaptured." Herein lies Benjamin's second true paradox: we must “accept the inevitable inconsistency and imperfection of our efforts without relinquishing the project.”
Dan Harris, author of "10% Happier" put Benjamin's second paradox perfectly when he said "the price of security is insecurity."
Because the moment we become complacent about our beliefs, they falter. The moment we overlook what defines us, we change. The moment we take something or someone for granted, they cease to be that.
As humans, we crave simplicity and order. To clear our minds, we create labels and slap them onto what we don't fully understand. What's wrong here? Well.. we haven't truly understood what we just labeled. We tell ourselves labels help us understand, but who needs a label on a jar if they know what's inside?
We tell ourselves we believe "equality for all." Is equality is a label? I think so. So if we don't truly understand the full implications of mutual recognition, what can we be sure of?
We can know that we don't know.
We must step outside of our self-absorbed need to define nature through labels and look at the bigger picture. Don't define what you don't know, and everyone becomes a subject.
Walking Benjamin's tightrope is difficult-- near impossible...
...But, if we are willing to recognize mutual recognition's paradoxical fragility, pursue it regardless, and admit we don't have all the answers, maybe-- just maybe, we could make a lasting change to the world.
Thus, the first step towards equality is to embrace paradoxical reality.
Consequently, one needs to recognize that, by its paradoxical nature, this mindset will eventually break down.
It’s bound to confuse. One must therefore recognize its fragility, yet also strive to embrace the ethereal reality-- recognize the fine balance necessary to live in mutual recognition may slip away at any moment, but also know the mindset can be “recaptured." Herein lies Benjamin's second true paradox: we must “accept the inevitable inconsistency and imperfection of our efforts without relinquishing the project.”
Dan Harris, author of "10% Happier" put Benjamin's second paradox perfectly when he said "the price of security is insecurity."
Because the moment we become complacent about our beliefs, they falter. The moment we overlook what defines us, we change. The moment we take something or someone for granted, they cease to be that.
As humans, we crave simplicity and order. To clear our minds, we create labels and slap them onto what we don't fully understand. What's wrong here? Well.. we haven't truly understood what we just labeled. We tell ourselves labels help us understand, but who needs a label on a jar if they know what's inside?
We tell ourselves we believe "equality for all." Is equality is a label? I think so. So if we don't truly understand the full implications of mutual recognition, what can we be sure of?
We can know that we don't know.
We must step outside of our self-absorbed need to define nature through labels and look at the bigger picture. Don't define what you don't know, and everyone becomes a subject.
Walking Benjamin's tightrope is difficult-- near impossible...
...But, if we are willing to recognize mutual recognition's paradoxical fragility, pursue it regardless, and admit we don't have all the answers, maybe-- just maybe, we could make a lasting change to the world.
So.. Where's this Prince?
I was going to make this a comment in Zoe's post just below, but it got lengthy enough to merit its own post. I strongly recommend reading that one before this one. Here goes!
As Zoe said, the biggest flaw in the fairy tale part of our Old Woman Magoun presentation was the prince archetype, cause it definitely wasn't really there. We saw the lack of the prince too, and the fact that it's mostly absent is actually an important thing to consider when contemplating the themes of the story. Men are painted in a completely negative light throughout the tale, not just through Magoun's opinions but also by the male character's personalities themselves, as Freeman described them to us. If there was a prince at all (when Lily was first attracted to and comforted by the stranger) he was abruptly and somewhat cynically transformed into a predator hunting for innocent Lily, which further stressed just how bad men are supposed to be. But then at the very end of the story, it's only the biggest male enemy, Nelson Barry himself, who screams for someone to help his dying daughter. So what could Freeman really be saying about gender roles? Assuming she doesn't agree with the evil step-mother that all men are nothing but wolves, what part of the binary is Freeman really mocking, if she is?
While there's never an answer that's more right than the other, it could be argued that Freeman really means to make Magoun the bad guy by the end, maybe even the only bad guy in the whole story. She's judgmental, probably uneducated, and a very masculine woman in her assertiveness, which is usually considered a negative trait during the period the story was set in. She controls Lily, not allowing her to be married and lose her innocence and childlike charm simply because she doesn't trust the men around her. She claims the right to choose whether Lily lives or dies, and carries out her execution. I don't think that Freemen is simply taking a shot at woman instead of men, because that's definitely not the case. Maybe she's just criticizing hypocrites.
As Zoe said, the biggest flaw in the fairy tale part of our Old Woman Magoun presentation was the prince archetype, cause it definitely wasn't really there. We saw the lack of the prince too, and the fact that it's mostly absent is actually an important thing to consider when contemplating the themes of the story. Men are painted in a completely negative light throughout the tale, not just through Magoun's opinions but also by the male character's personalities themselves, as Freeman described them to us. If there was a prince at all (when Lily was first attracted to and comforted by the stranger) he was abruptly and somewhat cynically transformed into a predator hunting for innocent Lily, which further stressed just how bad men are supposed to be. But then at the very end of the story, it's only the biggest male enemy, Nelson Barry himself, who screams for someone to help his dying daughter. So what could Freeman really be saying about gender roles? Assuming she doesn't agree with the evil step-mother that all men are nothing but wolves, what part of the binary is Freeman really mocking, if she is?
While there's never an answer that's more right than the other, it could be argued that Freeman really means to make Magoun the bad guy by the end, maybe even the only bad guy in the whole story. She's judgmental, probably uneducated, and a very masculine woman in her assertiveness, which is usually considered a negative trait during the period the story was set in. She controls Lily, not allowing her to be married and lose her innocence and childlike charm simply because she doesn't trust the men around her. She claims the right to choose whether Lily lives or dies, and carries out her execution. I don't think that Freemen is simply taking a shot at woman instead of men, because that's definitely not the case. Maybe she's just criticizing hypocrites.
Men
After reading The Language of Men in English class last week, it is interesting to compare their actions to real life situations. In the short story, the job of a cook is ridiculed for being feminine and not as manly as a brutish soldier. He is only able to receive a sense of acceptance when he starts a physical interaction with another soldier and immediately loses it when he expresses regret for his actions. Similarly, with Albert Camus' The Stranger, the relationship between Raymond and Meursault is dependent on the revenge and hatred of another woman. This portrays the male relations to be dependent on the vicious and rough love. Any alien entering this world would read this and this males are survival of the fittest and females are only for their use.
Personally, yes I'm very sorry about this Nabokov, I find this idea of "man love" to be over-publicized and strange. As a man myself, it seems weird that making friends off of my violence and physical actions. Then again, it would be weird for a friend to constantly seek attention from his comrades. Me and my friends mostly base our friendship on getting each other to laugh, not with any fisticuffs. Although it doesn't fall under the illusion of manly men stuff, its better to not have your relationship with someone else be entangled with your toughness.
Memba Dis?
Last thursday was September 11th.
Timehop wanted to know if you remembered.
For those who don't know, Timehop is an app for iPhones/Androids that will show the user what they posted on Facebook on the same day/month but from a previous year. It is depicted with a cartoon dinosaur asking you if you recall posting the status/picture ("Memba dis?"). The dinosaur can also be depicted saying witty comments such as "statistically at least one person on Timehop will fart while reading this."
Unfortunately for Timehop, such a day as September 11th is not the most appropriate day to joke around. As highlighted on a Buzzfeed article, Timehop made the mistake of taking a day such as 9/11 and remarking it as a day "more awesome than the day we played Marco Polo in the grocery store."
Many people quickly took to Twitter and Facebook to voice their outrage over the app's poor choices.
Rather than begin a debate on social media and its role specifically in our nation's remembrance of September 11th, I'd like to shift to a broader view: How should companies that control how social media is perceived deal with events that are often times marked with panic or anxiety?
Recently, for example, Urban Outfitters released the sale of a Kent State University sweatshirt stained with fake blood. Though Urban Outfitters is not technically a form of social media, it is a brand that has enormous influence over teenagers and young adults (the main demographic of social media). This is not the first time Urban Outfitters has done something well past the borderline of risky ("Eat Less" campaign).
Should these companies be expected to exemplify discipline through their products? Or does the company have the right to advertise whatever it wants to regardless of the criticism?
No matter what we believe in, we should all make more of an effort on our own to reflect on the tragedies and misfortunes that have occurred in our nation as well as in other countries. Perhaps social media should use its influence to help us remember... Perhaps not... What do you think?
Timehop wanted to know if you remembered.
For those who don't know, Timehop is an app for iPhones/Androids that will show the user what they posted on Facebook on the same day/month but from a previous year. It is depicted with a cartoon dinosaur asking you if you recall posting the status/picture ("Memba dis?"). The dinosaur can also be depicted saying witty comments such as "statistically at least one person on Timehop will fart while reading this."
Unfortunately for Timehop, such a day as September 11th is not the most appropriate day to joke around. As highlighted on a Buzzfeed article, Timehop made the mistake of taking a day such as 9/11 and remarking it as a day "more awesome than the day we played Marco Polo in the grocery store."
Many people quickly took to Twitter and Facebook to voice their outrage over the app's poor choices.
Rather than begin a debate on social media and its role specifically in our nation's remembrance of September 11th, I'd like to shift to a broader view: How should companies that control how social media is perceived deal with events that are often times marked with panic or anxiety?
Recently, for example, Urban Outfitters released the sale of a Kent State University sweatshirt stained with fake blood. Though Urban Outfitters is not technically a form of social media, it is a brand that has enormous influence over teenagers and young adults (the main demographic of social media). This is not the first time Urban Outfitters has done something well past the borderline of risky ("Eat Less" campaign).
Should these companies be expected to exemplify discipline through their products? Or does the company have the right to advertise whatever it wants to regardless of the criticism?
No matter what we believe in, we should all make more of an effort on our own to reflect on the tragedies and misfortunes that have occurred in our nation as well as in other countries. Perhaps social media should use its influence to help us remember... Perhaps not... What do you think?
What "Works" and What "Doesn't:" The Proper Way to Show Sample Work to Students
Upon reading the sample essay responses in class on Monday, it occurred to me that reading exceptional, beautifully-crafted pieces is seemingly useless if we are not also exposed to examples of what we should not do, that is. It was pretty clear to the entire class that one essay was stellar, one was mediocre, and one was inadequate. An outsider might think question the benefits of showing students examples of average and poor work, but from a student’s perspective, this type of exposure is actually quite necessary in order for us to achieve our greatest potentials on our work.
Okay, so it’s nice to see A-level, exceptional work once in a while, but the most we can do is simply enjoy it because, chances are, most of us high school students are not capable of writing an essay of that quality and substance in forty minutes. In Monday’s situation, I really enjoyed reading the “9” essay; I was drawn in by the complexity of the argument and amazed by the fluidity of the language. However, out of all three of the essays we read that day, I feel that I gained the least knowledge from that one. And by “knowledge,” I mean “things that I can apply to my own in-class essay writing.” The essay that would have received a score of a six or seven was even more necessary for us to read, as the level of the language and argument-development featured in it was similar to the majority of our writing capabilities. Exposure to critiques on writing similar to our own helps us form a better understanding of what “works” and what doesn’t. Even reading and critiquing the lowest-scoring essay was beneficial to us because it exemplified what we should specifically avoid doing in our writing.
Overall, I believe that the decision to have us read three different essays, each with a distinct level of quality, was an essential one. Had we just been presented with the exceptional essay, we would not be able to fully understand what the AP graders are specifically looking for in essays of our level. I believe that more teachers in more departments of education should adopt this method of giving examples. Most of the time, in almost any class, we are shown samples of A-plus-earning work as “examples” of what we should be doing. However, we should instead be shown samples of both average and underperforming work as well, as these are the exposures that will truly help us clearly organize our own ideas before we put them into a final product.
Okay, so it’s nice to see A-level, exceptional work once in a while, but the most we can do is simply enjoy it because, chances are, most of us high school students are not capable of writing an essay of that quality and substance in forty minutes. In Monday’s situation, I really enjoyed reading the “9” essay; I was drawn in by the complexity of the argument and amazed by the fluidity of the language. However, out of all three of the essays we read that day, I feel that I gained the least knowledge from that one. And by “knowledge,” I mean “things that I can apply to my own in-class essay writing.” The essay that would have received a score of a six or seven was even more necessary for us to read, as the level of the language and argument-development featured in it was similar to the majority of our writing capabilities. Exposure to critiques on writing similar to our own helps us form a better understanding of what “works” and what doesn’t. Even reading and critiquing the lowest-scoring essay was beneficial to us because it exemplified what we should specifically avoid doing in our writing.
Overall, I believe that the decision to have us read three different essays, each with a distinct level of quality, was an essential one. Had we just been presented with the exceptional essay, we would not be able to fully understand what the AP graders are specifically looking for in essays of our level. I believe that more teachers in more departments of education should adopt this method of giving examples. Most of the time, in almost any class, we are shown samples of A-plus-earning work as “examples” of what we should be doing. However, we should instead be shown samples of both average and underperforming work as well, as these are the exposures that will truly help us clearly organize our own ideas before we put them into a final product.
Fairytales in Old Woman Magoun
The presentation last week on “Old Woman Magoun” had a slide suggesting that the plot and characters from the story could, in many ways, be compared to a classic fairytale. I found this idea really interesting, so I wanted to elaborate on it a bit. The main similarity that I noticed between “Old Woman Magoun” and fairytales is the use of nature; in many stories, an innocent girl is harmed by the forces of nature. The first to come to mind is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Snow White bites into a poisonous apple and is put to sleep, similarly to how Lily is killed by eating the poisonous berries. Snow White also has the dwarfs as her side-kicks, and I suppose in this short story Lily's side-kick would be her doll.
Of course every fairytale needs some sort of “evil villain”, and you could definitely argue that Nelson Barry fits this character, however I thought Old Woman Magoun fit it better as more of an “evil stepmother”. She tries to maintain a sense of control over Lily, and loses it when Lily goes out into the world (similar to Cinderella, perhaps?).
One issue I did have with the main argument was the prince. Is there is a prince in “Old Woman Magoun”? It seemed as though the two leading male characters didn’t have good intentions, and I thought of Nelson Barry as more of a “big bad wolf” than a prince.
Of course every fairytale needs some sort of “evil villain”, and you could definitely argue that Nelson Barry fits this character, however I thought Old Woman Magoun fit it better as more of an “evil stepmother”. She tries to maintain a sense of control over Lily, and loses it when Lily goes out into the world (similar to Cinderella, perhaps?).
One issue I did have with the main argument was the prince. Is there is a prince in “Old Woman Magoun”? It seemed as though the two leading male characters didn’t have good intentions, and I thought of Nelson Barry as more of a “big bad wolf” than a prince.
Living to Dying - a Coming of Age Story
Media connections seem to be all the rage this week, so I thought I'd throw my two cents in. I'd like to focus on the story "Barn Burning" in relation to Paul McCartney's song "Live and Let Die".
"Live and Let Die" is what I imagine would be Abner's anthem. He is all about doing what he wants and letting others take the burn (literally). One verse of the song goes, "What does it matter to ya, when you've got a job to do you've gotta do it well. You gotta give the other fella Hell." Abner's burning impulse is easily compared to this line. He never questions his impulse to burn; he in fact treats it like something he simply must do, like a job, that involves no choice on his part. This particular non-choice in his life just happens to involve giving the other guy - usually someone threatening his dominance - a fresh serving of the lake of fire.
What really is disturbing about this parallel is the very beginning of the song. It opens with the lyrics "When you were young and your heart was an open book you used to say, 'Live and let live.'" This line establishes a perhaps loving or at least non-sadistic youth. If the rest of the song is taken as a parallel to Abner's life, then we have to consider the possibility of a more innocent childhood that developed into the burning-impulse which ended his life. Beyond conjecture, however, the one character in the story that for sure fits this description is Abner's son Colonel Sartoris. Colonel Sartoris wants his father to live his own life and let other people live theirs - live and let live. But if Abner may have grown up the same way, what does that mean for Colonel Sartoris's life? It is hard not to suspect the worst.
"Live and Let Die" is what I imagine would be Abner's anthem. He is all about doing what he wants and letting others take the burn (literally). One verse of the song goes, "What does it matter to ya, when you've got a job to do you've gotta do it well. You gotta give the other fella Hell." Abner's burning impulse is easily compared to this line. He never questions his impulse to burn; he in fact treats it like something he simply must do, like a job, that involves no choice on his part. This particular non-choice in his life just happens to involve giving the other guy - usually someone threatening his dominance - a fresh serving of the lake of fire.
What really is disturbing about this parallel is the very beginning of the song. It opens with the lyrics "When you were young and your heart was an open book you used to say, 'Live and let live.'" This line establishes a perhaps loving or at least non-sadistic youth. If the rest of the song is taken as a parallel to Abner's life, then we have to consider the possibility of a more innocent childhood that developed into the burning-impulse which ended his life. Beyond conjecture, however, the one character in the story that for sure fits this description is Abner's son Colonel Sartoris. Colonel Sartoris wants his father to live his own life and let other people live theirs - live and let live. But if Abner may have grown up the same way, what does that mean for Colonel Sartoris's life? It is hard not to suspect the worst.
Mutual Recognition? Could it be the work of aliens?
Today, along with a couple fellow football players, our wonderful classmate Patrick Flanagan and I got extremely philosophical. We pondered what life after death would be like as well as what "nothingness" would be like. Eventually we landed on the topic of aliens after having a laugh about the absurd show, "Ancient Aliens." Obviously I believe that aliens and other life-forms exist, but the question is how do they live? Do they mutually recognize each other as Jessica Benjamin would hope? Or do they life in a world of submission and dominance?
Somewhat along the lines of nothingness, I believe that it is impossible to fathom a utopia where there is 100% mutual recognition. Since we live in a world where binaries define how we live it is almost impossible to imagine how the dynamics of society would flow with 100% mutual recognition. A government would nearly be impossible to form if no one could dominate another person. Maybe one day we will discover a planet where the natives live under mutual recognition but for now we are stuck wondering.
Somewhat along the lines of nothingness, I believe that it is impossible to fathom a utopia where there is 100% mutual recognition. Since we live in a world where binaries define how we live it is almost impossible to imagine how the dynamics of society would flow with 100% mutual recognition. A government would nearly be impossible to form if no one could dominate another person. Maybe one day we will discover a planet where the natives live under mutual recognition but for now we are stuck wondering.
The Ghost of Pool Party's Future
In "The Swimmer" each of the pools Neddy swims through represents a period of time and so his whole journey represents the passage of time itself. By the end he has aged and his whole life has changed. His house is now empty, he has lost his family and wealth as well as his social standing. This is largely due to his denial and ignorance of the fact that life is just as full of unpleasantness as it it is of happiness. He loses everything he thinks is "right" in the world and is eventually left completely and utterly alone.
The problem I have with this is the story paints this as some sort of inevitability, making the reader believe that no matter what it is bound to happen to Neddy. However for the series of events that leads to his downfall to occur, Neddy must operate under the exact identity as he did at the beginning. He must be in his state of blissful denial and youthful outlook. The problem then stands that the story demonstrated that Neddy is capable of recognizing the mistakes he's made and he can see how they stem from his character. He even comes to regret them greatly once he sees the consequences. If then Neddy is capable of this kind of development then his "downfall" can never actually occur as he would recognize is, as he did on his journey, and make changes to prevent it from getting any worse. This makes the progression in his journey actually impossible because it leaves him in some sort of non dynamic stasis in which he has no agency over his decisions. He is no longer Neddy, he is just watching what Neddy's life could become if he doesn't change Instead of going through his life in a normal fashion and doing this however he just swims through his life, only touching on certain points in a span of time that we can assume is years long. In this way his journey is like the Christmas Carol where Neddy is visited by the ghost of pool party's future so he can learn the error of his ways.
The problem I have with this is the story paints this as some sort of inevitability, making the reader believe that no matter what it is bound to happen to Neddy. However for the series of events that leads to his downfall to occur, Neddy must operate under the exact identity as he did at the beginning. He must be in his state of blissful denial and youthful outlook. The problem then stands that the story demonstrated that Neddy is capable of recognizing the mistakes he's made and he can see how they stem from his character. He even comes to regret them greatly once he sees the consequences. If then Neddy is capable of this kind of development then his "downfall" can never actually occur as he would recognize is, as he did on his journey, and make changes to prevent it from getting any worse. This makes the progression in his journey actually impossible because it leaves him in some sort of non dynamic stasis in which he has no agency over his decisions. He is no longer Neddy, he is just watching what Neddy's life could become if he doesn't change Instead of going through his life in a normal fashion and doing this however he just swims through his life, only touching on certain points in a span of time that we can assume is years long. In this way his journey is like the Christmas Carol where Neddy is visited by the ghost of pool party's future so he can learn the error of his ways.
Confidence is Key
Upon reading a couple essays in class today, I just had to comment on how amazing everyone's lives seem when they "show, don't tell." The Nabakovian magic of enchanting is aided by good stories, but good storytelling is the primary way to enchant readers.
After reading the various short stories and presenting projects about them, I think we all gained familiarity with writing styles that pull the reader in, and whether or not it was conscious, reflected some of those strategies in our college essay drafts. I read two seriously captivating essays, and even enjoyed some lines that the authors didn't find to be particularly revealing or interesting.
Even in my own essay, I found that the parts readers enjoyed the most were the parts that I was the most self-conscious about, or that I didn't think would work. Taking risks really is important, and if we write with central themes and/or the prompt in mind, often times we convey our message and characters without even recognizing it.
So this has turned almost into a cheesy motivational speech, and maybe I'm just feeling particularly optimistic, but I think that as we revise our essays we should be confident in what we write and let the spirit take us, so to speak, with becoming Nabakovian writers. Honesty, creativity, and confidence can be perceived by the reader, and when combined can form a captivating story. I read some great lines today and I'm sure there are more out there, so words of encouragement, I guess, keep writing!
After reading the various short stories and presenting projects about them, I think we all gained familiarity with writing styles that pull the reader in, and whether or not it was conscious, reflected some of those strategies in our college essay drafts. I read two seriously captivating essays, and even enjoyed some lines that the authors didn't find to be particularly revealing or interesting.
Even in my own essay, I found that the parts readers enjoyed the most were the parts that I was the most self-conscious about, or that I didn't think would work. Taking risks really is important, and if we write with central themes and/or the prompt in mind, often times we convey our message and characters without even recognizing it.
So this has turned almost into a cheesy motivational speech, and maybe I'm just feeling particularly optimistic, but I think that as we revise our essays we should be confident in what we write and let the spirit take us, so to speak, with becoming Nabakovian writers. Honesty, creativity, and confidence can be perceived by the reader, and when combined can form a captivating story. I read some great lines today and I'm sure there are more out there, so words of encouragement, I guess, keep writing!
Mercy Murder?
When discussing "Old Woman Magoun" in class and we asked whether Old Woman Magoun was responsible for Lily's death. Was Lily's eating of the berries coincidence that happened to go along Old Woman Magoun's plan, or did Lily's grandmother have a hand in the fateful meal of berries?
Old Woman Magoun did not want Lily to go live with Nelson Barry because she knew it would not have been a good life for her. She wanted Lily to be adopted by the Masons but they refused because Nelson is Lily's father. So what option did Magoun have?
On the way home from the Mason's, Lily eats the berries and then complains of feeling sick but Magoun does nothing. Magoun did not play an active part but she did not stop Lily either. Magoun saw death by poison berries as a better option for Lily than going to live with Nelson who would have given her to Jim Willis who would have been a danger to Lily. Personally, I do not think that death should automatically be one's second choice for a plan, but Old Women Magoun thought that death was the only other option for Lily when adoption did not work. Although she definitely would not win grandma of the year Magoun, did what she thought was best for Lily.
However, Magoun's actions can also be seen with a more sinister twist. While walking to the Mason's Lily first asks about the berries and Old Woman Magoun says, "You can't have any now." Old Woman Magoun implies that Lily could have some later which hints that Old Woman Magoun could have already been planning to have Lily die by poison berries if the plan for adoption did not work. Old Woman Magoun becomes increasingly suspicious when she gets very angry when Lily eats sour apples and milk because that was the way Lily's mother died. There is something strange about Lily's mother's death that also implies that Old Woman Magoun may have played a part in her death This then brings up another question about why Magoun would have done this. Old Woman Magoun saw Lily's death as a way of protecting her from Nelson Barry and this may also be the reason that Magoun killed her daughter. Old Women Magoun always clashed with Nelson Barry and this was probably the case when Lily's mother was young and she wanted to protect her daughter from him. Old Woman Magoun wanted to control them and hold onto their innocence and when she saw that that being threatened she was willing to take drastic measures.
Old Woman Magoun did not want Lily to go live with Nelson Barry because she knew it would not have been a good life for her. She wanted Lily to be adopted by the Masons but they refused because Nelson is Lily's father. So what option did Magoun have?
On the way home from the Mason's, Lily eats the berries and then complains of feeling sick but Magoun does nothing. Magoun did not play an active part but she did not stop Lily either. Magoun saw death by poison berries as a better option for Lily than going to live with Nelson who would have given her to Jim Willis who would have been a danger to Lily. Personally, I do not think that death should automatically be one's second choice for a plan, but Old Women Magoun thought that death was the only other option for Lily when adoption did not work. Although she definitely would not win grandma of the year Magoun, did what she thought was best for Lily.
However, Magoun's actions can also be seen with a more sinister twist. While walking to the Mason's Lily first asks about the berries and Old Woman Magoun says, "You can't have any now." Old Woman Magoun implies that Lily could have some later which hints that Old Woman Magoun could have already been planning to have Lily die by poison berries if the plan for adoption did not work. Old Woman Magoun becomes increasingly suspicious when she gets very angry when Lily eats sour apples and milk because that was the way Lily's mother died. There is something strange about Lily's mother's death that also implies that Old Woman Magoun may have played a part in her death This then brings up another question about why Magoun would have done this. Old Woman Magoun saw Lily's death as a way of protecting her from Nelson Barry and this may also be the reason that Magoun killed her daughter. Old Women Magoun always clashed with Nelson Barry and this was probably the case when Lily's mother was young and she wanted to protect her daughter from him. Old Woman Magoun wanted to control them and hold onto their innocence and when she saw that that being threatened she was willing to take drastic measures.
Identity And The Shack
The struggle to find identity is not limited to literature and fairy tales, but is applicable in everyday life. I like to see the struggle to find identity in music.
The band Weezer released their first album (the blue album if you're interested) in 1994 in the midst of a grunge revolution. They almost immediately found their niche as the nerdy, hardcore, almost punk rock band that sang well written, clever songs like Buddy Holly and The Sweater Song. They became very popular and found a lot of success with later releases.
But like all bands, there comes a time when the artists feel like they cannot relate to the new generation and make music that will please their audiences. So like many bands Weezer almost twenty years after formation moved away from what made them who they were and tried to change their style to fit in with the changing musical scene.
Now how is this related to identity? Well every band has a distinct sound. I'm willing to bet that everyone can name a band or musical artist that has a distinct musical sound.
Weezer found their sound and their distinct musical identity in 1994.
In the song Back to the Shack Weezer apologizes to its listeners for pursuing a musical style that was not their own and they acknowledge that they were the most successful and the happiest when they were making music their way. There isn't another band that can replicate Weezer's sound or do what they do better then they can.
Musically Weezer found their identity and so have many other noteworthy musical acts.
Beyonce Up in the Club/Short Story Packet
During our discussion about the "Secret Woman," I mentioned Beyonce's new album because of its shared feminist ideas. Many of these short stories remind me of Beyonce songs, so to illustrate the similarities, I am going to compare each story in our short story packet (with the exception of "Good Country People" because Beyonce makes a point of not writing songs about stealing people's prosthetic limbs) to a Beyonce song from the self-titled album she released last year.
The Swimmer: Drunk in Love
Throughout "The Swimmer," Neddy drinks alcohol to forget his problems. Although Beyonce and Jay Z are not getting drunk for the same reason, they also forget what happened the night before. Another connection is the use of water. In "The Swimmer," Neddy swims through his neighbor's pools, and in "Drunk in Love," Beyonce and Jay Z are in their bathtub (and in the music video, they are filmed on the beach).
Connection Level (out of 10): 3
The Secret Woman: Blow
"The Secret Woman" and "Blow" are both feminist texts that encourage women to own their sexuality in a way that society is not used to. The idea that women get as much pleasure from sex as men do (or, at least, are able to) was revolutionary at the time Colette wrote "The Secret Woman," and the idea that women want sex as much as men do was (still) revolutionary when Beyonce's surprise album dropped last year.
Connection Level: 8
Old Woman Magoun: Heaven
Both of these texts deal with losing a child dear to your heart (the popular consensus is that "Heaven" is about Beyonce's miscarriage) but knowing that it was for a reason (although in "Heaven" the reason may be more of a coping mechanism than a legitimate reason: "Heaven couldn't wait for you.").
Connection Level: 4
Barn Burning: Jealous
Although Faulkner never explicitly explains why Abner Snopes burns down barns, the reader can infer that part of the explanation is that he feels wronged by the world and his father. To deal with this unhappiness, Abner acts violently and destructively. This is similar to the way Beyonce almost breaks a glass in the beginning of "Jealous" when Jay Z stands her up.
Connection Level: 2 (I tried.)
The Language of Men: Pretty Hurts
"The Language of Men" is about the negative impact gender roles and stereotypes have on men. "Pretty Hurts" is about the negative impact gender roles and beauty standards have on women. These two themes are basically the same theme focusing on different genders.
Connection Level: 7
The Lesson: Haunted
"The Lesson" is about a woman teaching children about wealth disparity and asking them how it makes them feel which is reminiscent of the chorus of Beyonce's song "Haunted": "All these people on the plante working nine to five just to stay alive... How come?"
Connection Level: 6
In the end, I think what we can take away from this blog post is that good art is timeless and that Mr. Heidkamp was an un-credited collaborator on Beyonce's album.
How loosing your identity can actually help you find your true self
In the short story, "The Secret Woman" by Colette, anonymity plays a large role in asserting dominance and respect. By leaving the characters nameless and only calling them "the man" and "the woman", Colette adds to the theme of anonymity. Colette seems to be implying that the only way women can gain power and respect in life and relationships is by remaining anonymous.
In the story, the husband and wife both go to a masked opera, which is actually an orgy in disguise, without each other's knowledge. However, the man recognizes his wife by her distinct laugh. After following her for some time, he realizes she didn't cheat on him because she didn't love him, instead she just wanted the excitement and liked the anonymity of it. She didn't have to worry about conforming to society's rules or acting how other's want her to act. By being anonymous she almost seems to become herself and access her true identity.
In the story, the husband and wife both go to a masked opera, which is actually an orgy in disguise, without each other's knowledge. However, the man recognizes his wife by her distinct laugh. After following her for some time, he realizes she didn't cheat on him because she didn't love him, instead she just wanted the excitement and liked the anonymity of it. She didn't have to worry about conforming to society's rules or acting how other's want her to act. By being anonymous she almost seems to become herself and access her true identity.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Assume: Makes an ___ Out of "U" and Me
While rereading our short stories in preparation for the upcoming test, I realized a common mistake that I made. I continuously assumed things. I assumed what another was character was thinking, I assumed what one character was going to do to the other, I assumed things that I should have waited to find out from the author. Nelson Barry, a main character from "Old Woman Magoun" by Mary E. Wilkins Freeman, loses his daughter in a bet to his friend, Jim Willis. I automatically assumed the worst was to be done to her by Willis. I immediately went to the most negative end of the possibilities spectrum- pedophilia. However, this assumption isn't without merit- Freeman purposefully described the character in a mysterious, almost creepy way that did not accentuate the positive aspects of Jim Willis.
Assumptions, or inferences? Now, assumptions may make a donkey out of you and me, but inferences on the other hand clarify the more secretive hidings of a piece of literature. In Freeman's case, my assumption about Jim Willis's intentions was truly an inference. Freeman didn't state, "Willis is a pedophile." She described him holding Lily's hand, how Lily reacted to his presence around her. Also, Nelson Barry lost his daughter in a bet to Willis... I highly doubt that a young girl won in a bet is getting a full scholarship to school or a brand new horse...But there it is again! The assuming! In all honesty one will never know the truth about what would have happened to Lily and that is the miraculous mystery of literature- it is up to ones' self to decide and decipher what will happen to a little girl and a strange man.
Assumptions, or inferences? Now, assumptions may make a donkey out of you and me, but inferences on the other hand clarify the more secretive hidings of a piece of literature. In Freeman's case, my assumption about Jim Willis's intentions was truly an inference. Freeman didn't state, "Willis is a pedophile." She described him holding Lily's hand, how Lily reacted to his presence around her. Also, Nelson Barry lost his daughter in a bet to Willis... I highly doubt that a young girl won in a bet is getting a full scholarship to school or a brand new horse...But there it is again! The assuming! In all honesty one will never know the truth about what would have happened to Lily and that is the miraculous mystery of literature- it is up to ones' self to decide and decipher what will happen to a little girl and a strange man.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Dominance of Men in "The Language of Men"
It does not surprise me that Norman Mailer is notoriously sexist. In "The Language of Men," he establishes a sexist and rather stereotypical MALE/female binary. The protagonist Carter struggles to fit into the social environment of the army until he discovers his niche as an army cook. As Carter takes on the traditionally feminine role of working in the kitchen, Mailer creates a contrast between Carter, who is characterized as sensitive and feminine, and his tough, masculine peers. He references stereotypical gender roles when Carter mutters "the age old laments of the housewife" as his confidence is shaken by the soldiers' lack of acknowledgment of his hard work. The MASCULINE/feminine binary is exemplified when Taylor, the epitome of a masculine soldier, attacks Carter's stereotypically feminine vulnerabilities, particularly his sensitivity to how much others appreciate his work.
This supposedly feminine weakness of Carter's invokes Jessica Benjamin's concept of mutual recognition. Carter yearns for recognition and is hurt when the other soldiers fail to recognize him for his work. In this scenario, Carter is the object in the SUBJECT/object binary. By defining his self worth by how much others appreciate him, he allows himself to be dominated by the soldiers.
Carter becomes a man when he forbids Taylor and the other soldiers from taking oil from the kitchen and attempts to fight one soldier in order to prove his subjectivity. By demonstrating his ability to dominate as a subject, he becomes a man by Mailer's definition. Although the story does not necessarily promote the ambiguous and somewhat combative "language of men," it implies a MALE SUBJECT/female object binary that is inherently sexist.
This supposedly feminine weakness of Carter's invokes Jessica Benjamin's concept of mutual recognition. Carter yearns for recognition and is hurt when the other soldiers fail to recognize him for his work. In this scenario, Carter is the object in the SUBJECT/object binary. By defining his self worth by how much others appreciate him, he allows himself to be dominated by the soldiers.
Carter becomes a man when he forbids Taylor and the other soldiers from taking oil from the kitchen and attempts to fight one soldier in order to prove his subjectivity. By demonstrating his ability to dominate as a subject, he becomes a man by Mailer's definition. Although the story does not necessarily promote the ambiguous and somewhat combative "language of men," it implies a MALE SUBJECT/female object binary that is inherently sexist.
The Cycle of Dominance in "The Language of Men"
In "The Language of Men," the main character Carter struggles to fit in with his fellow soldiers. He finally found success in the kitchen, and took great pleasure in creating wonderful meals, always adding that extra something to the dishes. He found however, that his efforts went unnoticed, and he began to feel unappreciated. He was an honest man. Everything he did was to make better food and help the soldiers. The soldiers did not recognize his attempts at winning their praise. Instead, they saw him as the stereotypical angry army cook, a role Carter once despised. Carter had assumed a role similar to that of an unappreciated housewife. The troops even had the audacity to accuse him of stealing from them and dealing food on the black market, when Carter refused to give them oil. In response to their outrageous lies, Carter retaliated and served them terrible food, showing them the true value of his efforts. The soldiers finally realized they had taken Carter for granted, and all they took pains to shower him with complements on his meals, whether deserved or not.
I believe that this story lends itself well to Jessica Benjamin's ideas on subjectivity and dominance. When Carter has just started out as a cook, he is happy because his fellow workers recognize him as a good cook, and he recognizes them as hard workers. However, after time passes, he realizes that the soldiers don't appreciate him. They exclude him from activities, and make jokes at his expense. They exercise their dominance over him, and he continues to make them specially made eggs. He is an object in their eyes, and they do not see that he can be worthy of their respect. To them, he is the angry army cook. After the soldiers confront Carter about not giving them oil, he realizes that he should be in the position of power, not them. Carter exercises his dominance by serving them bad food. Once again, neither side his happy; Carter feels guilty for serving bad food, and the soldiers feel sick. When the soldiers and Carter recognize each other as mutual subjects, as prescribed by Benjamin, they become better friends. The soldiers realize that Carter does do a lot for them, and Carter realizes that he can lend them oil sometimes. They see each other as subjects, and respect each other. Though Carter may still struggle with speaking the language of men, he has at least earned their respect.
I believe that this story lends itself well to Jessica Benjamin's ideas on subjectivity and dominance. When Carter has just started out as a cook, he is happy because his fellow workers recognize him as a good cook, and he recognizes them as hard workers. However, after time passes, he realizes that the soldiers don't appreciate him. They exclude him from activities, and make jokes at his expense. They exercise their dominance over him, and he continues to make them specially made eggs. He is an object in their eyes, and they do not see that he can be worthy of their respect. To them, he is the angry army cook. After the soldiers confront Carter about not giving them oil, he realizes that he should be in the position of power, not them. Carter exercises his dominance by serving them bad food. Once again, neither side his happy; Carter feels guilty for serving bad food, and the soldiers feel sick. When the soldiers and Carter recognize each other as mutual subjects, as prescribed by Benjamin, they become better friends. The soldiers realize that Carter does do a lot for them, and Carter realizes that he can lend them oil sometimes. They see each other as subjects, and respect each other. Though Carter may still struggle with speaking the language of men, he has at least earned their respect.
Somebody Like You
Our world encourages the survival of stereotypes. Judgement seems to permeate much of our society and it has a major influence on the way women and men view themselves. Women are held to a greater standard of decency and expected to act "lady-like" in public, which entails a more subdued personality and proper mannerisms. Men, on the other hand, are given a bit of wiggle room in terms of how they can display themselves in public. Yet, with this additional room to be more vulgar in speech and behavior, men experience the same judgment that ushers in a sense of what it means to be a "man" and how that should be interpreted into their lives. In the story "Language of Men", the main character encounters an identity issue while serving in the army. The army is considered masculine in its qualities: strong, brave, and powerful. These characteristics make the main character feel a sense of pressure to be an excellent worker with a successful or worthy product of work. He also feels the need to be respected by his peers. During the story, we find out that not only does the main character feel inept in his military skills considering he has worked hard and still has not been promoted to a higher position, but the character also feels like his peers do not respect him as one of their own when he makes the job switch to army cook. He takes this position very seriously and enjoys the labor, but the other army men do not acknowledge the value of his work. With this sense of disrespect, the main character finds himself immersed in a fight with the other men.
When Carter, the main character, attempts to defend his pride through his work, he takes it a step too far. Although the men at first began to respect Carter for defending himself and begin to appreciate the work he puts into the food, Carter destroys his chances of being friends with one of the army men named Hobbes. He realizes that he does not understand the "language of men" and will never be one of "them". This distinction between Carter and the rest of the men is a good illustration of the gender roles that everyone confronts in our society. These gender differences are depicted in the title of the short story, "Language of Men", because rather than a language of humans, there is a division between the type of "language" that relates men to men and women to women.
When Carter, the main character, attempts to defend his pride through his work, he takes it a step too far. Although the men at first began to respect Carter for defending himself and begin to appreciate the work he puts into the food, Carter destroys his chances of being friends with one of the army men named Hobbes. He realizes that he does not understand the "language of men" and will never be one of "them". This distinction between Carter and the rest of the men is a good illustration of the gender roles that everyone confronts in our society. These gender differences are depicted in the title of the short story, "Language of Men", because rather than a language of humans, there is a division between the type of "language" that relates men to men and women to women.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Carter Wants To Get Better
In the Language of Men, by Norman Mailer, the main character, Carter, struggles with fitting in with the men he cooks for. You can tell he wants to understand and communicate with them like they do, but he cannot figure out why he cannot. In the song I Wanna Get Better, by Bleachers, the lead singer or protaganist sings about how he wants to in fact get better. I think in a lot of ways Carter could agree with Jack Antonoff.
Carter doesn't understand the language of men. The most apparent example is his interaction with Hobbes. The conversation is going well and Carter finds a way to mess it up. Now he and Hobbes can never be friends.
I don't think that the song above and this song go perfectly hand in hand, but the central idea of "getting better" is at the forefront of everybody's mind. Nobody wants to be the odd man out, everyone wants to fit in. Carter doesn't fit in with his men, and Jack Antonoff doesn't believe he can satisfy everyone around him. Everyone has something they are insecure about, but Antonoff sings about how we can all get better if we come to terms with ourselves and work to change for the better.
I don't know if Carter will ever learn the language of men or if Antonoff will ever get better, but if everyone tries then I think there will be some improvement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)