Mother of the Year

Wow. I can't be the only one who thinks that, no matter what she's been through, Beli is a terrible mother who should not have had children. She could blame her pain and attitude on so many situations she suffered through during her youth, but that doesn't mean she should be allowed to take any of that out on her children or subject them to such verbal and physical abuse. Please don't misunderstand; I'm not one of those people who thinks spanking their children is wrong. Slapping children around, however, is never ever acceptable. It also kills me that she would lie to her own daughter and fake crying just to try to get Lola to come back toward her. If I were Lola and my mother had tricked me like that just to smile like a lion afterward, I would've broken her face. That was humiliating and psychologically damaging. It's amazing that Lola had the compassion in her to turn back toward her mother in the first place.

Shukumar's Last Confession

The ending of "A Temporary Matter" was completely unexpected for me. I thought that they were starting to repair their tattered marriage and would finally overcome the grief that had laid them both low. It was rather shocking when Shoba confessed that she was moving out of the house. But Shukumar's response was like a punch in the gut. It completely destroyed any chance they had of working things out.

Why did Shukumar tell her about their son? Was it a kneejerk reaction? He was hurt, and in the midst of his pain he lashed back out at her? Or did he feel she needed to know? Was he just continuing the game, not out of malice or anger but because he needed to tell her something equally shocking?

I think the first option is the most likely. It's a natural response when hurt to lash out against whatever hurt you. If that's the case, would you blame Shukumar for hurting her back?

Madre del Diablo

Oscar's mother comes off as psychotic in this first section of The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao. There's no denying this. She tries to impress the woman's view of the Dominican hyper-masculinity on her son and fails. The first bit we see of it is when Oscar is eight and she tell him to bitch-slap the girl (Diaz 14). Who is also eight years old. That suggests either some deep pathology or a seriously messed up worldview. Now we find out later that some very bad things have happened to her earlier in life, and along with a culture centered on the agressive male it's understandable, but that's still messed up to teach a kid something like that at eight. 

That's not an isolated incident either. The way that Lola describes her treatment at the hands of her mother is nothing less than horrifying. One of my favorite moments in the book is when Lola smacks her mother's hand away and makes a stand for herself. Her act of burning the wig screams "NO MORE!" and I love it. Like I said, with what we learn later the mother is a much more sympathetic character, but at this point, what a puta.

Fathers

During my studies as a Women's Studies minor I have come to a very simple conclusion. In order for equality to truly occur, it must be given to all groups. Thus, I take as much offense when men are stereotyped and their jobs viewed as inconsequential just as much as I do if someone were to insult a woman on the same grounds.

Take for instance, the stories that we have read that pertain to a dead infant. While I admit that I have  no actual idea of what losing a child is like, the way that only the mother's ever really seem to be changed by the event irks me. Such as in Shiloh, Norma was the only one to really change. Leroy did not want to change, and brought it up at any chance he seemed to get; such as the new housing developements. Everything seemed to come a head when Leroy had to stay home on disability, but the distance really seemed to happen after the child died.

An interesting take on the same subject is A Temporary Matter. Wherein the man is actually shown to have some feelings after the child was found to be a stillborn. However, these are not depicted as nearly as intense as his wife's. Shoba is the one to pull away, Shoba is the one who doesn't seem to take any step towards reconciliation. Shukumar actually begins to get better: he begins cooking, he gets out of the house, and really tries to make his wife happy. Even at the end when he revealed what the child looked like, I can't say I am mad at him. After all, it's not fair that he should have to carry that weight alone. Spouses are supposed to support each other, and I think that Shukumar was simply making Shoba be a wife again. Even so, he is not nearly as affected by the death as Shoba. I do not believe that this is in the slightest fair. While this story does do a better job of it than others, I could not help but feel sorry of Shukumar and angry at Shoba.

Fathers are not seen as the integrel parent in a childs life. This is an unfortunate stereotype that only destroys, and does not help anyone involved. It hurts the female because child-rearing is thrown directly onto her shoulders, it hurts the male because he cannot have a relationship with his children, and it hurts the children because they do not really have a FATHER, but merely a father. If that makes any sense. What I really want to see, is the story where the father is the potiential parent to be the most heartbroken, while the mother is the clueless one. Let her know what it feels like to be suddenly told: "I want to leave you."

After all, fair is fair.

Light in A Temporary Matter

Although I was very satisfied with our class discussion on Wednesday, I believe that we should have spent some more time discussing the presence of light in the short story. Generally, the atmosphere between Shukumar and Shoba undergoes two changes. The story begins with feelings of tension and discomfort, then the passion between the couple seems to be rekindled. At the very end, we enter back into discomfort and tension between the two as Shoba announces her plans to move out. What is most notable about these transitions is the presence of light. We find that marital tensions are released by the removal of the visual sense. 

Both Shukumar and Shoba use the darkness as reinforcement to their security. Even though it is apparent that Shoba started the game of telling secrets with the intention of releasing her secret about moving out, the darkness is comforting to both characters. This is evident as Shoba wants Shukumar to “see [her] face” as she tells him about her move. When the lights come back on, harsh reality hits the two romantics. Perhaps the presence of light implies the visual memory of the deceased son of the couple. This event seems to the heaviest burden that the couple endures, and sight seems to be the most prevalent sense in memory.

Final Thoughts on A Temporary Matter

First off, I have to say that I really liked this couple ,and I was rooting for them all they way through!  Shukumar is the "mediocre," procrastinating, and "elusive" student and Shoba is the disciplined worker (Lahiri 4).  I found Shoba to be a woman who thrived on order and the "specificity of her task" (Lahiri 4).  Prior to the loss of their child, Shoba felt she had control over her life.  In her mind, she was doing everything right.  She had a husband, home, and career.  Their marriage appeared solid, loving, and ideal for the creation of offspring; but, that was a temporary matter.  The title of this piece is what intrigued me the most (apart from Shukumar's hatred towards sweater vests).  On the surface it appears that the short-term absence of electricity is the only temporary matter, but I thought about it and I believe there are a lot more things that can be labeled as temporary matters.  Their current life together has become a temporary matter.  They used to be in love but that has been temporary put aside because of their grief.  Shukumar used to be "diligent if not dedicated" to his educational objectives, but he has temporarily abandoned those objectives (Lahiri 4).  Shoba used to be disciplined and tidy, but that was only temporary, because she now treats "the house as if it were a hotel" and drops her belongings anywhere (Lahiri 6).  The pregnancy itself was only a temporary matter.  I know it seems a bit cold to refer to a baby as "temporary," but the condition of pregnancy is a temporary condition (thankfully).

It is the death of the baby that derails this couple from their contented marriage. I believe their separation may be necessary for healing, but I view it as another temporary matter.  I see them reconciling again.  I do wish I knew for sure though.  The ending I would hope for is that several weeks after Shoba moves into her new place she finds out she is pregnant (obviously from their wild night of sex, in the dark).  Shoba and Shukumar find a renewed spirit for life, and each other, and reconcile a couple months later.  Shukumar is there when Shoba gives birth to a healthy baby boy and two years after that they have a healthy baby girl.  I can see them walking down the sidewalk with their little boy on Shukumar's shoulders and Shoba pushing the baby girl in a jogging stroller as they wave hello to the Bradford's.  A little sugary, I know, but I do believe that Lahiri ended her story, the way she did, to show that all things have the possibility of being temporary matters, including a separation.    

Miss Samson Not the Only to Vilify

I know that it is easy to vilify Miss Samson, David's speech teacher in "Go Carolina."  However, I think that attempting to do that is unfair and is neglecting to think about the time and period in which this essay takes place.  Miss Samson wasn't doing anything wrong in her mind, and if anyone should be blamed, how about the school system?  How about David's nonchalant mother?  Dare I say even David himself?

Miss Samson is just trying to do her job to the best of her abilities.  Sure, she is brash and even downright rude sometimes.  But I don't feel like she is a villain in this piece.  She expects respect from David when they first meet each other, and David does not seem to give her much with his short, casual answers (such as "Uh-huh" and simply nodding-6).  Miss Samson just wants "an actual answer," (6), and David's disrespect starts the two off on the wrong foot.  Miss Samson states that her goal is to "work together until eventually you can speak correctly" (6).  Even David's mom feels that "the girl's just trying to do her job" (9).  While Miss Samson may have ulterior motives (treating David's homosexuality"), no one else in the story seems to stand up for David.

David seems to jump to the conclusion that Miss Samson is singling out all of the "FUTURE HOMOSEXUALS OF AMERICA" (10), but it is actually the teachers around the school that are telling Miss Samson "I've got one in my homeroom" (10).  While "one of those" is either someone with a speech impediment or someone they expect is gay is up for debate, but the fact that the teachers are singling these students out shows that Miss Samson isn't the only to blame.  David calls Miss Samson "a slightly dopey, inexperienced speech teacher" (15), again showing that he has no respect for her.  Even though it seems as though Miss Samson plays a pretty cruel trick on David, she seems sincere when she says "As a speech teacher, I'm a complete failure" (15).  It is kind of sad to think that Miss Samson feels herself a failure, even if her goal is to stop David from being homosexual.

I can totally understand why people would not like Miss Samson.  And if her motives are strictly to stop David from being homosexual, that is an irresponsible use of her ability as a speech therapist.  However, should we vilify Miss Samson, and not the rest of the school employees such as the teacher, principal, etc?  What about David's mother who never seems to really listen to David? And even David himself, who, at least to me, comes off as a disrespectful brat?

The "New World" Concept

            As English majors, many of us have read some of Jhumpa Lahiri’s work before, primarily from the collection of short stories, Interpreter of Maladies.  Since its publication in 1999, the book has gone on to sell over fifteen-million copies.  When reading these short stories, one distinct concept seems to revolve around and connect the pieces together.  In essence, these stories are primarily about immigrants and how they adapt to living in another country.  However, upon rereading “A Temporary Matter”, I cannot seem to find that theme evident within this particular story.

            “A Temporary Matter” has a much more personal concept that tends to overshadow everything else.  Lahiri presents the reader with a couple who has lost a child at birth, and are seemingly unable to move forward and adapt to life after this horrific event.  In my mind, this is not a story of trying to learn how to live in a new country; rather, it is a story about learning how to live in a new world entirely.  Life for Shukumar and Shoba will never be the same again.  They are either going to learn how to live their lives in this new reality together, or apart.  Unfortunately we are only given Shukumar’s point of view, which is incredibly naive; therefore we are unable to accurately judge Shoba’s true intent.

            My question to the class, primarily to those who have read Lahiri’s work before, is am I wrong in the assumption that this is the odd story out?  As I mentioned earlier, all of the other stories tend to reflect largely on the various effects of immigration.  The only real connection that I can find in this story is that this couple is trying to live in a new world, in the sense that the world they knew is no longer possible due to the tragedy in which they experienced.  In closing, I would like to point out that this is probably my first or second favorite piece that we have read this semester.  I have always been a fan of Lahiri, her attention to detail, and her powerful sense of storytelling.  For those who have not read any of the other stories from Interpreter of Maladies, I would highly recommend that you do so.

Questions for 3/28/12

1) Why does the woman start the game of truths when she knows that she is going to move out?

2)What is the significance of the other couple in this story?

Discussion Questions Regarding Lahiri's "A Temporary Matter" (3/28)

1.       Those who have read Lahiri’s work before in previous classes should be aware that her work often revolves around the hardship and trials that immigrants face upon leaving their country, and their struggle to bridge the gap between two drastically different worlds.  Do you find this concept apparent anywhere in “A Temporary Matter”?

2.       What is the significance or purpose of Shukumar keeping a torn picture out of a magazine?

"A Temporary Matter" - Discussion Questions

1) Did you think that Shoba was going to or wanted to leave her husband during the story? If yes, which part of the story did you realize this? If no, what did you think the ending of the story was going to be?

2) As a reader, I didn't realize that she was going to leave him when I was reading the story until the end. Do you think that death of the baby caused them to grow apart or could it have been other factors? If so, what?

Questions for "A Temporary Matter"

1. What do you think are the meanings behind the title "A Temporary Matter"?

2. What is the significance of them crying together at the end? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to separate again after deliberately causing each other pain?

Questions for 3/28

1. What is the significance of the title of this story? Why does the author make this a temporary matter? What does that say about life for this author?

2. What is the symbolism of light and darkness in this story? What does the author want the reader to know about being 'kept in the dark'?

Discussion Questions

Do you think Shukumar makes his last confession to Shoba because he feels hurt that she wants to live elsewhere (that the move was partially retaliation)?

What about the couple's misfortune with birth do you think made them so distant to each other (rather than making them come closer)?

Questions for 3/28

1. Why do you think the authors of both Temporary Matters and Shiloh choose to tell these stories from the pov of the man in the relationship?

2. Do you think Shoba still leaves in the end?

Questions

1.Compare the opening thoughts first thoughts in this story of Shukumar and Shoba. What do the different topics tell us about their personalities?

2.Food seems to be discussed in great detail in this story. What do we think is the significance of that?

discussion questions 3/28

1. Do you think Lahiri is hinting at more than just the electricity going out with the title?

2. Shoba's game was to build up courage to tell her husband she was leaving. Why did she allow herself to be intimate with him if she knew she was going to tell him she was leaving?

Discussion Questions for 3/28

1. Just like Bobbie Ann Mason, Lahiri sets the undertones of dealing with grief after the death of a child. Why do you think these authors chose this emotional route to connect with their readers about failing relationships?

2. Is absence really the problem in this story, or is it a question of lack of communication?

Questions for 3/28

1. What was Lahiri trying to accomplish by writing this story other than evoking extreme sadness from the reader?

2. Why was Shoba toying with Shukumar's emotions instead of telling him directly? If she really wanted to leave, why would hurting him make a difference?

Discussion Questions 3/28

1. Shoba is a lot like Norma Jean and both "Shiloh" and "Temporary Matters" are very similar stories.  Do you think that the dead babies and then Shoba being gone all the time and Leroy being gone all the time is the cause of the women wanting to leave their husbands?

2. Do you think the title means more then just that the electricity will be off for a while?

On not being there

In "Shiloh", my major concern was regarding the death of Norma's baby and the involvement of her mother in her personal life. The idea of birth being directly associated with femininity would when compared to Norma Jean's death of her baby shows where a great deal of this story's conflict comes from. The idea that Norma was not able to keep her baby alive or that it was somehow even remotely her fault is presented when her mother says "did you hear about the datsun dog killed the baby" (10). Her mother is accusing her of neglect in someway. Her husband, Leroy, does not really respond and almost defends the mother. This behavior also mirrors Leroy's absence due to his career. He was not there to offer comfort to his wife then and cannot make up for it now. I think that it is interesting that Mabel's way of truly trying to get to Norma is through her "failure" in maternity and what this shows in regards to her relationship with Leroy.

An interesting excuse

One of the lines that stood out to me most in "Shiloh" was one of the things Norma Jean says to Leroy when she is telling him she does not want to be with him anymore.
She tells him "Everything was fine till Mama caught me smoking... That set something off." (15) I think it's interesting that she claims this is what brings her to her breaking point. Even more strange is it is something her mother does that seems to bring her to this point not her husband who seems to be the person her hostility is directed toward the most. There are many instances that she talks down to him "Things you could do," she announces. "You could get  a job as a guard at Union Carbide, where they'd let you set on a stool. You could get on at the lumberyard. You could do a little carpenter work, if you want to build so bad" (6). Why does she resort to blaming an incident with her mother as the straw that broke the camels back. Why doesn't she just flat out tell him what she really. And why doesn't he let her go when she tells him she is not happy? Any thoughts?

Absence Does Not Make the Heart Grow Fonder.

Bobbie Ann Mason's Shiloh is the first piece we've read this semester that I can honestly say that I've felt sympathic toward both the main male and female character. Leroy has reached a point in his life where a life-threatening injury has made him re-evaluate his life and marriage, starting with all the time he has spent away from home. I assumed that Leroy became completely absorbed in his work in order to escape from the grief of losing his child, but now that he had come back home he finds he has to  deal with the consequences of running away. Eventually, he realizes that due to his absence, not only did he lose his son but he also loses his wife. On the other hand, Norma Jean has already established her own life apart from her husband and has experienced the freedom in being able to accomplish what ever she sets out to do. Norma Jean is content with being independent and simply feels that her husband becoming homebound is suffocating her routine.

The struggling relationship between Leroy and Norma Jean quickly becomes a story where traditional gender roles have switched. Leroy seems to lose some of his musculinity by taking on a traditional female role; he is "not sure what to do next. He makes things from craft kits" (1), while Norma Jean has seemingly combined her feminism with masculinity by strengthening her mind and body. Leroy becomes insecure as her husband as he witnesses how strong and smart Norma Jean has become. There is such tension between the couple because of their differences, but the one thing lingering in the background is Randy.

Once they travel to Shiloh and Norma Jean tells Leroy she wants to leave him, the subject of Randy seems to hang in the air. Norma Jean says, "I feel eighteen again. I can't face that all over again. No, it wasn't fine" (15). I interpretted that to be a direct correlation with the death of their son. I feel like Norma Jean is trying to tell him that his absence after Randy's death was not okay, that she needed him to stay with her at that time, not ten years later. It's the wrong time for Leroy to come home because his presence was needed so long ago and now it's too late to make up for it. Norma Jean just wants to move on with her own life.

The Emasculation of Leroy

Something that became apparent to me while reading “Shiloh” was that the whole story revolved around Leroy losing his masculinity and Norma Jean taking over the more masculine role. Leroy is emasculated in multiple ways. First, he has a significant loss of physical ability with his injury. Secondly, he can no longer fill the role of provider since he lost his job. Thirdly, he has the desire to build a house for his wife, but the closest he ever gets is playing with toys. Also, Mason even goes as far as to have Leroy do needlepoint. Finally, the ability to father children has always been an indicator of masculinity; sadly, the only child Leroy ever had passed away, leaving him no paternal legacy. To make things worse, Norma Jean begins to step in to his masculine role by being so focused on physical strength, as well as being pointedly emotionless. No section of the story sums up this conflict better then when they are talking about the meaning of their names. When Norma Jean tells Leroy that his means “the king” Leroy responds with “am I still the king around here?” (13) Norma Jean’s physical response is to flex her arm muscles. Also, Norma Jean declares that the Norma comes from the Normans, who were “invaders” (13). This is a clear hint to Norma Jean “invading” Leroy’s role as “the king”.

Pain and Foundation

Every time I try to remember the title of "Foundations of the Earth" I usually confuse it with Ken Follett's novel "Pillars of the Earth" though there is very little similarity other than the title. "Foundations" is an excellent story and I enjoy Kenan's writing, but something bothers me. While it definitely is not an easy change, the shift in Maggie's views is easier than the title would imply. The foundation of the building is what holds it up, and without a good one any little windstorm will tear a building down. So what then is Maggie's foundation? The easiest answer is faith, and the one that makes the most sense given that a conversation with the pastor frames the real action of the story. If that were true however, the realization that Edward was gay would have either shattered her or caused her to cast Edward away. 

I believe that her foundation was love, though she thought it was faith. Her love of Edward allowed her to start on the path to understanding him, even though what she held sacred asked, nay demanded that she push him away.

Acceptance

This week, I really enjoyed the story by Kenan, “Foundations of the Earth.” I thought it was a very enjoyable story and liked the ending. Yes, it was a bit longer than the shorter stories we have read, but it was well worth the read. Before realizing that it was written in 1993, I thought that maybe it was written in either the late seventies or early eighties just because of what ran through my head in images because of the language and personalities of the characters. I think this is a great story to read because it can be seen as a story of acceptance. I love the part of the story when Gabriel and Maggie were discussed Gabriel being gay and life being hard. Maggie asks Gabriel, “Is is hard being what you are?” and Gabriel responds with, “I have no choice” (65) Gabriel goes on to say that it’s harder being black than gay, “gays can always pass for straight, but black can’t always pass for white” (65). Gabriel, at the end of the two’s conversation says that he thinks life is hard (66). It seems in this passage that even though the two characters have their differences, they each still respect and accept one another. I hope the students in our class who are going to be teachers will share this story with their classrooms. What is your opinion about this story?

Themes in "Foundations"

In class we talked about the reversal of color and privilege. In the story, Gabriel is a white man who is under condemnation and i s being judged for who he is. He is described as a 'trashy white boy' and visits Maggie, who is a black woman of money who owns land and a large home in the south. Another man who is being judged is another white man who is also poor and is renting land from Maggie. He is not a 'god-fearing man' and plows on a Sunday. In one passage, Kenan addresses this reversal, "How does this look, a black woman defending a white man in front of a black minister?" (71).

   I think that this reversal is used as a humorous device and also to emphasize the talk that Maggie and Gabriel have about life being hard no matter your situation. It is such an interesting thing to reverse this right of privilege and i think it's a useful way to show the mix up the standard theme of judging someone before you know them.

Village Villains

I understand that there is a huge cultural difference between China and the United States, but one thing about "No Name Woman" really bothered me. Why was the entire family punished for one woman's actions? The entire village ended up attacking this family of women whose men were away seeking their fortunes. The women were defenseless against this terrible shaming ritual. I know that I should accept that these women are now bound together in a family, but the one that couldn't wait for her husband to return was the one causing any problems. I'm not saying that the villagers should have taken her to the public square and beaten her, but if they were going to punish or shame her anyway, why did it have to be in the home of the entire family where all of their belongings were kept? Now these other women --who didn't do anything wrong and barely even noticed she might be pregnant-- have to endure this embarrassing and shameful punishment. If this woman were really committing a spite suicide by killing herself in a well, she would have jumped into the town water supply instead of the family well. I'm not condoning or disapproving of her pregnancy --we don't even know if that was her fault-- but in my opinion, the villagers are the bad guys in this case.

suicide is the answer..?

After reading Bobbie Ann Mason's "Shiloh," I honestly didn't know what to make of the ending. It wasn't what I thought it was going to be, I was expecting a happy reunion and when Norma Jean "reached the bluff" and "was looking out over the Tennessee River" (16) waving her arms, I just thought not another one. Why is it that the women in The Awakening, “No Name Woman”,and “Shiloh” all resort to the same thing to escape their unhappiness? Yes, I realize it is the authors choosing these characters fates but why does that seem to be the go to way to end the story? Do the authors think by making their females characters kill themselves itshows their strength and makes them a martyr? If Edna chose life and chose happiness with Robert instead of drowning herself in the ocean, it would have made her a lot stronger and I would have respected her as a character that much more instead of giving up. The same goes for the narrator’s aunt in “No Name Woman”. Even though the situation was far from ideal and she would have been shunned, I think her choosing to keep the baby and love the baby would have been the stronger decision to make instead of proving a point and throwing herself down the well. I feel the same about Norma Jean. She had just shown her courage by telling Leroy, “I want to leave you,” (14) she still runs to the end of the bluff and we can only assume what happens and I think she jumped to escape her reality like the other women we’ve read and I think the endings would have been stronger and proved more of a point if the authors would have kept their characters alive.

Norma Jean is a lot like Edna

Norma Jean in "Shiloh" starts to better herself in many ways; she starts to lift weights, tries to stop smoking, and she takes night classes at a college. Edna in The Awakening falls in love with Robert, sends her children to visit their grandma, and moves out of her house.  Both Norma Jean and Edna realize that their lives are not what they want for themselves.  Norma Jean wants to leave Leroy because she feels eighteen again and she, "can't face that all over again"(15). Edna does not like being a mother or being married, but Norma Jean is upset about her losing her baby when Leroy and her first got married.  The loss of the baby affected Norma Jean's and Leroy's marriage.  Norms Jean seems to want a fresh start and not be reminded of herself when she married young and then lost her baby.  Edna comes across as just wanting to do what she wants when she wants to.  Edna takes her life at the end of The Awakening and Norma Jean stands at the edge of the bluff and waves her arms, there are many speculations at what she is doing.  Who do you think is the better woman? and what do you think of the endings?

Maggie's Anger

Although Maggie is initially an admirable woman, her motivations and values become questionable once we become more attuned to her scenario. I was first repelled by her thought processes during her grandson’s funeral. Instead of lamenting over the loss of the one relative that she later describes as “her champion” and “her hope,” she her only grief stems from the fact that she missed the chance to express her disapprobation for him (69). Most notably, she feels this anger before she even discovers her grandson’s sexual orientation. We later discover that the family has always perceived homosexuality to be an abominable characteristic. What could possibly be the cause of the severity of this anger (assuming it wasn't caused by the fact that her grandson was homosexual)?

After this discovery, she conceals her hate and disgust with tenderness for Edward’s lover Gabriel, with ulterior motives that are not yet revealed. After the first few pages, Maggie has turned into a protagonist that we feel uncomfortable siding with. 

After spending some time with Gabriel, Maggie’s expectations are uprooted. She finds something gratifying about his comparison of his sexual orientation to his skin color. I think this comparison is what compels Maggie to begin to sympathize with Edward and Gabriel. Although she has made no definitive changes in behavior or perspective, we can sense a change in her demeanor. It doesn’t really seem that “heavy-handed” to me.

Red Dragon & Shiloh

So I'm going to go ahead and make a blog post about the odd connection between Red Dragon and "Shiloh," two stories that shouldn't have anything in common but actually have a surprising amount. Also, long post ahead, please bear with it.

To lay down a good foundation for those unfamiliar with the story, Red Dragon is the first novel in the Hannibal Lecter series by Thomas Harris. The protagonist, Will Graham, is called from early retirement by the FBI because he was the best at hunting down serial killers and there's a really nasty one on the loose. Long, long LONG story short, Graham helps bring the Red Dragon down, but is attacked at home and critically injured. As he's laying in the hospital, a lot goes by and just before the end of the book he starts thinking that his wife Molly is going to leave him over the ordeal. He thinks back to a time he went to Shiloh and contemplated the indifference of Nature to man's suffering and bloodshed. The book ends with the words "Yes, he had been wrong about Shiloh. Shiloh isn't haunted--men are haunted. Shiloh doesn't care," (Harris 454).

In "Shiloh," which was written one year later according to Dr. Hanrahan, we seem a subtly similar situation. Leroy and Norma Jean go to Shiloh to try to save their broken marriage, having both suffered trauma and loss that festered away inside. There is also a similar lack of "being around" that damages both relationships--Will having left for months to stop the Red Dragon. There is the similar disconnect with what Shiloh was thought to be and what it actually was. Mable thought that Shiloh was just a terribly romantic place (a ludicrous thought--3500 men died there, thousands more injured), but Norma Jean and Leroy found it utterly devoid of meaning. It was nothing to them, just some moderately pretty place. Will initially thought of Shiloh as this terrible cruelty of the world, this malevolent entity that swallowed thousands of lives, but then realized that Shiloh, the world, was ultimately indifferent.

That's about all the connection I can come up with. Note that there are also many differences between the characters and thoughts about Shiloh. Leroy has trouble thinking of the battles that took place on Shiloh as anything but pieces on a board game (15), whereas Will Graham ponders the stunning amount of bloodshed with morose clarity. And, let's be frank, Leroy is kind of a childlike idiot and Will is highly intelligent.

I don't know if this means anything, if there's any real connection here if it's just an absurd coincidence. I'd really appreciate other thoughts on this.

Plowing on a Sunday

We discussed in class the parallelism between Morton Henry's offense against traditional sensibilities and Edward's, particularly to the narrator Maggie. But the plow is a particularly clever example for Kenan to use in relation to the title and motifs of the piece. "The Foundations of the Earth."
We're talking about something deep and broad and ponderous when we talk about foundations. Like the curve of the Earth which you can only see from space. We're talking about God. What, to such foundations, metaphysical as well as physically removed from our remote positions within and on it, is PLOWING? Is an act of turning up the first few inches of the Earth's crust? And only its physical crust! Plowing as a preparation for life, sowing seeds, gives it an intimate, metaphorical link to the sexual nature of Edward's transgression as well.

Storycorps

Here's a link to that podcast I mentioned in class.

Storycorps is amazing. Give it a try. I promise--not all the stories are as sad or chilling as this one.

The importance of a name

I have always enjoyed the story, "No Name Woman". It always makes me think about just how important not only an identity, but something as simple as a name can be. This poor woman was ostracized from her village, her culture, and her family. They villagers not only "began slaughtering our livestock" (2745), but they also slaughtered this young woman's future and her identity. These villagers even seemed to know that what they were doing to this poor woman seemed wrong since "they took sugar and oranges to bless themselves" (2746). You would only bless yourself if you had done something wrong, but that's just my opinion. This poor woman was robbed of everything that any person would hold dear. She was robbed of a loving family and the support that would have came with it. SHe was robbed of a caring village who would be able to offer help and friendship if a time came for it. Most of all, she lost her NAME! She lost the one part of her that could be passed down the centuries so that even her future decendents would know who she was. A name symbolizes importance in a story. If an author names something, then that person must have an important impact on the story. While this woman was robbed of her given name, Kingston has still named her in this story. I believe that No Name is her new name now. This poor woman must be terribly upset to have to wander about with a name that is not truly a name. I think this woman should have inspired pity from the villagers instead of this inhumanity that they did to her.

Coping With Change

It has struck me that in our readings that include the theme of change: Shiloh, The Awakening, Mrs. Spring Fragrence, and such; that the only people who really have an issue with change have a tendancy to be the males. I try to be equal and fair towards everybody; which led me to wonder why men are always depicted as the unshakeable ones who essentially plug their ears and say "lalalala" at a problem or occurence.

So I thought about it, and perhaps the conclusion is that portrayal is, in itself,  a form of discrimination. I know what you're thinking: "discrimination towards men? Phhh! Not possible!" But that is very close minded way to go about considering the situation. The great vast majority of men who are abused by their female partners do not speak out because society has viewed that as weak. They do not have the shelters that women have and forget getting any children if they leave their wives/girlfriends. The father is not usually considered as an option for single parent child rearing.

Taking these modern examples into consideration, I thought about the current literary matter at hand. Men histortically have been viewed as the logical ones, the gender not swayed by their emotions, and because of this, the only ones who can run society. This has led to males who are (I am guessing) emotionally repressed and who view anyone that upsets the balance as the enemy. Take for example the guys who drive those massive trucks. They don't need them (usually) to do work, the trucks look like they have never gotten dirty and are all decked out. Not only are those immensely inconvient to anyone with a smaller car on the road (and dangerous), but they can be viewed as an extension of the males masculinity: "look how macho I am! I have a big car!"

So this example of an extension of identity can then lead to what is seen in these stories. The aspect of feminine change (something that has histroically been repressed for centuries) is threatening. The female has always been at awe with the truck, but now they don't seem to care very much. Why? Because females have realized that they can buy trucks too. The extension of masculine identity is being threatened, and what have emotionally repressed people been (generally speaking) taught instead? Violence, hate and intolerance.

These stories are about women finally buying their trucks, and men not being viewed as capable enough to look at a prius and a say: "hey, that car is not that bad either!" Maybe there is some truth to this stereotype, and in the context of women's writing, I get it. However, that does not mean I have to like it any better.

(I hope this post made sense, I was trying to work through my own thoughts)

Thoughts Regarding This Week's Readings

I think the main focus of this week’s readings has ultimately been focused on how women’s independence has changed through time.  It goes without debate that since the beginning of humanity women were viewed as the weaker sex, and treated as such.  Even in America, a country that prides itself in personal freedom, women were not even allowed to vote until 1920.  Just think, a mere 92 years ago this was the case.  Thankfully things have changed, for the most part, but we are still reminded through stories such as “No Name Woman” how irrelevant women were viewed in society.  Even after we recognized women as independent, though, they were still viewed as incapable of thinking for themselves, which is seen in “Shiloh”.
What particularly stood out to me in “No Name Woman” was that Kingston’s aunt, in her mind, had no choice but to commit suicide.  She could not envision a world in which her child could survive or make a life for themselves.  In the 21st century, living in America, it’s hard to even comprehend this logic.  Yet somehow we as a society have managed to move on past what was once considered right and realistic.  Does this mean as modern readers that we are taking the times in which we live in for granted?  Perhaps, yes.  Or it could just mean that we are blessed to live in a time where a pregnant woman in your family will not result in your house being overrun by your neighbors.
“Shiloh”, in all honesty, was one of the few stories we have read this semester where I felt that wife was justified in wanting to leave her husband.  He was not providing any income, nor was he allowing her to branch out in a sense to change into the woman she needed to be.  This so-called awakening was met with hesitation from both the husband and mother.  Although we claim to give women the same respect in which we give men, there are countless stories such as “Shiloh” that says otherwise.  Instead of being supportive and understanding, her change was met with criticism.  Is she not her own person?  Can she not make decisions as an adult herself?  I think, at the heart of this story, that is what Mason was trying to get across.  Personal freedom does not necessarily mean you are given respect and, for lack of a better word, space.

Personality Types in "Shiloh"

This began as a comment regarding Ryan’s post but exploded into a blog post of its own. Ryan’s smart point that "Leroy basically lives in his own history" is very intriguing. I definitely agree and would further argue that because Leroy is essentially stuck in the past, he does not know how to create a future with Norma Jean. I'm tempted to tie Leroy’s being stuck in his own history to his personality type and preferences that go along with that type. People with the sensing (S)preference tend to be present-focused, constantly connecting the present to the past in order to make sense of what's happening now; while people with the intuitive (N) preference tend to be very future-focused, sometimes to the point that they don't focus on the present at all.

I would argue that Norma Jean has an intuitive preference. Norma Jean displays this preference from the instant Mason introduces us to her: “’I’d give anything if I could just get these muscles to where they’re real hard…Feel this arm. It’s not as hard as the other one” (1). Now, on the one hand, Norma Jean’s discontent can be attributed to a desire for perfection. But on the other, it’s clear that she is not satisfied with her current level of fitness. She is looking ahead to the future.

It seems to me that Leroy has a sensing preference. As Ryan has pointed out, Leroy is constantly thinking about the past – comparing the population to what it was “twenty years before” (3), remembering in startling detail the night that Randy died (4-5), and connecting his and Norma Jean’s life all the way back to the Battle of Shiloh (15-16). Thus Leroy, probably a senser, seems to be focused on bringing the past- a past of log cabins and Norma Jean - to the present, while Norma Jean, probably an intuitive, seems to be focused on the future - a future in which her past with Leroy really doesn't have a part. Past- and future-focused spouses can help each other balance these tendencies (according to Isabel Myers's book Gifts Differing), but unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case with Leroy and Norma Jean.

Gone Are the Good Ole Days

After reading "Shiloh" by Bobbie Ann Mason, I couldn't help but think of all the times my mom would tell me, "Things aren't like they were in the good ole days."  Sure, I love my iPad and Tivo and Xbox, but I am really jealous that I never got to live in time period where time went slower, you only saw 4 cars pass by the whole day, and no one was afraid of terrorist attacks.  It seems as though Leroy sees how much his hometown has changed since coming back permanently, and throughout the story Leroy laments the loss of the good ole days.

Since Leroy has come home to stay permanently, he "notices how much the town has changed" (3).  Even though it seems as if the population hasn't ballooned as much as it has in other areas, he still realizes that the "farmers who used to gather around in the courthouse square on Saturday afternoons to play checkers and spit tobacco juice have gone" (4).  This realization is tough for Leroy, as it signals the loss of the good ole days when he and Norma Jean were young and life was slower paced. 

One of the major causes of the loss of rural America is the explosive trend of urbanization and industrialism.  In "Shiloh," Stevie Hamilton, the doctor's son, is essentially a drug dealer, something that is very common in the urban areas.  I feel that his inclusion in the story shows that times are changing, where in the 1960's marijuana was more accepted, but now drug dealers are the only suppliers of illegal drugs.  After his interaction with Stevie, Leroy thinks back to his teenage years, and the situation in which their son died while they were at the drive-in movie theater (4-5).  Leroy is constantly reminiscing about the past, showing that he yearns for the good ole days.

I feel that the ending of the story is actually quite ironic.  He does again think back to his younger years, when Norma Jean "married Leroy and they had a baby" (16).  However, Leroy thinks to himself that history "was always just names and dates to him" (16).  Ironically, Leroy basically lives in his own history, showing that it indeed does have a much greater meaning that just names and dates.  He can remember minute details, such as the exact age of Randy when he died-"four months and three days"- and what movies they were watching at the drive-in when he died- "Dr. Strangelove and Lover Come Back-" (4).  Leroy's own history seems to mean a lot to him, so it is strange that he nonchalantly tosses it aside as just "names and dates."

I guess the question I would pose is whether or not you agree with me that Leroy lives in the past to escape the present.  Also, is there anyone else out there that would want to live back in the good ole days?  Maybe it's a time I would like to visit, but I think I would find out I wouldn't want to stay in that time period!

We're are all animals

While I was considering my paper topic, I started thinking of the animal appearances in Chopin's The Awakening. We discussed this a  bit in class, but I would like to take it a little further. Much of our critism of the Edna and the story has to do with our own morals and judgments about what is and is not proper. Looking at Edna's life through the lense of any seemingly sensible person would allow an arrival at all of the conclusions we have come to as a class. Do I really like Edna's character? I do on account of how incredibly interesting she is. Do I condone her actions? I would never.Does any of this matter? Giving this book a different reading, I believe the answer is no. I think that Chopin wants us to first see this book through our moralistic eyes and then maybe dig for something deeper. The element of animals in this story appear only a few times, but each time it represents something larger and more meaningful. When Robert and Edna are together, Robert says: “Climb up the hill to the old fort and look at the little wriggling gold snakes, and watch the lizards sun themselves" ( Chopin 39). I passed this statement over quickly at first, but then realized it meant something more. The descriptive words like riggling and gold paired with the indulgent sunning of themselves mirrors the life that Edna wishes to have. Through our human eyes she is selfish and a fool, but in the eyes of animals, fidelity really doesn't matter.
This animal motif continues with another snake reference. When Edna visits Madame Ratignolle, her hair is described as being "in along braid on the sofa pillow, coiled like a golden serpent" (Chopin 114). Madame Ratignolle's snake is coiled whereas Edna's was wriggling. This further represents the difference in the lives of these women. The final serpent allusion appears when Edna's final moments of life brings her to the ocean. She decribes the water as "foamy wavelets curled up to her white feet, and coiled like serpents about her ankles" (Chopin 120). The coiled snakes wrap around her ankles, as if they were the ones that caused her to walk into the ocea.
The lack of place for a woman like Edna during this time is shown even further by our own judgment of her character. She would have done well in a place that embraced the animalistic nature in humans. The snake, that has been used as a religious reference symbolizing a woman's downfall is reclaimed in this story, as a sort of animal spirit.

A post on Mary Wilkins Freeman's death

...which occurred on this day back in 1930.

What if Edna had never "awakened"?

The reviewer from the New York Times Saturday Review of Books asked the question "Would it have been better had Mrs. Kate Chopin's heroine slept on forever and never had an awakening?" I think that’s a very interesting question. It’s difficult to foresee what would have happened to Edna had she not awakened, but I would argue that if Edna had not awakened she would have met the same fate. By “awakening” she was able to experience the freedom she longed for, and she was able to break free from the constraints she had as a mother and as a wife, but ultimately the new life she had created for herself fell apart and she chose to end it all. I think if Edna had not awakened she still would have taken her life. I think if Edna had not experienced the awakening that Robert was the catalyst for, she would have experienced a different type of awakening that would have also ended in her death. I believe even if Robert had not been in the picture, Edna would still have become so miserable with being confined to her role as a mother and a wife that she still would have come to the resolution that there would never have been a way for her to escape and she would have taken her life. Anyone else want to share their thoughts?

Chopin, clothes, and the external world.

"How strange and awful it seemed to stand naked under the sky! How delicious! She felt like some new born creature, opening its eyes in some familiar world that it had never known." (115).

At the beginning of the novel, Edna is a stranger to the sensual freedom posed by Creole culture on the Grand Isle-- scandalized by discussions of pregnancy, proceeding from the house with a parisol and walking along the beach in a white dress covering everything. We get a full paragraph of text on page 14 describing this casual -- "She wore a cool muslin this morning, white with a waving verticle line of brown running through it; also a white linen collar and a big straw hat..." She unbuttons the collar with Madam Ratignolle on the beach, the cool muslin apparently not cool enough, right before her awakening begins--with her childhood memory of swimming through an endless field in Kentucky.
There are a number of references between this point and the end of the text in which clothing and society are synonymous with a kind of slavery of conformity. The baby garment Madam R knits for Edna with only two eyeholes as gates to the outer world is one such example of clothing as confinement. Also, when Edna decides to opt out of her social responsibilities, Chopin remarks, "he could not see that she was daily becoming herself and casting aside that fictitious self which we assume like a garment with which to appear before the world" (57).
We can see this sense reflected in the other dualities the novel embraces as well.. lightness and darkness, the snake and bird imagery, the lovers and the religious woman in black who follows them-- Chopin is making a statement here about convention in clothing as not just a framing of one's individuality, but ultimately, determinative of one's identity, unless, like Madam Reizin says, one has the courage to constantly dare and defy.

The Doctor Figure in Awakening vs. Yellow Wallpaper

I think that it is so interesting how different the doctor figures are in these plays. I feel that this goes to show how different women’s experiences can change how they view a certain type of person. The doctor in Yellow Wallpaper is condescending and gives the advice that eventually makes Jane mad. On the other hand, Doctor Mandelet is understanding and asks to help Edna. However, what is interesting is that Edna ends up committing suicide whereas Jane lives, presumably in a mental hospital, but is still alive.  This is not a conclusion, but simply a question I still have about whether or not each story contains a victory and how the doctor plays a role in each story.

In Yellow Wallpaper, Jane says that her husband “Does not believe I am sick,” giving her a diagnosis that she is only sick because she believes she is. By shutting her up in that room, he is the one causing her to go mad. He doesn’t listen to her explanations, but condescends and causes her downfall.

Conversely, in Awakening, Doctor Mandelet is understanding and tries very hard to help. He figures out early what is “wrong” with Edna and keeps it discreet from her husband saying, “most women are moody and whimsical. This is some passing whim of your wife, due to some cause or causes which you and I needn’t try to fathom.” Whether or not his intentions are genuine, he is a great leap from the doctor of Wallpaper.

In each story, the women can be described as having some sort of triumph over their patriarchy at the end. But which ending is more victorious? And is the doctor’s role really significant at all? I think that maybe the contrast of these doctors shows that no matter who is there to help you or hold you back, self-identity is a journey one must make alone, and the end is completely up to the person doing the discovering.  

Those Evil Future Feminists...

I am really glad we read The Awakening in class because this is the first time I've ever read it. Like some other people in the class, I am on the fence with how I feel about Edna. I understand her position of wanting more independence and freedom, especially during the period when the novel was written. Edna was looking for life experience away from her normal duties as a wife and woman, is that so wrong? Yes, I don't agree with every decision she made regarding her family responsibilities--like Edna only wanting to be a mother when she thinks she has to or should--but I respect her for being bold enough to want a life of her own, to experience the world outside of her societal roles.

With that being said, and as I mentioned in my Discussion Questions for Friday, I was very intrigued by the Providence Sunday Journal review of The Awakening. The author called Chopin "another clever woman" which I interpreted such a condescending description--I can totally tell this review was written by a male. It's as if the review author is almost dismissing Chopin's greatest work as it being silly or a cute idea created by someone whose trying to start a controversy. The author follows that up with Chopin putting her "cleverness to very bad use" and deems the language "unfit for publication." It's no doubt that Chopin's novel was a radical idea at the time to suggest women to have a life outside of their husband and children, but I think the opinion of the novel being forbidden and for Chopin to not "realise what she was doing when she wrote it" is radical idea in itself. At this time, the prospect of men not being in control of their wives was unacceptable, so the idea that a woman had the opportunity to have independence wasn't thought of. Then Chopin comes along and blows that idea out of the water, and suddenly, I think the male audience became just slightly nervous.

My favorite part of the review was the last line about the novel falling "into the hands of the youth." I think this was where the nevousness grew. We've all heard the phrase, "Children are our future," so I'm guessing the thought process at the time was that The Awakening could potentially start a revolution in the minds of younger children--girls could grow up with the notion that they didn't have to conform to society and obtain a husband and have children if they didn't wish to. The "unholy imaginations and unclean desires" are a cop out to suggest a fear of change and keep tradition alive, so chalking this up to being a literary failure is a way to do that.

final thoughts on Edna

After listening to all the discussions in class and taking a day to think about how I felt towards the novel and the characters, I've come to the conclusion that Edna really isn't that bad of a person. I know a lot of people are Edna haters and to an extent, I'm not a hundred percent happy with her either, but I don't dislike her character and I don't blame her for some of her actions. I do think she took the easy way out at the end with her death but I don't think the novel would have the same effect if it were any different. Edna was suppressed and unable to freely express herself for so long that when she came to realize herself and had her "awakening," I don't blame her for actions that followed.

As far as her affair, I don't think she truly cheated on her husband. Yes, she did have relations with someone other than her husband but it was purely physical and she had no emotional attachment to him. She didn't even want to keep his picture to sketch. I could see other's points if she was more involved with him emotionally by sharing intimate thoughts and such but because it was purely physical and nothing more, I don't understand the fuss about it. I am not condoning cheating by any means but I can't say that she is in the wrong when it is her choice to do with her body as she pleases. I think it would be a lot worse than it was had she had a more emotional connection to him like she did with Robert.

In regards to Edna's motherly instincts and skills, I don't think she was a bad mother. She stated she would die for her children, what more of a sacrifice could a mother do than to die for her kids? Just because she wouldn't give up herself doesn't make her a bad parent, it's the same as some parents now who have jobs and social lives and leave their kids with a babysitter. I think ultimately she was protecting them but not letting them see what was actually going on. Their innocence allows them to be naive to their mothers behavior and shelters them from a harsh reality. Edna kept them from knowing the truth so they wouldn't get hurt in the long run.