I compared my earlier blog posts to my later blog posts and i found some interesting things. First of all my writing when I'm in blog mode gets more and more informal. I think it is the email like setting and how i feel as though i should write in a way that accurately depicts me and not the verbose essay writer i can turn into. I also noticed that i frequently, in the beginning, would structure my argument when dealing with a poem or story around how i felt about it. I now try to delve into the material more meticulously and really try to make a point.
I began my blog posts with blogs on poetry. I remember the first time sitting in front of the computer trying to figure out what to write. It was so easy to just describe what happened in the poem and how i felt about it. However, upon learning more about the nooks and crannies of poetry i can now pick up slight nuances in style and minor allusions or parodies.
Poetry has always been a love of mine and i was super surprised to see some of the blogs about certain poems. I know there is a general direction in which a poet's meaning leans. Yet, i loved getting to see what you guys thought about the poems and how you interpreted them. This, i believe, is one of the most beautiful things about the English language. Sure, it's fluidity and ever-changing structure and format is confusing and frustrating but, the hybridized nature of the language entices me. I do not believe there is a right or wrong way to read something. Obviously, either of the extremes are never good. I truly learned what to look for and what to discount by the frequency and accuracy of class' 120 blog posts.
After we moved from poetry my blog posts became more and more insightful. Short stories are always slightly more matter of fact, however, intellectually i have obviously matured in my understanding of different works. Again, there are multiple interpretations of many of the stories. Metaphors and symbols finally became two separate entities in my head. I cannot tell you how long i have conflated them to being one in the same.
In the end, though it took me a while to get my post up even, i benefited from the blog posts. My writing style, though more informal, has become more insightful. I have learned the multiple ways things can be read- to a certain degree. I also have learned that we as readers routinely project ourselves into the works of others. I now know to stray from this as helped by many of the comments from my classmates. Thumbs up for the blogs. It even helps technologically daft people like me do cool things with shiny computers. :)
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
essay on Kincaid's "Girl"
Men and women are the most juxtaposed entities in the natural world. They are biologically, genetically, sexually, and emotionally different. There is no way to calculate in concrete terms the exact ways that sexes differ. Everybody’s different; however, there are slight patterns that dictate the ways in which each gender is different. Gender differences are in their most simple form in childhood. Kids are honest, pure, and products of their nature more so than products of nurture in childhood. Jamaica Kincaid wrote a short story about the implications of her sec titled “Girl.” The story is unique in its own right but it offers many stereotypes conclusive with the female sex. “Girl” is a gross representation in literary form and content of the misconceptions and expectations of women in society, family roles, sex and love, and basic survival principles.
Girl is rich with provocative stereotypes about what girls should learn in order to fulfill their required family role. The narrative is very specific and matter of fact. Girls are expected to know the correct ways to clean- “this is how you sweep a corner; this is how you sweep a whole house; this is how you sweep a yard (184, Kincaid).” Cooking is a precise art in which girls must be proficient and creative. Various recipes are indicated as necessary in the story such as bread pudding. Girls are expected to know how to iron their father’s clothing, and how to sew on a button. They are expected to know how to set a table for guests in differing degrees of importance, and how to set a table for the three different meal times. Girls must “Wash the white clothes on Monday…the color clothes on Tuesday (183, Kincaid).” All of these lessons girls must learn dictate what women should be able to do for themselves and others. These gross family roles are sad but necessary. They imply that women have little to learn in the way of intellectually expanding their mind. Nothing in the story even offers the thought that a woman should go to school or receive a higher education. Their lives are inevitably to be filled with doing the needs of others. The story does not even offer the opportunity for other people to do these things. The only way it will be done is if a girl does the task.
Societal expectations for women are also made clear in Girl. They are focused around the ways in which women should handle themselves in order for them to appear pleasing to others, “always eat your food in a way that it won’t turn someone else’s stomach (183, Kincaid).” Women should “try to walk like a lady (183, Kincaid)” and they should behave a certain way in the presence of men that do not know them very well. The list goes on and on, including don’t squat down to play marbles- you are not a boy, you know…be sure to wash everyday even if it is with your own spit…you musn’t eat fruits on the street-flies will follow you(183-184, Kincaid)”. Society expects women to be pretty and aesthetically pleasing always. They do not have to opportunity to act as boys do. They must be learning how to sew their own clothing rather than playing marbles. The only repetitive element in the story is to not be “the slut I know you are so bent on becoming (183, Kincaid).” Society declares women should treat the idea of sex much different than men are expected to. A woman is not allowed to be visually stimulating or suggestive without being named a slut. Yet, Kincaid explains how to make a medicine that will stop a child before it becomes a child. This is a necessity for a woman to know because she is not permitted to have a baby without a family that is already established. The lessons turn ones stomach because women must not look as if they act in any way impure however, if they do act impure they must hide it from the world. Many could view this as an empowerment for women like that of free choice and abortion in the world today. In the story it is almost depicted as shameful to do so. The emphasis is put on “before it becomes a baby” and may imply before the world knows said woman has become pregnant. Society still has not accepted a woman’s right to do as she pleases with her body.
In the ways of love and emotion women must always be a certain way. Even something as common as a smile should be calculated and perfected: “this is how you smile to someone you don’t like too much; this is how to smile to someone you don’t like at all; this is how to smile to someone you like completely (184, Kincaid).” Women do not get to figure these things out emotionally. They do not get to make mistakes. Everything a girl learns is pertinent to her becoming a woman which emotionally means being wanted by men. There is no room for trial and error. Even love is dictated- “this is how to love a man; and if that doesn’t work there are other ways (184, Kincaid).” Women are expected to be machines that love and feel uniformly and concisely. There is even an implied sexual image in these lines. This is how to love a man does not only mean emotional love. Girls are being instructed in ways to love sexually as well. If that doesn’t work try this is a grotesque interpretation of a woman’s duty to please her “man” in various explicit ways. Though woman notable find pleasure in sex just a much as men do, men do not have the added responsibility of pleasing their woman in this story. All the responsibility is placed upon the girl.
Girls are also offered lessons in self efficiency. “This is how to make good medicine for a cold (184, Kincaid)” suggests that women are as well responsible for themselves. This relieves the story a bit from making women seem so self sacrificing. There are a few allotted tasks allowed for themselves. Girls are taught how to bully a man, how to spit into the air and not be hit by said spit, and how to make ends meet. The duties given to a girl for only herself are sparse but there. It provides a slight glimmer of satisfaction that women are as well responsible for themselves and not just others.
Not only are the lessons exemplary of stereotypical roles of women but Kincaid’s language also suggest this. The short story is one entire long sentence only broken by semi-colons. This implies the longevity and monotonous qualities of a woman’s duties and responsibilities. They never end. The sentence goes on and on and hardly offers the reader space to breath or pause. This is uncomfortable to read and makes the story exhaustive. The exhaustive quality of the writing mirrors the exhaustive tasks women are expected to learn as children and all through their pre-adult lives. The story is also void of all metaphor and descriptive writing. There is hardly any creativity in language. Again, this is like the duties a girl is expected to enact. Everything is to the point, efficient, with little room for personal satisfaction or pleasure. The long sentence ends in a question. The question is an effective way the end the story because of its meaning- you mean to say after all you are really going to be the kind of woman who the baker won’t let near the bread (164, Kincaid)?” This further solidifies the point that a woman’s duty is to be a perfect specimen in which everyone views as pure, self-sacrificing, motherly, maid-like, and a good partner.
The implication Kincaid’s story “Girl” places on women may seem archaic and preposterous. However, the story provides the realization that such offensive stereotypes are still present and many women still live the lives the 21st generation may believe have gone extinct. The expectation woven into this brief story are exhaustive and numerous. It is an excellent representation of gender stereotypes and the predetermined lives women are expected to live.
TELL ME IF THIS JUST SOUNDS LIKE A FEMINIST RANT or if i am projecting things that are not in the story :)
Girl is rich with provocative stereotypes about what girls should learn in order to fulfill their required family role. The narrative is very specific and matter of fact. Girls are expected to know the correct ways to clean- “this is how you sweep a corner; this is how you sweep a whole house; this is how you sweep a yard (184, Kincaid).” Cooking is a precise art in which girls must be proficient and creative. Various recipes are indicated as necessary in the story such as bread pudding. Girls are expected to know how to iron their father’s clothing, and how to sew on a button. They are expected to know how to set a table for guests in differing degrees of importance, and how to set a table for the three different meal times. Girls must “Wash the white clothes on Monday…the color clothes on Tuesday (183, Kincaid).” All of these lessons girls must learn dictate what women should be able to do for themselves and others. These gross family roles are sad but necessary. They imply that women have little to learn in the way of intellectually expanding their mind. Nothing in the story even offers the thought that a woman should go to school or receive a higher education. Their lives are inevitably to be filled with doing the needs of others. The story does not even offer the opportunity for other people to do these things. The only way it will be done is if a girl does the task.
Societal expectations for women are also made clear in Girl. They are focused around the ways in which women should handle themselves in order for them to appear pleasing to others, “always eat your food in a way that it won’t turn someone else’s stomach (183, Kincaid).” Women should “try to walk like a lady (183, Kincaid)” and they should behave a certain way in the presence of men that do not know them very well. The list goes on and on, including don’t squat down to play marbles- you are not a boy, you know…be sure to wash everyday even if it is with your own spit…you musn’t eat fruits on the street-flies will follow you(183-184, Kincaid)”. Society expects women to be pretty and aesthetically pleasing always. They do not have to opportunity to act as boys do. They must be learning how to sew their own clothing rather than playing marbles. The only repetitive element in the story is to not be “the slut I know you are so bent on becoming (183, Kincaid).” Society declares women should treat the idea of sex much different than men are expected to. A woman is not allowed to be visually stimulating or suggestive without being named a slut. Yet, Kincaid explains how to make a medicine that will stop a child before it becomes a child. This is a necessity for a woman to know because she is not permitted to have a baby without a family that is already established. The lessons turn ones stomach because women must not look as if they act in any way impure however, if they do act impure they must hide it from the world. Many could view this as an empowerment for women like that of free choice and abortion in the world today. In the story it is almost depicted as shameful to do so. The emphasis is put on “before it becomes a baby” and may imply before the world knows said woman has become pregnant. Society still has not accepted a woman’s right to do as she pleases with her body.
In the ways of love and emotion women must always be a certain way. Even something as common as a smile should be calculated and perfected: “this is how you smile to someone you don’t like too much; this is how to smile to someone you don’t like at all; this is how to smile to someone you like completely (184, Kincaid).” Women do not get to figure these things out emotionally. They do not get to make mistakes. Everything a girl learns is pertinent to her becoming a woman which emotionally means being wanted by men. There is no room for trial and error. Even love is dictated- “this is how to love a man; and if that doesn’t work there are other ways (184, Kincaid).” Women are expected to be machines that love and feel uniformly and concisely. There is even an implied sexual image in these lines. This is how to love a man does not only mean emotional love. Girls are being instructed in ways to love sexually as well. If that doesn’t work try this is a grotesque interpretation of a woman’s duty to please her “man” in various explicit ways. Though woman notable find pleasure in sex just a much as men do, men do not have the added responsibility of pleasing their woman in this story. All the responsibility is placed upon the girl.
Girls are also offered lessons in self efficiency. “This is how to make good medicine for a cold (184, Kincaid)” suggests that women are as well responsible for themselves. This relieves the story a bit from making women seem so self sacrificing. There are a few allotted tasks allowed for themselves. Girls are taught how to bully a man, how to spit into the air and not be hit by said spit, and how to make ends meet. The duties given to a girl for only herself are sparse but there. It provides a slight glimmer of satisfaction that women are as well responsible for themselves and not just others.
Not only are the lessons exemplary of stereotypical roles of women but Kincaid’s language also suggest this. The short story is one entire long sentence only broken by semi-colons. This implies the longevity and monotonous qualities of a woman’s duties and responsibilities. They never end. The sentence goes on and on and hardly offers the reader space to breath or pause. This is uncomfortable to read and makes the story exhaustive. The exhaustive quality of the writing mirrors the exhaustive tasks women are expected to learn as children and all through their pre-adult lives. The story is also void of all metaphor and descriptive writing. There is hardly any creativity in language. Again, this is like the duties a girl is expected to enact. Everything is to the point, efficient, with little room for personal satisfaction or pleasure. The long sentence ends in a question. The question is an effective way the end the story because of its meaning- you mean to say after all you are really going to be the kind of woman who the baker won’t let near the bread (164, Kincaid)?” This further solidifies the point that a woman’s duty is to be a perfect specimen in which everyone views as pure, self-sacrificing, motherly, maid-like, and a good partner.
The implication Kincaid’s story “Girl” places on women may seem archaic and preposterous. However, the story provides the realization that such offensive stereotypes are still present and many women still live the lives the 21st generation may believe have gone extinct. The expectation woven into this brief story are exhaustive and numerous. It is an excellent representation of gender stereotypes and the predetermined lives women are expected to live.
TELL ME IF THIS JUST SOUNDS LIKE A FEMINIST RANT or if i am projecting things that are not in the story :)
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Paper and analysis of Zadie Smith essay
Prior to examining the Zadie Smith essay in class i thought i was going to do my paper on something different. After examining the questions posed for the Zadie Smith essay that we were supposed to blog about on tuesday (oops i did them out of order) i think i may do my essay on the question of humor in america versus humor in britain in response to Smith's analysis in the essay. That may appear a very broad topic, i do not deny that it is, but, i can relate to the whole death is funny thing and anihilistic humor Harvey always advocated. I believe humor is Britain is focused on issues of class while humor in america is focused more on issues of race because of our societal differences. America is the melting pot of the world blah, blah, blah stuff. Britain has a different government and such. Also Britain focuses on humor of death, marrying with Zadie's metaphors and symbolisms of comedians killing it or dying on stage, while America focuses on humor of sex and gender differences. Zadie Smith's essay killed it for me. :) i thought it was awesomely funny and can relate entirely to the issues of class. I, being from a low class of Germans in Appalachia Ohio, lived in an area where money and names were important. I guess as important as you can be for the podunk, diversity-less, methodist community Circleville. If you've never been there don't plan to. Anti-abortion rallies everywhere, the church is held in our high school, and scholarships are only given to those affiliated with the community and church. Class mattered, unlike the equally podunk heart of Ohio where I and most of you live now- Athens. I understand why the humor of class served as an equalizer in her family. It made issues that were not fun to talk about fun to laugh about. The rich could laugh at the poor and the ridiculously pompous way they are depicted and the poor could laugh at the pompous rich and the grungy careless way they are depicted. So i guess my essay will be on humor in different societies related to Zadie Smith's essay...what do you think? Should i stick with my previous idea?
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Paper topic
I am planning on writing an analysis on gender representations in Kincaids, "Girl", and Moody's story "Boys." I know this was a topic given in Rouzie's paper description, but, as a girl whose close circle of friends is comprised of 5 boys i am interested in the subject. I also find both stories rich with provocative stereotypes that i believe will be palpable and easy to analyze. I plan on showing the dichotomy on the lessons girls are given verses the lesson boys are given. Both stories are written in an interesting repetitive format; however, "Boys" does not have the same teaching tone that Kincaid's "Girl" has. The lessons are implied in "Boys" while stated straightforward in "Girl." Ding ding ding, this raises an alarm flag in my brain because my little brother was expected to learn his lessons the hard way, "the man way." While i was dressed up and told not to get my shirts dirty. I think the writing style of both reflects the gender, while the tone therein reflects a narrative voice paralleled with that gender. My favorite story so far as been "river of names "however, and i may choose to write an essay on that one as well. If i were to write an essay on "river of names" i may write on the concept of lying in prose. The short story "river of names" is jam-packed with disgusting and macabre imagery and metaphors, yet, the narrator is pretending to have this normal life. There is a chasm between the real and the imaginary. I may analyze the technique of including both.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
blog 1...forever ago that is just now being moved to my actual blog
I dig the poem Design by Robert Frost and as such am choosing to comment on the amount of similes in it. First, however, it merits to say that the speaker of the poem is some person unnamed to the audience. The rhetorical situation is of this nameless person observing a white spider on a flowered mint plant eating a moth. What, to me, makes this poem so original and aesthetically pleasing is the ways Frost describes the rhetorical situation . He uses such similes as "like a white piece of rigid satin cloth-" when referring to the spider holding the moth. He again describes the moth in another simile "dead wings carried like a paper kite." Both of these similes describe the moth to be very frail as we all know a moths wings to be, but, they more instill a feeling a vulnerability in the moth. The imagery in this poem is also significant. Using the color white is notable because white generally is a symbol (or extended metaphor) for purity. This could be an attempt by Frost to make all objects (the flower, moth, spider) innocent to the destruction they each brought. All things were simply that of chance or, as the title designates, design. Design could be interpreted a number of ways. I like to think of it as the design of mother nature (as i adhere to no religious beliefs) but by reading Frost it would be acceptable, and probably much more correct, to think of it as a divine intelligent design. All that said i most appreciate this poem because of the beautiful and somewhat odd images Frost brings forth when describing the moth and spider (characters of death and blight, ingredients of a witches broth, design of darkness etc.) I believe the overall theme of this poem is many things happen that no one has control over. Sometimes you (better yet the spider) are in the right place at the right time and sometimes you (moth) are completely unaware that you stumbled upon the wrongest of situations in the most inopportune moment. Frost also poses the question in the last two lines of the poem "What but design of darkness to appall?-/If design govern in a thing so small." I believe he is questioning design (divine intervention) if he or she had this in mind when the path of the white spider climbed upon the rarity of a white heal-all flower.
Alexandria
Alexandria
Tangled up in who?
As a forewarning, i absolutely cherish Dylan in all that he is. So i am fairly biased on the subject. Tangled up in blue is one of Dylan's most popular songs (behind Mr. Tamborine Man and Blowin in the wind that is.) It is a song about a lover that he is away from and thinking about. It is also a song about a muse. This woman is one of the many muses that are frequent in Dylan's work. This particular song may be about Sara- his first wife. Though, that is a slight stretch as Sara was not married when she and Dylan met and her hair was coal black. It is not uncommon for the speaker of the poem/song to warble to a very real person in Dylan's work. He commonly changed faces names and situations. If you asked him why i am sure he would tell you "what do you mean why? why do you do the things you do?" Anyway the content of the poem is very easy to understand after reading it a few times through. First paragraph is describing the speaker laying in bed thinking about his muse. The second stanza is about the lovers goodbye. In the third stanza the speaker is talking about his life after the goodbye. The fourth and fifth about seeing her again and the sixth is about his brief stint with her and her lover/husband? The turn occurs at the bottom of the sixth stanza where he leaves her again and the seventh stanza is a depiction of his wandering life in search of her. This poem rhymes i promise. You have to hear it to be convinced i am sure. It mainly has internal rhyme when you read it because he sings it in a very different cadence (one that would break lines awkwardly and make the poem super long.) Many symbols are present in this poem that appear in much of his work. Shoes are a huge symbol for Dylan. Birds are also very frequent, as is the color blue. Shoes in this poem symbolize the walks of life the speaker has been through and yet he never forgets this one woman. "I was standing on the side of the road rain fallin on my shoes" is a classic dylan quote in that it mingles sadness with a necessity to "keep on keepin on." This song in the first song on his album Blood on the Tracks which he produced not even a month after he and Sara were divorced. Reexamine the last stanza. Think about a speaker who is pissed about a failed marriage not because of what people think but because he loves and hates this woman so vehemently. The last stanza of this poem is more about the loving her. Look up another song called Idiot wind from the same album and i think you may understand the vehement hatred.
catastrophe- who done it?
The film catastrophe and the play catastrophe are different on many spoken and unspoken levels. In the movie the Directors Assistant is never frustrated with her "boss" to an observers eyes. She does not seem exasperated or even hesitate to do what the director demands of her. However, in the play it indicates that she looks at the Director "At a loss. Irritably." The context of "light" also varies from the visual play to the script. In the visual version when the director asks for a light he is asking for a flashlight so that he can see what he has written or is writing in his journal. In the script he is asking the assistant to light his cigar, which apparently, keeps going out. I way understand why the assistant would be frustrated but i think Pinter left out her frustration for a reason. The movie has an eerie feel because of this womans willingness to move a human body as if it were not alive. In the play it is alluded that she does not like what she is doing and is a little miffed. "A subsides in the armchair, springs to her feet no sooner seated, takes out a rag, wipes vigorously back and seat of her chair, discards rag, sits again." This could be taken as an act of disgust, as if she were not comfortable in this room. Not only is content different but the staging is different also. In the script it indicates that after the director steps off of the stage you do not see him again while in the movie he is in each scene through to the end. I believe the script indicates that the entire play would be viewed as having its focus on the man standing on the stool, though, not on his face. The most important difference, i think, is at the end of the play. The motions are much the same between the script and movie but the protagonist is supposed to raise his head before the lights go out the second time and look blankly until the lights dim. In the movie you do not see the lights dimming off of his face and he raises his head too late in my mind. This is a result of the differences of where the Director is. If the movie kept him out of all scenes after he left the stage the only focus would be on the mans face. Since the movie pans to him while he says "terrific he'll have them on their feet" we miss the oportunity for the protagonist to raise his head. Staging is always difficult from scrip to movie, however. And if this post does not post on my actual page i messed up again. I don't even own a computer, and am lost in all the buttons, so if it does post to the main blog will somebody please help me? Technology and i have always been strangers. :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)