My
last blog post of the year. I would like to dedicate this last post not
only to my final thoughts on Libra, but also on the course as a whole
and what I’ve learned. After all the novels we’ve read, and the multiple
discussions we’ve had over them, I can honestly say my perception of
historical fiction has changed significantly.
After reading through Lee’s entire life in Libra,
I almost feel sorry for Lee. With higher powers pressuring him to
complete his job, it feels as if Lee is being forced to kill Kennedy.
Throughout the novel, Delillo never clearly explains why Lee does it in
the first place. It certainly isn’t that Lee is seething with anger
towards Kennedy about anything. At one point, as the day of Kennedy’s
assassination approaches, he almost doesn’t seem to want to do it, as
seen when he tries to convince Marina to move. Some people in class even
brought up how Lee might’ve been destined to be the assassin.
Delillo
does a nice job of reminding us of how Lee, despite being accused of
this crime, is still just a human being. He’s been a try-hard and
failure most of his life (even during the assassination, he messes up by
missing one of the shots). Looking at most of the photos of Lee, he
doesn’t even look monstrous at all, but rather looks like an awkward,
scrawny man.
Ragtime, Mumbo Jumbo, Slaughterhouse-Five, Kindred, and Libra.
All of these books have definitely changed my definition of historical
fiction. Prior to the course, I always thought of historical fiction as
creating a fictional character and plot within an actual period of time
and place in history. But there is so much more to it. It can be like Slaughterhouse-Five and Kindred,
in which the author uses time travel or plays with the chronology of
the plot line in order to express some sort of message. It can also be
like Ragtime or Libra, in
which the author used more extreme creative liberties by using actual
historical figures, and writing their own stories around these
characters. There isn’t a definition of what the historical fiction
genre is, which is a good thing because this course definitely opened me
up to those various definitions. Sure, novels like Mumbo Jumbo and Libra were
difficult to comprehend, but when is history ever easy to comprehend.
There is so much that goes on in history behind the scenes that we don’t
know about that we need a historical fiction genre to poke around. We
need to let our imaginations run rampant in order to hypothesize and
learn more about those specific historical periods we’re learning about.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Zapruder film reaction
Reading
my other classmates blogs, I found several people posting their
reactions to the Zapruder film. One blog entry that I found really
interesting was Nikita’s. In hers, she talked about whether there was a
purpose in studying the conspiracies behind the Kennedy assassination.
“Regardless of the what kind of plotting you think led up to the
assassination, doesn't it all add up to the same thing? Won't the
Zapruder film always end in exactly the same way?”.
As cynical of a view of history it is, and this is something Nikita does recognize, I certainly see what she is talking about. As I was reading through Libra, I, like most readers, already knew what was going to happen. Kennedy was going to get shot, and that was that. No matter what the real conspiracy plot is, whether Lee was coordinating the assassination with anyone else or not, won’t it all end up with Kennedy’s death?
Every time I see the Zapruder film, I always notice Kennedy’s head jerking, the blood splattering, Mrs. Kennedy and the Secret Service agent jumping onto the car. I understand with the "Yes, this is what it looks like to get shot" idea, but it’s the mystery, along with the lack of evidence that makes the assassination so intriguing.
I’m glad Nikita brought this up because it is something that comes up in the back of my mind whenever I hear about these conspiracy plots about the Kennedy assassination or any other historical mystery. Yet, it is our own curiosity and imagination that drives us to learn more about the assassination, much like Nicholas Branch. I can see where the obsession comes from. It’s not hard to wonder how many shots were taken? who and why they did it? The Zapruder film just adds another twist to the JFK assassination.
As cynical of a view of history it is, and this is something Nikita does recognize, I certainly see what she is talking about. As I was reading through Libra, I, like most readers, already knew what was going to happen. Kennedy was going to get shot, and that was that. No matter what the real conspiracy plot is, whether Lee was coordinating the assassination with anyone else or not, won’t it all end up with Kennedy’s death?
Every time I see the Zapruder film, I always notice Kennedy’s head jerking, the blood splattering, Mrs. Kennedy and the Secret Service agent jumping onto the car. I understand with the "Yes, this is what it looks like to get shot" idea, but it’s the mystery, along with the lack of evidence that makes the assassination so intriguing.
I’m glad Nikita brought this up because it is something that comes up in the back of my mind whenever I hear about these conspiracy plots about the Kennedy assassination or any other historical mystery. Yet, it is our own curiosity and imagination that drives us to learn more about the assassination, much like Nicholas Branch. I can see where the obsession comes from. It’s not hard to wonder how many shots were taken? who and why they did it? The Zapruder film just adds another twist to the JFK assassination.
Russia and Communism
In
one of our prompts we wrote the for class, the question was about Lee’s
stay in Soviet Russia. I wrote about how it was almost out of this
world during the 1950s. He enjoys being out in the town as this exotic
American and has interesting American ways that women find exotic. This
is one example of his naivety and bloated sense of himself, which is
something I want to further delve into.
Let’s start from Lee’s childhood. Growing up poor, Lee wasn’t the sharpest student in school. In fact he was dyslexic. He had a hard time reading simple English sentences, and he had an even harder time writing. Yet, when he first started spending more time at the library, he wanted to read books “that put him at a distance from his classmates, closed the world around him” (p. 33) .This spurred him into reading up on Marx’s The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital. As Dellilo describes Lee,
These readings seemed to be the start of Lee being a Communist idealist. Lee wants to use the Defector Program to his advantage in order to serve as a spy defect. He gives up his American identity and secrets in order to defect to the Soviet Union and provide them any information to help them against the United States. For the Soviets, it is just too good to be true. While he wants to gain the attention of the Soviets, many of them, who seem to like Lee, are also skeptical of who he really is. Alek, the official who interrogates Lee about how passionate he is towards Communism, and about any details to the U-2 spy plane, begins to like Lee. At the end of the “In Moscow” chapter, Alek even gives him Soviet citizenship and work in Minsk so that he can become the Marxist he wants to be. While Alek does like him, at the end of the “In Moscow” chapter, “he [Alek] would recommend that surveillance be maintained, indefinitely, wherever the boy was sent” (p. 167). While Lee is driven by his fanaticism as a Communist, in reality, his life begins to go down the drain, even to the point where he cuts himself. After marrying Marina and having a child, he is forced to return to the US with her.
During his stay in Russia, Lee also kept journal entries of his time in Russia in what he calls “the Historic Diary”. Even as his words are jumbled, and his writing is nothing more than childish, Lee imagined that people would read his works, and would be moved by his struggles, much like he was when he read Marx’s works in the library. He wanted people to be “moved by his loneliness and disappointment” (p. 211).
Throughout much of Lee’s early adult years, it is fairly clear how his passions muddle his sense of reality and make him into such an irrational person. As seen in Russia, it takes him years for him to see how the Soviets really thought of him. It is this sort of unstable and impulsive behavior that will cause him to President Kennedy. Delillo does an excellent job in providing the backstory to this sort of behavior.
Let’s start from Lee’s childhood. Growing up poor, Lee wasn’t the sharpest student in school. In fact he was dyslexic. He had a hard time reading simple English sentences, and he had an even harder time writing. Yet, when he first started spending more time at the library, he wanted to read books “that put him at a distance from his classmates, closed the world around him” (p. 33) .This spurred him into reading up on Marx’s The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital. As Dellilo describes Lee,
“The
books were struggles. He had to fight to make some elementary sense of
what he read. But the books had come out of struggle. They had been
struggles to write, struggles to live. It seems fitting to Lee that the
texts were masses of dense theory, unyielding. The tougher the books,
the more firmly he fixed a distance between himself and others” (p. 34)
These readings seemed to be the start of Lee being a Communist idealist. Lee wants to use the Defector Program to his advantage in order to serve as a spy defect. He gives up his American identity and secrets in order to defect to the Soviet Union and provide them any information to help them against the United States. For the Soviets, it is just too good to be true. While he wants to gain the attention of the Soviets, many of them, who seem to like Lee, are also skeptical of who he really is. Alek, the official who interrogates Lee about how passionate he is towards Communism, and about any details to the U-2 spy plane, begins to like Lee. At the end of the “In Moscow” chapter, Alek even gives him Soviet citizenship and work in Minsk so that he can become the Marxist he wants to be. While Alek does like him, at the end of the “In Moscow” chapter, “he [Alek] would recommend that surveillance be maintained, indefinitely, wherever the boy was sent” (p. 167). While Lee is driven by his fanaticism as a Communist, in reality, his life begins to go down the drain, even to the point where he cuts himself. After marrying Marina and having a child, he is forced to return to the US with her.
During his stay in Russia, Lee also kept journal entries of his time in Russia in what he calls “the Historic Diary”. Even as his words are jumbled, and his writing is nothing more than childish, Lee imagined that people would read his works, and would be moved by his struggles, much like he was when he read Marx’s works in the library. He wanted people to be “moved by his loneliness and disappointment” (p. 211).
Throughout much of Lee’s early adult years, it is fairly clear how his passions muddle his sense of reality and make him into such an irrational person. As seen in Russia, it takes him years for him to see how the Soviets really thought of him. It is this sort of unstable and impulsive behavior that will cause him to President Kennedy. Delillo does an excellent job in providing the backstory to this sort of behavior.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Initial reactions to Libra
Libra reminded me a lot about Ragtime when
first reading it. Both authors, while using actual historical
characters, create their own worlds around these characters as they see
fit. While Doctorow plays around with the characters of J.P. Morgan and
Harry Houdini, Delillo plays around solely with Lee Harvey Oswald. Each
author uses actual events within these character’s lives, but fills in
the dialogue and emotions as they feel necessary. While what these
characters say may not be entirely true, who can actually prove that Lee
said such and such to someone at a certain time?
One thing I found particularly interesting when reading was how Delillo points out America’s obsession over Cuba. While many Americans think of it as an “idea”, deep down, it is simply their own economic investment in order to “free the country” from Communism (exploiting their labor and resources to make a profit). Cuba can also be seen as America’s need to control everything because once the Cuban Missile Crisis explodes, we not only have to worry for our economic interests, but also our security. It’s not that I haven’t learned about America’s economic interests in Cuba, but I always forget just how significant a factor it is in American relations with Cuba in 1960s.
I’ve been digressing a bit. The whole novel revolves around Lee Harvey Oswald, who Delillo portrays in an interesting light. According to the Warren Commission, Lee acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy, but with new evidence coming up about the assassination, it is all possible that Lee was part of a larger conspiracy. Delillo uses this idea in order to tell his own version of the story: how the assassination attempt is plotted by former CIA operatives, and is intentionally going to fail in order to force the government to start a war against Cuba. As mentioned before, considering the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis, even if there isn’t solid evidence to prove that this kind of conspiracy didn’t happen, Delillo portrays it as a real one.
I would be lying to myself if I said that this novel is a brisk read. The prose and dialogue is quite dense, and there are so many plot lines and characters in the novel, mapping them out is quite the challenge (As mentioned in class, it’s almost like the scene in Slaughterhouse-Five where the anti-war novel’s plot is mapped out on the back of a huge sheet of paper with crayons. It’s all jumbled, and colors are flying everywhere, but it fits together in the end). That certainly doesn’t mean that the novel doesn’t capture my attention. I know that my points have been all over the place, so I’ll try to summarize everything up nicely. Delillo, from my initial reactions, does a nice job of portraying a potential conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. While he does add in his own ideas, he still sticks within the boundaries of historical fact. Describing Lee’s childhood and upbringing, it certainly does remind us that Lee, even if he was the assassin, was still a human being.
One thing I found particularly interesting when reading was how Delillo points out America’s obsession over Cuba. While many Americans think of it as an “idea”, deep down, it is simply their own economic investment in order to “free the country” from Communism (exploiting their labor and resources to make a profit). Cuba can also be seen as America’s need to control everything because once the Cuban Missile Crisis explodes, we not only have to worry for our economic interests, but also our security. It’s not that I haven’t learned about America’s economic interests in Cuba, but I always forget just how significant a factor it is in American relations with Cuba in 1960s.
I’ve been digressing a bit. The whole novel revolves around Lee Harvey Oswald, who Delillo portrays in an interesting light. According to the Warren Commission, Lee acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy, but with new evidence coming up about the assassination, it is all possible that Lee was part of a larger conspiracy. Delillo uses this idea in order to tell his own version of the story: how the assassination attempt is plotted by former CIA operatives, and is intentionally going to fail in order to force the government to start a war against Cuba. As mentioned before, considering the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis, even if there isn’t solid evidence to prove that this kind of conspiracy didn’t happen, Delillo portrays it as a real one.
I would be lying to myself if I said that this novel is a brisk read. The prose and dialogue is quite dense, and there are so many plot lines and characters in the novel, mapping them out is quite the challenge (As mentioned in class, it’s almost like the scene in Slaughterhouse-Five where the anti-war novel’s plot is mapped out on the back of a huge sheet of paper with crayons. It’s all jumbled, and colors are flying everywhere, but it fits together in the end). That certainly doesn’t mean that the novel doesn’t capture my attention. I know that my points have been all over the place, so I’ll try to summarize everything up nicely. Delillo, from my initial reactions, does a nice job of portraying a potential conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. While he does add in his own ideas, he still sticks within the boundaries of historical fact. Describing Lee’s childhood and upbringing, it certainly does remind us that Lee, even if he was the assassin, was still a human being.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Final thoughts to Kindred
After finishing Kindred, initially
I was fairly disappointed in the ending. Most people would’ve probably
predicted that Dana would lose her arm since we start off with that
scene in the novel. As for me, there were still many questions, mostly
about Dana’s time traveling, that were left unanswered. After the many
class discussions we’ve had, I realized that maybe the disappointing
ending was intentional, that Butler wanted us to leave unsatisfied in
order to remind us about something even more serious.
When we were discussing in class about the interpretation of Dana’s loss of her arm, many of them centered around the idea that this loss of her arm represents the scarring effects of time. History has shaped who we are individually. While Dana was physically shaped by history, Butler wants the reader to know that something as bad as slavery has had lasting ramifications, and affects all of us.
As I mentioned before, after reading Kindred, I still had many questions left unanswered. Throughout most of this novel, Dana simply accepts the fact that she is constantly time traveling back to 1800s Maryland. We know that she travels back in time whenever Rufus’ life is in danger, and that a few minutes in Dana’s present time can mean a days or years in Rufus’ time. But, there are so many other things I wanted to know. What explains the varying lengths of time that passes as she is away? Why does Dana return to the present only when her life is in danger? Butler may have wanted to use time travel simply as a device. Since she leaves so many of these details out of her novel, she may have felt that explaining the concept of Dana’s time travel would distract readers from the bigger picture.
One thing that will stuck in my mind, and is something I will never forget, is about how important family ties are for slaves. Take Carrie, the mute child of Sarah’s. A long time ago, Sarah’s two other sons were sold by Weylin, and in fear of losing Carrie, Sarah willingly complies to the hard labor given to her by her masters. As Carrie grows older on the plantation, she marries Nigel, and has children with him. Prior to Nigel’s marriage, he already had thoughts of running away and finding freedom in the North. He even gets taught how to read by Dana in preparation of this. When he has children with Carrie though, in fear of having Carrie and their children sold off, Nigel is forced to control his urges of running away, and work silently on the plantation. For a long time, I knew that families were often separated by the auction. I never realized that breaking these family ties could have such a large impact on someone, and even keep them in line from running away or revolting. In a world of a slave, family is the only thing that many had for hope and support. Taking that away would’ve left slaves with nothing.
For me, while Butler doesn’t necessarily leave behind a solid novel, the picture she describes about slavery is simply unforgettable. The descriptions she puts into the whippings, the hard labor of the fields, and the strong family ties many of the slaves have portray just how bad slavery really was. As readers, we should focus more on her message of slavery, and see that slavery has impacted our society.
When we were discussing in class about the interpretation of Dana’s loss of her arm, many of them centered around the idea that this loss of her arm represents the scarring effects of time. History has shaped who we are individually. While Dana was physically shaped by history, Butler wants the reader to know that something as bad as slavery has had lasting ramifications, and affects all of us.
As I mentioned before, after reading Kindred, I still had many questions left unanswered. Throughout most of this novel, Dana simply accepts the fact that she is constantly time traveling back to 1800s Maryland. We know that she travels back in time whenever Rufus’ life is in danger, and that a few minutes in Dana’s present time can mean a days or years in Rufus’ time. But, there are so many other things I wanted to know. What explains the varying lengths of time that passes as she is away? Why does Dana return to the present only when her life is in danger? Butler may have wanted to use time travel simply as a device. Since she leaves so many of these details out of her novel, she may have felt that explaining the concept of Dana’s time travel would distract readers from the bigger picture.
One thing that will stuck in my mind, and is something I will never forget, is about how important family ties are for slaves. Take Carrie, the mute child of Sarah’s. A long time ago, Sarah’s two other sons were sold by Weylin, and in fear of losing Carrie, Sarah willingly complies to the hard labor given to her by her masters. As Carrie grows older on the plantation, she marries Nigel, and has children with him. Prior to Nigel’s marriage, he already had thoughts of running away and finding freedom in the North. He even gets taught how to read by Dana in preparation of this. When he has children with Carrie though, in fear of having Carrie and their children sold off, Nigel is forced to control his urges of running away, and work silently on the plantation. For a long time, I knew that families were often separated by the auction. I never realized that breaking these family ties could have such a large impact on someone, and even keep them in line from running away or revolting. In a world of a slave, family is the only thing that many had for hope and support. Taking that away would’ve left slaves with nothing.
For me, while Butler doesn’t necessarily leave behind a solid novel, the picture she describes about slavery is simply unforgettable. The descriptions she puts into the whippings, the hard labor of the fields, and the strong family ties many of the slaves have portray just how bad slavery really was. As readers, we should focus more on her message of slavery, and see that slavery has impacted our society.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Rufus and Dana
As I mentioned before in my previous blog post, there is a lot to say about the characters in the novel. Different opinions can be made towards a lot of the characters such as Rufus and Dana. Considering where and when they were raised, it definitely makes readers think and decide whether their actions are justified or not.
Let's start with Rufus. While Rufus has good intentions and wants his slaves to be treated as best as possible, he is still as monstrous as his father Tom. This can especially be seen in his relationship with Alice. Even though Alice clearly dislikes Rufus, especially for what happened to Isaac, he forces Dana to make Alice condone him, and let him rape and beat her. By doing so, it lessens his own feelings of guilt. Dana often questions why she still forgives Rufus after everything he does, and this attributes to Rufus' lack of change in behavior. Rather than trying to change himself, Rufus only shows genuine regret for what he's done, making Dana feel bad for him. He only cares about himself, and only his own happiness. When he didn't send Dana's letters to Kevin, Rufus argued that he didn't want Dana to ever leave him alone at the plantation. This particular scene exemplifies how immaturely Rufus thinks. His selfish and brutal actions, only worsen as he becomes an adult and an alcoholic.
Dana, the protagonist and narrator of the novel, must also struggle with many complex issues. As an alien in the antebellum South, her mannerisms cause her to be called strange and a "white nigger" by many of the other slaves. As she lives on the plantation, she begins to develop strong relationships with the slaves on the Weylin plantation. Dana soon sees how so many of these slaves each have their own histories and tragedies. She also begins to like Rufus, despite how cruel he is to the slaves and to Alice. Here, she is faced with such morally conscientious issues. Of course Dana is forced beyond her will to travel back in time in order to save Rufus' life. At the same time, she often wonders whether it is worth saving the life of a man who is committing so many cruelties. For someone who is selling off slaves and raping a woman, she feels that killing Rufus would solve the slaves' problems. This doesn't seem as easy as she thinks it is. Not only do her own affections for Rufus conflict with her decision to kill Rufus, even if she did kill Rufus for the sake of the slaves, they could easily be sold off and separated.
Maybe Butler intentionally invented such complicated characters in order to show how there is no black and white in history. As wrong as slavery was, there was no obvious solution towards it, and it took years before it was finally eradicated. Even when slavery was eliminated, it laid the grounds for hundreds of years of racial prejudice against blacks, especially in the South. Time has a lasting impact on people and on history, and Dana realizes that as she stays longer and longer in the South.
Let's start with Rufus. While Rufus has good intentions and wants his slaves to be treated as best as possible, he is still as monstrous as his father Tom. This can especially be seen in his relationship with Alice. Even though Alice clearly dislikes Rufus, especially for what happened to Isaac, he forces Dana to make Alice condone him, and let him rape and beat her. By doing so, it lessens his own feelings of guilt. Dana often questions why she still forgives Rufus after everything he does, and this attributes to Rufus' lack of change in behavior. Rather than trying to change himself, Rufus only shows genuine regret for what he's done, making Dana feel bad for him. He only cares about himself, and only his own happiness. When he didn't send Dana's letters to Kevin, Rufus argued that he didn't want Dana to ever leave him alone at the plantation. This particular scene exemplifies how immaturely Rufus thinks. His selfish and brutal actions, only worsen as he becomes an adult and an alcoholic.
Dana, the protagonist and narrator of the novel, must also struggle with many complex issues. As an alien in the antebellum South, her mannerisms cause her to be called strange and a "white nigger" by many of the other slaves. As she lives on the plantation, she begins to develop strong relationships with the slaves on the Weylin plantation. Dana soon sees how so many of these slaves each have their own histories and tragedies. She also begins to like Rufus, despite how cruel he is to the slaves and to Alice. Here, she is faced with such morally conscientious issues. Of course Dana is forced beyond her will to travel back in time in order to save Rufus' life. At the same time, she often wonders whether it is worth saving the life of a man who is committing so many cruelties. For someone who is selling off slaves and raping a woman, she feels that killing Rufus would solve the slaves' problems. This doesn't seem as easy as she thinks it is. Not only do her own affections for Rufus conflict with her decision to kill Rufus, even if she did kill Rufus for the sake of the slaves, they could easily be sold off and separated.
Maybe Butler intentionally invented such complicated characters in order to show how there is no black and white in history. As wrong as slavery was, there was no obvious solution towards it, and it took years before it was finally eradicated. Even when slavery was eliminated, it laid the grounds for hundreds of years of racial prejudice against blacks, especially in the South. Time has a lasting impact on people and on history, and Dana realizes that as she stays longer and longer in the South.
Initial reactions to Kindred
When first reading Kindred, it seemed much more like a traditional novel compared to the other books we have read this semester. Kindred focuses on the larger story of slavery instead of warping historical facts and characters to the author's will like Doctorow did in Ragtime. It is easier to accept characters like Dana and Rufus because we know that they are fictional, and are not real-life historical figures with mysterious backgrounds (as Doctorow did with J.P Morgan and Harry Houdini). Kindred has more similarities to Slaughterhouse-Five, not only in the sense that it puts fictional characters in real events (with Billy Pilgrim in the Dresden firebombing), but also in the sense of time travel.
I couldn't help making the comparison to Back to the Future when reading Kindred. While Dana is trying to save her great grandparents Rufus and Alice from death in order for them to give birth to her grandmother Hagar, Marty McFly is trying to get his parents to fall in love so that they'll marry and give birth to him. This need for survival by trying to preserve the flow of history definitely engages me as a reader and moves the book along. Not only do these characters have to struggle with the social norms of the times they are in, but also have to make sure they themselves stay alive through everything.
What makes this book even more interesting though is its characters. There are plenty of things to say about the novel's characters, and I will save that for my next blog. Dana's attempt to reform Rufus into a better human being is certainly something to note. Marty McFly, in a way, is also doing something similar with his father, trying to help his father become a much more confident man that can stand up to Biff rather than the coward he originally was before Marty went back in time. With Dana and Rufus, it is almost like a secondary goal that Dana wants to accomplish. She certainly recognizes the difficulties of changing the mindset of someone growing up in a society with such institutionalized slavery, along with racism and sexism. The time when she tries to stop Rufus from calling her a "nigger woman" is an example. Yet, she's convinced that she can change him for the better somehow. Who knows? Maybe she can.
I couldn't help making the comparison to Back to the Future when reading Kindred. While Dana is trying to save her great grandparents Rufus and Alice from death in order for them to give birth to her grandmother Hagar, Marty McFly is trying to get his parents to fall in love so that they'll marry and give birth to him. This need for survival by trying to preserve the flow of history definitely engages me as a reader and moves the book along. Not only do these characters have to struggle with the social norms of the times they are in, but also have to make sure they themselves stay alive through everything.
What makes this book even more interesting though is its characters. There are plenty of things to say about the novel's characters, and I will save that for my next blog. Dana's attempt to reform Rufus into a better human being is certainly something to note. Marty McFly, in a way, is also doing something similar with his father, trying to help his father become a much more confident man that can stand up to Biff rather than the coward he originally was before Marty went back in time. With Dana and Rufus, it is almost like a secondary goal that Dana wants to accomplish. She certainly recognizes the difficulties of changing the mindset of someone growing up in a society with such institutionalized slavery, along with racism and sexism. The time when she tries to stop Rufus from calling her a "nigger woman" is an example. Yet, she's convinced that she can change him for the better somehow. Who knows? Maybe she can.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Final response to Slaughterhouse Five
As we conclude our discussion for Slaughterhouse-Five, I would like to say that out of the three books we’ve read this quarter, Slaughterhouse-Five was my favorite (although Ragtime does come in as a close second). Its fast-pace, black humor, and eccentric story all keep me engaged as a reader.
One of the things I ask myself is whether Slaughterhouse-Five is a novel against war or a novel against war novels. I feel like the novel has aspects of both. Slaughterhouse-Five is certainly no anti-war novel, and Vonnegut even denies that this novel is anti-war claiming that it was just as effective in stopping glaciers. Wars were going to happen and it was simply inevitable whether we like it or not. At the same time, this is not our conventional anti-war novel. We’re taken into space, where we learn about the Tralfamadorians and their alien race. Does Vonnegut use the Tralfamadorians as a way to cope with his own trauma? Or does he use these characters to poke fun at conventional anti-war novels and try to deglamorize the war concept behind them?
When looking back at Billy Pilgrim’s memories during and after the war, one thing can definitely be said of him: they are very human. Yes, he seems very childish, and makes himself look stupid most of the time, but is that not how most of us would act if we were in that situation? He isn’t some John Wayne that is fighting heartily and cheerfully, killing Germans left and right. Billy PIlgrim is just a human, and like most adults that go to war, he is a child and doesn’t realize the realities of war. Vonnegut is saying more than that war is bad. He is exposing the truth for what it is, and tries to shatter the myths about war that we’ve just become so accustomed to. In a way, he treats us like we’re kids ourselves.
One of the things I ask myself is whether Slaughterhouse-Five is a novel against war or a novel against war novels. I feel like the novel has aspects of both. Slaughterhouse-Five is certainly no anti-war novel, and Vonnegut even denies that this novel is anti-war claiming that it was just as effective in stopping glaciers. Wars were going to happen and it was simply inevitable whether we like it or not. At the same time, this is not our conventional anti-war novel. We’re taken into space, where we learn about the Tralfamadorians and their alien race. Does Vonnegut use the Tralfamadorians as a way to cope with his own trauma? Or does he use these characters to poke fun at conventional anti-war novels and try to deglamorize the war concept behind them?
When looking back at Billy Pilgrim’s memories during and after the war, one thing can definitely be said of him: they are very human. Yes, he seems very childish, and makes himself look stupid most of the time, but is that not how most of us would act if we were in that situation? He isn’t some John Wayne that is fighting heartily and cheerfully, killing Germans left and right. Billy PIlgrim is just a human, and like most adults that go to war, he is a child and doesn’t realize the realities of war. Vonnegut is saying more than that war is bad. He is exposing the truth for what it is, and tries to shatter the myths about war that we’ve just become so accustomed to. In a way, he treats us like we’re kids ourselves.
Tralfamadore
One of the more unique aspects I found about Slaughterhouse-Five
was Billy Pilgrim’s flashbacks on Tralfamadore. Not only is he put on
display like an animal at a zoo, he also has a relationship with Montana
Wildhack, ultimately having a child with her on the planet. I was
really interested in hearing what other people had to say about this, so
I looked up an article called “The Psychiatrists were Right: Anomic
Alienation in Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five”.
It was by Kevin Brown, and Brown thinks that Billy Pilgrim is very
anomic, having no real social connections with the other characters in
the novel. It’s only in Tralfamadore where Billy can escape this
loneliness and become the center of attention. He can escape the
realities of Earth and war and enter a new place where is loved and is
part of a community. Brown also argues that Montana Wildhack pays Billy a
similar sort of attention, making Billy in charge of everything that is
going on “since Billy knows exactly what to do on Tralfamadore”. This
ultimately leads Billy and Montana’s sexual union and child.
Brown believes that this imaginary world of Tralfamadore makes Billy all the more egoistic because now that he has created this fictional world where all his needs are met, he ceases to try to connect with anyone any further. Billy isn’t the only one who experiences anomie. Many characters like Edgar Derby, Roland Weary, and even the Vonnegut in the novel himself experiences anomie (Vonnegut at the start of the novel tries to reconnect with people of the past by telephone). Vonnegut, Brown argues, wants readers to recognize how anomic alienation has manifested in today’s society after WWII and wants readers to examine their own lives. He hopes that Tralfamadore gives a good picture of a world where people can truly connect with each other.
This was definitely a fresh way to see Tralfamadore, and the idea of alienation today can very well be seen in today’s world. Many of us are much more individualistic, not having that sense of community values that was once cherished. We focus more on our own survival and trying to get through the next day. Of course there are charity and grassroots groups that help out communities, but many of us have just lost touch with the community. Vonnegut reminds us, through Billy, what it means to be alone and wants us to try to make true connections with people.
Brown believes that this imaginary world of Tralfamadore makes Billy all the more egoistic because now that he has created this fictional world where all his needs are met, he ceases to try to connect with anyone any further. Billy isn’t the only one who experiences anomie. Many characters like Edgar Derby, Roland Weary, and even the Vonnegut in the novel himself experiences anomie (Vonnegut at the start of the novel tries to reconnect with people of the past by telephone). Vonnegut, Brown argues, wants readers to recognize how anomic alienation has manifested in today’s society after WWII and wants readers to examine their own lives. He hopes that Tralfamadore gives a good picture of a world where people can truly connect with each other.
This was definitely a fresh way to see Tralfamadore, and the idea of alienation today can very well be seen in today’s world. Many of us are much more individualistic, not having that sense of community values that was once cherished. We focus more on our own survival and trying to get through the next day. Of course there are charity and grassroots groups that help out communities, but many of us have just lost touch with the community. Vonnegut reminds us, through Billy, what it means to be alone and wants us to try to make true connections with people.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Today's Jes Grew: Hip-hop
In my response paper for Mumbo Jumbo,
I talked about the state of Jes Grew in today’s world and how our
society has changed dramatically from Reed’s in how we appreciate
African American music like hip-hop. Even though there are some hip-hop
groups like Odd Future who have been criticized for their inappropriate
and offensive lyrics, there is very little of the oppression of African American music that Reed describes in Mumbo Jumbo.
I would like to embellish my discussion on Jes Grew further by first touching upon hip-hop in its early years. When talking to Mr. Mitchell about Jes Grew in today’s society, I brought up hip-hop groups like N.W.A, a music group that redefined what hip-hop is today. Like Odd Future, N.W.A was just as controversial during its time, rapping about cop-killing and the dangers and violence in the Compton ghetto. Unlike Odd Future though, while the group members in the N.W.A have their own personal experiences in the ghetto to back up their lyrics, Odd Future’s group members are just teenagers with no self-control in what they say.
Contrasting N.W.A and Odd Future, we can see how hip-hop has changed. With hip-hop artists like MC Hammer, Kanye West, and Jay-Z, not only has hip-hop become much more commercialized, lyrics have also changed significantly. Rappers talk less about the dangers of the ghetto and more about the ups and downs of celebrity life and the unprecendented wealth they have accumulated (as seen in albums like Watch the Throne). Even though the content of lyrics has changed, the use of the English language has not changed at all. As described by Reed, “slang is also Jes Grew”. Rap is, and will always be, about playing with words to create clever rhymes in order to convey a certain message.
Rap lyrics are not the only thing that has changed within hip-hop. Another significant factor that has changed the game of hip-hop is the Internet. I mentioned briefly in my response paper about how Odd Future rose to popularity thanks to Itunes and Youtube. With so many social media sites about, similar to the idea of Jes Grew just popping out of nowhere, even the most anonymous rapper can spread his name and music out through Facebook and Youtube to the point where he/she has a huge fan following. It gives anyone the chance and freedom to create their own music and share it with the world. That is what Jes Grew is all about: exciting amounts of energy and freedom. Jes Grew is about being brash and wild because artists have the very freedom to do so. No matter how the system tries to oppress, Jes Grew simply cannot be stopped.
I would like to embellish my discussion on Jes Grew further by first touching upon hip-hop in its early years. When talking to Mr. Mitchell about Jes Grew in today’s society, I brought up hip-hop groups like N.W.A, a music group that redefined what hip-hop is today. Like Odd Future, N.W.A was just as controversial during its time, rapping about cop-killing and the dangers and violence in the Compton ghetto. Unlike Odd Future though, while the group members in the N.W.A have their own personal experiences in the ghetto to back up their lyrics, Odd Future’s group members are just teenagers with no self-control in what they say.
Contrasting N.W.A and Odd Future, we can see how hip-hop has changed. With hip-hop artists like MC Hammer, Kanye West, and Jay-Z, not only has hip-hop become much more commercialized, lyrics have also changed significantly. Rappers talk less about the dangers of the ghetto and more about the ups and downs of celebrity life and the unprecendented wealth they have accumulated (as seen in albums like Watch the Throne). Even though the content of lyrics has changed, the use of the English language has not changed at all. As described by Reed, “slang is also Jes Grew”. Rap is, and will always be, about playing with words to create clever rhymes in order to convey a certain message.
Rap lyrics are not the only thing that has changed within hip-hop. Another significant factor that has changed the game of hip-hop is the Internet. I mentioned briefly in my response paper about how Odd Future rose to popularity thanks to Itunes and Youtube. With so many social media sites about, similar to the idea of Jes Grew just popping out of nowhere, even the most anonymous rapper can spread his name and music out through Facebook and Youtube to the point where he/she has a huge fan following. It gives anyone the chance and freedom to create their own music and share it with the world. That is what Jes Grew is all about: exciting amounts of energy and freedom. Jes Grew is about being brash and wild because artists have the very freedom to do so. No matter how the system tries to oppress, Jes Grew simply cannot be stopped.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
What are Reed's intentions in "Mumbo Jumbo"?
Mumbo Jumbo was
definitely one of the hardest books I’ve read. The difficulty of
grasping the ideas Reed touches upon, the chronology of the story, and
the ridiculousness of some of the stories (such as Moses’ concert) are
to name a few reasons. As crazy as the book was, maybe Reed really
intended for Mumbo Jumbo to be such a jumbled mess, as a way to show how new cultural movements like jazz can really change the status quo of society.
I remember one person in class mentioning how Mumbo Jumbo was very much like a comic book story. The Wallflower Order is like the evil, secret society that is trying to kill Jes Grew, which the good guys, Papa Labas and his men, are trying to save. This is actually a funny way to portray on such serious topics as race, cultural movements, and Western civilization. Reed seems to be intentionally satirical in this sort of manner throughout the entire novel. Take the scene where Moses plays the music he learns from Jethro that causes the audience’s ears to bleed. The way Reed describes this scene made me immediately think of Woodstock and the hippie audience, a very odd comparison.
Look at the book from a more general view. The plans that the Wallflower Order tries to accomplish are simply outrageous. A Talking Android that disguises himself in order to destroy Jes Grew and black culture from the inside out? An economic panic that the Wallflower Order will control in order to shut down all black music clubs and Jes Grew as a whole? Again, these plots are just as ridiculous as any other evil villain’s plans in a comic book. Even the evil characters like Hinckle von Vampton and Harold “Safecracker” Gould are just ridiculous in how they speak, how they view Jes Grew, and how they act as people.
So what does a book as crazy and ridiculous as Mumbo Jumbo have to say about what’s going on in Western culture? Reed uses this insane plot to show how a movement like jazz and African American music as a whole can really impact society. Like any other new idea or new cultural movement that comes about, there are always going to be critics. There are going to be those people who have very conservative ideals and find such changes way too radical. Reed tries to poke fun at these sorts of people and show how truly ridiculous they are. After all, change is inevitable, and whether we like it or not, we are going to have to eventually accept it for what it is.
I remember one person in class mentioning how Mumbo Jumbo was very much like a comic book story. The Wallflower Order is like the evil, secret society that is trying to kill Jes Grew, which the good guys, Papa Labas and his men, are trying to save. This is actually a funny way to portray on such serious topics as race, cultural movements, and Western civilization. Reed seems to be intentionally satirical in this sort of manner throughout the entire novel. Take the scene where Moses plays the music he learns from Jethro that causes the audience’s ears to bleed. The way Reed describes this scene made me immediately think of Woodstock and the hippie audience, a very odd comparison.
Look at the book from a more general view. The plans that the Wallflower Order tries to accomplish are simply outrageous. A Talking Android that disguises himself in order to destroy Jes Grew and black culture from the inside out? An economic panic that the Wallflower Order will control in order to shut down all black music clubs and Jes Grew as a whole? Again, these plots are just as ridiculous as any other evil villain’s plans in a comic book. Even the evil characters like Hinckle von Vampton and Harold “Safecracker” Gould are just ridiculous in how they speak, how they view Jes Grew, and how they act as people.
So what does a book as crazy and ridiculous as Mumbo Jumbo have to say about what’s going on in Western culture? Reed uses this insane plot to show how a movement like jazz and African American music as a whole can really impact society. Like any other new idea or new cultural movement that comes about, there are always going to be critics. There are going to be those people who have very conservative ideals and find such changes way too radical. Reed tries to poke fun at these sorts of people and show how truly ridiculous they are. After all, change is inevitable, and whether we like it or not, we are going to have to eventually accept it for what it is.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Final thoughts on "Ragtime"
Before moving onto Mumbo Jumbo, I wanted to give my final thoughts to Ragtime as a way to properly conclude our discussion on the book. So after reading Ragtime, what
did I think of it? Probably, the best way to describe my reaction was
how I did not predict such a conclusion. Rarely, have I seen an author
show such little emotion when killing off the main fictional characters
in such violent deaths. To top it all off, Harry K. Thaw is the last
person to be described in the book, in all things, the Armistice Day
Parade.
After reading some other blog posts and listening to the discussions in class, I agree with other people in how cynical and ironic Doctorow ends the story. In Mr. Mitchell’s blog post “A Happy Ending?”, I remember him saying the following quote: “history does not produce tidy narratives with clear morals or meanings”. We create history in order to record our past accomplishments and failures. This history is used to look back and try to learn something about ourselves from it. However, not every single event can be recorded and, as I have already discussed in my previous blog post, we fill in the holes with our own theories and fictional thoughts. At the same time, history is not some fairy tale that we can take too kindly, for there is always war, massacres, and tragedies in every generation’s history. People with the insanity of those like Harry K. Thaw have played significant roles in history, everyone from dictators to revolutionaries. Whether we like them or not, they will continue to exist in the future forever.
After reading some other blog posts and listening to the discussions in class, I agree with other people in how cynical and ironic Doctorow ends the story. In Mr. Mitchell’s blog post “A Happy Ending?”, I remember him saying the following quote: “history does not produce tidy narratives with clear morals or meanings”. We create history in order to record our past accomplishments and failures. This history is used to look back and try to learn something about ourselves from it. However, not every single event can be recorded and, as I have already discussed in my previous blog post, we fill in the holes with our own theories and fictional thoughts. At the same time, history is not some fairy tale that we can take too kindly, for there is always war, massacres, and tragedies in every generation’s history. People with the insanity of those like Harry K. Thaw have played significant roles in history, everyone from dictators to revolutionaries. Whether we like them or not, they will continue to exist in the future forever.
If I had to describe the biggest thing I learned from Ragtime,
it’s how an author of historical fiction can practically do whatever
they want with real historical figures. As we’ve probably talked about
over and over again, Doctorow has created these ridiculous and ludicrous
back stories behind J.P. Morgan, Ford, and Houdini. Yet, nobody can
prove Doctorow wrong because there is no solid evidence to do so. The
author has the power to create his own world with these real events and
historical figures whether they be true or not.
After reading the first day’s reading of Mumbo Jumbo,
I can see, as Mr. Mitchell has already said before, how different
Reed’s take is as a historical fiction author. I don’t want to say much
about Mumbo Jumbo yet, as I have not read too deeply into it. However, Ragtime has
certainly opened my eyes in how I view historical fiction novels, and
hopefully I’ll learn something even bigger in our next book.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Is history far from fiction?
The
big question we discussed in class today regarding how much of history
is actually based solely on truth and facts, for me, took some time for
me to think over. While I was in class, I kept thinking to myself how
there is plenty of archaeological evidence to prove that certain events
in history have actually occurred. How can you deny that something like
the Holocaust didn’t happen if there are actual photos, journals, and
survivors of the Holocaust that exist? What about all the live film
footage covering wars and massacres throughout the 20th century? How can
you deny the truth behind these events if we have solid evidence that
they happened?
Probably
what made me rethink my initial thoughts on this question was during
World Since 1945 when I was thinking of the JFK assassination. Last
week, we watched a documentary showing actual recordings of news
bulletins covering the JFK assassination from the time of the
assassination itself all the way to the 1970s and 1980s when people were
debating the possible conspiracy theories behind the assassination. We
all know that President Kennedy was assassinated. That is a fact. The
true intent behind the assassination is something, I can honestly say,
up to fiction to decide. There isn’t any solid archaeological evidence
to prove the back story of the Kennedy assassination, and everything
from the Mafia to the CIA to President Lyndon B. Johnson himself have
been suggested.
I couldn’t help but compare what these conspiracy theorists were doing with what Doctorow did in Ragtime.
While both are definitely using real-life people within their own
stories, they create an alternate timeline or an alternate world where
they play with these people in order to create a convincing story. While
the tones of these stories may sound different (Doctorow has a more
cynical and satirical tone in Ragtime),
the concept of a historical fiction writer to toy with the historical
facts and people he knows about is definitely employed. Doctorow
especially does this with J.P. Morgan, Henry Ford, and Houdini. These
conspiracy theorists are practically like historical fiction authors
themselves to say the least.
Maybe
I may be wrong in using the JFK assassination consipiracy theories as
an example. But, there were other examples mentioned in class regarding
stories of the Bible and Greek Gods. Even though they may or may not
have happened, we conjure up these stories to tell the truths in our
world. So is history really far from fiction? They aren’t necessarily
synonymous, but not every fact and event in history can be proven with
solid evidence. Even in history, people try to fill in the holes with
their own truths to make a plausible story.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Coalhouse Walker's story
E.L.
Doctorow certainly doesn’t shy away from talking about race in early
20th century America. The Jim Crow laws were still enforced during this
era, and blacks around the country, whether in the North or the South,
were victimized. Many authors, or at least the ones I have read so far
(I’m sure there are many authors out there that shed their own light on
blacks during this era), have always sympathized the blacks for the
discrimination they have had to endure while portraying white Americans,
especially Southerners, as the “evil-doers”. Doctorow strays from the
norm and portrays blacks in another light through the story of
Coalhouse Walker.
One of the things that makes Coalhouse Walker so unique is his image. He portrays one of wealth and of the upper class, as seen in how polite he is to everyone, the big city ragtime he plays as a pianist, and the Model T car he owns. While the way everyone treats Coalhouse is different, everyone was certainly shocked by how he looked. Reading this was not too much of a surprise for me. Again, with the Jim Crow laws, it wasn’t too much of a surprise that such stereotypes of blacks (poor, unkempt, etc.) were prevalent and used to judge all blacks.
The way all the various characters treat Coalhouse was also interesting to read about. Everyone is shocked upon first seeing Coalhouse, but it’s how they see Coalhouse after that initial shock that is interesting to note. For example, while Mother acts rather courteously towards Coalhouse and acts almost like a matchmaker for Coalhouse and Sarah, Father still holds onto some of that old-school racism. Sometimes, he even acts unintentionally racist as seen when he asks Coalhouse to play some “coon songs” when he visits Sarah at Mother and Father’s home. Other times, he feels insecure and even in awe and jealousy of Coalhouse’s wealth. Based on how Mother and Father are portrayed, to me, it shows that the Progressive movement has taken its effect on some people, but the old ideas of racism and other forms of discrimination have not yet been, nor will ever be, fully eliminated.
As we all know, Coalhouse, as great a man as he is, takes a turn for the worse. He soon becomes a rather vicious domestic terrorist and makes almost everyone in the city fear him because of a vandalized car and other forms of harrassment by Willy Conklin and his firefighters. As surprising as Coalhouse’s tragedy is, he represents how many blacks felt during the early 1900s. Race riots, such as the Springfield race riots of 1908 and the Atlanta Race riots,
were prevalent throughout the nation, and often the issues were over competition for jobs and civil rights for blacks. Blacks were obviously very angry during this time and the best way to express such anger was through the physical acts of violence. Coalhouse was no exception to this. The anger and emotions he felt over his Model T and Sarah’s death motivated him to go so far as to barricade himself in the Pierpont Morgan Library.
I know there is so much more to talk about, but this blog has to end somewhere. I remember Mr. Mitchell posed a question about whether we should admire the pride that has made Coalhouse so great, yet has driven him to become this domestic terrorist. Even if I don’t have a clear cut answer (because there is so much to consider in the character of Coalhouse), I will say this. Racism is something deeply inherent, and even if people like Father and Mother are around to represent the Progressive movement, racism certainly will never go away, at least not for a long time. One thing is for sure. Emotions and anger run high amongst those who are victimized, leading up to acts of violence. Coalhouse was just another one of those victims of this systematic racism. Was he right to have committed such crimes? That I leave up to the reader.
One of the things that makes Coalhouse Walker so unique is his image. He portrays one of wealth and of the upper class, as seen in how polite he is to everyone, the big city ragtime he plays as a pianist, and the Model T car he owns. While the way everyone treats Coalhouse is different, everyone was certainly shocked by how he looked. Reading this was not too much of a surprise for me. Again, with the Jim Crow laws, it wasn’t too much of a surprise that such stereotypes of blacks (poor, unkempt, etc.) were prevalent and used to judge all blacks.
The way all the various characters treat Coalhouse was also interesting to read about. Everyone is shocked upon first seeing Coalhouse, but it’s how they see Coalhouse after that initial shock that is interesting to note. For example, while Mother acts rather courteously towards Coalhouse and acts almost like a matchmaker for Coalhouse and Sarah, Father still holds onto some of that old-school racism. Sometimes, he even acts unintentionally racist as seen when he asks Coalhouse to play some “coon songs” when he visits Sarah at Mother and Father’s home. Other times, he feels insecure and even in awe and jealousy of Coalhouse’s wealth. Based on how Mother and Father are portrayed, to me, it shows that the Progressive movement has taken its effect on some people, but the old ideas of racism and other forms of discrimination have not yet been, nor will ever be, fully eliminated.
As we all know, Coalhouse, as great a man as he is, takes a turn for the worse. He soon becomes a rather vicious domestic terrorist and makes almost everyone in the city fear him because of a vandalized car and other forms of harrassment by Willy Conklin and his firefighters. As surprising as Coalhouse’s tragedy is, he represents how many blacks felt during the early 1900s. Race riots, such as the Springfield race riots of 1908 and the Atlanta Race riots,
were prevalent throughout the nation, and often the issues were over competition for jobs and civil rights for blacks. Blacks were obviously very angry during this time and the best way to express such anger was through the physical acts of violence. Coalhouse was no exception to this. The anger and emotions he felt over his Model T and Sarah’s death motivated him to go so far as to barricade himself in the Pierpont Morgan Library.
I know there is so much more to talk about, but this blog has to end somewhere. I remember Mr. Mitchell posed a question about whether we should admire the pride that has made Coalhouse so great, yet has driven him to become this domestic terrorist. Even if I don’t have a clear cut answer (because there is so much to consider in the character of Coalhouse), I will say this. Racism is something deeply inherent, and even if people like Father and Mother are around to represent the Progressive movement, racism certainly will never go away, at least not for a long time. One thing is for sure. Emotions and anger run high amongst those who are victimized, leading up to acts of violence. Coalhouse was just another one of those victims of this systematic racism. Was he right to have committed such crimes? That I leave up to the reader.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
What is E.L. Doctorow's stance as a writer in "Ragtime"?
E.L. Doctorow’s Ragtime is certainly a unique book and one that cannot easily be defined in a few sentences. Throughout the discussions we had in class, one of the big themes that especially caught my attention was the class difference Doctorow describes. Doctorow’s tale is clearly set at the turn of the century, a time when immigrants poured into America and a time when social problems,ranging from the filthiness of urban life to poor working conditions and crime, were rampant. The distinction in lifestyle can easily be seen between the rich and poor, as seen between the poor like Tateh and little girl and with the upper class like Evelynn Nesbitt.
I remember Mr. Mitchell posed a question when we were discussing the chapter on Harry Houdini and the poverty balls the upper class hosted. The question was about what perspective Doctorow was writing the book from as an author. For me, it was always hard to decide whether he was in favor of one of the social classes or was simply writing as a neutral historian. When writing this, I can honestly say that he is neither. Doctorow writes with not only so much irony and contradictions, but with lots of quirkiness and humor. While the descriptions of the upper class charity balls full of beef carcasses and Harry Houdini’s freakish nature in the eyes of the rich are only some examples of the irony and cynicism portrayed by Doctorow, the scene of Harry K. Thaw’s undressing at the Tomb and Mother’s Younger Brother’s humiliating mishap in front of Evelynn Nesbitt and Emma Goldman were some of the more quirky and almost comical scenes.
Whatever perspective Doctorow writes from, Doctorow is certainly writing as an author of historical fiction. As Mr. Mitchell said, even though Harry Houdini and Evelyn Nesbitt were real people in history, the author has the freedom to whatever he wants with these characters in his own world. Nobody can justify that Doctorow’s story is wrong because these people most certainly could have been living out these experiences unpublished. The setting the story takes place in is all the more ideal because, as mentioned before, of all the social problems going on throughout America in the 1900s. Anything could have happened behind the scenes and it is only our imagination that can truly portray what those things were.
I remember Mr. Mitchell posed a question when we were discussing the chapter on Harry Houdini and the poverty balls the upper class hosted. The question was about what perspective Doctorow was writing the book from as an author. For me, it was always hard to decide whether he was in favor of one of the social classes or was simply writing as a neutral historian. When writing this, I can honestly say that he is neither. Doctorow writes with not only so much irony and contradictions, but with lots of quirkiness and humor. While the descriptions of the upper class charity balls full of beef carcasses and Harry Houdini’s freakish nature in the eyes of the rich are only some examples of the irony and cynicism portrayed by Doctorow, the scene of Harry K. Thaw’s undressing at the Tomb and Mother’s Younger Brother’s humiliating mishap in front of Evelynn Nesbitt and Emma Goldman were some of the more quirky and almost comical scenes.
Whatever perspective Doctorow writes from, Doctorow is certainly writing as an author of historical fiction. As Mr. Mitchell said, even though Harry Houdini and Evelyn Nesbitt were real people in history, the author has the freedom to whatever he wants with these characters in his own world. Nobody can justify that Doctorow’s story is wrong because these people most certainly could have been living out these experiences unpublished. The setting the story takes place in is all the more ideal because, as mentioned before, of all the social problems going on throughout America in the 1900s. Anything could have happened behind the scenes and it is only our imagination that can truly portray what those things were.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)