As the quarter comes to a close, I find myself asking, "What did I learn?" (Mainly because we were prompted to do so). But throughout the quarter, through all the analysis of poems and stories, I'd like to think that I've become at least slightly better with the skill of textual analysis. As I revisit my blog postings, I notice that there is indeed progress, though subtle. I think it mostly has to do with my comfort level and analyzing the assignments.
At the beginning of the quarter, I was more frustrated than anything. I had no idea what things meant or stood for and many times just made something up in my blogs. I am not a big fan, well, not a fan at all of most of the types of writing we encountered and it made it hard for me to analyze because I considered it useless. I felt like, if people have trouble figure out what the author is talking about, it's not good writing. Of course, we talk about challenging the reader and such things, but intentionally being as abstract and vague as possible, leaving your writing open to a variety of interpretations, is not something I would ever write or enjoy reading. So, this presented a sort of block for me initially and can be seen in my early blog posts.
As the quarter progressed, I became more tolerant. When we finally moved off of poetry and into stories, I was excited. But the first few stories that we read were more pretentious than the poetry was. My blog posts seemed to become more and more cynical with each assignment. The only stories that I actually really enjoyed were "Milk" and "The Fix." I think this is because there is a literal value to the stories as much as there is an underlying message. My best analysis blogs were on these stories and that seems to be the reason why. I knew what the author was saying on the surface and was able to use that to dig up something deeper, rather than taking something so ridiculously vague that it could represent anything and attempt to derive some overly intelligent answer for why the author wrote it. Some people find pleasure in that and I don't mean to tear it down. I just can't force myself to like it.
The fact that this is a internet blog maybe affected how some people responded to the literature. It didnt' effect me so much in the aspect of what I wrote but more so in what I didn't write. I was unconcerned about people outside of class; it was only my classmates I was concerned about. There were times where I wanted to completely destroy a story and tear down the style, uninhibited, but I knew that some people in the class likely enjoyed the story and probably find the style appealing. So, more often than not, I kept my feelings in, sort of censoring myself, out of respect for differing opinions.
So what did I learn? I learned that textual analysis is not a strength of mine. I learned that I do not particularly desire to make it a strength. Though my skills to read underneath the text are a bit better. Looking through my blog posts, comments, and just thinking about class discussions, it is apparent that I improved but my cynicism towards the assignments likely hindered any further improvement.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Milk Mugs
Ok, so I changed my mind about my essay topic and instead of "The Fix", I decided that I wanted to do "Milk."
Milk Mugs
There is a saying that when a child is born, a mother is also born. Of course, in this moment, a father is also born. It is the idea of being a parent, an entirely new person being created within them and with it, a new set of responsibilities, attitudes, values, and certainly fears. In his story, "Milk", Ron Carlson expounds on these phenomena, with the most obvious being fear. Through a story of defiance against a concept of fingerprinting his children, the father gives the reader a sense of parenthood and the emotional journey of being a father. Though his worries seem unfounded at times, it is easy to understand and relate to his unconditional love for his children and how this love leads to an internal paranoid obsession over the fear of losing them.
The father is the story, whose name is Jim, feels like a lot has changed within himself; not necessarily for better or worse but he certainly understands that things are different, that times are different. When one becomes a parent, there are definite life altering changes as that person finds themselves responsible for the life of another. Jim mentions that he feels like he and his wife have "grown up together." This suggests maybe a bit of physically growing up, but I think it implies more of a maturing together through shared experience. Certainly having kids together will cause a process of "growing up." Before the twins, Jim says that he had a much different view and approach to life, commenting that, "[My wife] and I promised to never post rules" after making fun of their friends for imposing so many on their children (67). However, under the spell of parenting, Jim finds himself dictating, something he promised he would never do. He says, "only after the boys arrived have I started with this rule stuff." This indicates a definite change in Jim since he has become a parent and supports the remark made by Ruth, the friend he had made fun of for her rule-making. "Wait until you have kids," she responds.
Jim's worries and fears are what drive the story and set the events of the story in motion. It is essentially what the tale is about. He refuses to allow his children to be fingerprinted, calling the precaution a "raging paranoia." The true essence of his defiance is evident and the irony of Jim attempting to avoid "raging paranoia" is clear. He is avoiding what he thinks is a paranoid behavior because of the fact that he is paranoid. He is worried, afraid that if he accepts the fingerprinting of his children, he would be accepting the notion that something could possibly happen to them. This fear escalates as he becomes more and more obsessed with the thoughts of missing children, seeing them on flyers, the comics, and on the back of his milk cartons. It really begins bothering him, so much so that he starts attaching attributes to children he sees who are alone, attributes that one would find on a "Have You Seen Me?" poster. It becomes obvious that there is much more going on within Jim than the issue of fingerprinting. It has almost nothing to do at all with fingerprinting, itself. It has everything to do with the fact that Jim is utterly terrified of losing his children.
While, at times, Jim's feelings and thoughts tend to seem a bit unreasonable and exaggerated, there can be a certain understanding and empathy towards his reactions. Fingerprinting their children, to Jim's wife and his mother, is much like buying a fire extinguisher or buying life insurance. You do it just in case, but hope to God you won't have to use it. Normally, having to actually use the fire extinguisher is not in the forefront of the mind, but with Jim, it certainly is. While arguing with his mother, he exclaims that, "They use [fingerprints] to identify the body. And my children will not need fingerprints, because nothing is going to happen to my children." This shines a grim light on parenthood. It shows that parents sometimes need to take certain precautions for their children, and by taking those precautions are forced to accept that something unspeakable could happen to them. If you believe there will never be a fire, there is no reason to buy a fire extinguisher. This appears to be Jim's thought process and having to accept the reality that something horrible could happen to his kids is something he's not ready to embrace.
Through the fear and paranoia, the reader begins to question Jim, his actions, and reactions. It is initially unclear as to why he is so obsessed with this and why he is significantly overreacting to something so seemingly trivial. However, the story seems to suggest that fear is not the stimulant for Jim's behavior, although it definitely plays a role; but it is love. The love Jim has for his children is what stimulates an array of emotions (fear, anxiety, suspiciousness, nervousness, etc.) causing him to worry excessively about the twins. At the same time, his love for the twins seems to keep him sane and give his life meaning. He describes them as having "beautiful faces" and that they "resembles angels so much that its troubling." It is almost a paradox how such loving positive feelings can lead to such negative behavior. It's like I said in my blog post; the love Jim portrays for his children really demonstrates how that love can lead to a crippling, unrelentless fear of losing them.
"Milk", on the surface, is a story about a father's defiance against fingerprinting his children. It is about a relationship between a husband and wife, a son and a mother, and certainly a father and his children. But beneath the surface lies a mantra of parenting and what it means to be a parent. What Jim goes through is, I assume, what every loving parent would go through when approached by the realization that bad things happen in the world and could possibly happen to their child. While this is true, it is not something any parent wants to accept as a possibility. By writing the story, I think Carlson wanted his readers to really delve into the mind of the father and find empathy and understanding for his internal struggle. It is a story about tiny fingerprints, how much a father doesn't want them, and how much he is afraid to lose them.
The father is the story, whose name is Jim, feels like a lot has changed within himself; not necessarily for better or worse but he certainly understands that things are different, that times are different. When one becomes a parent, there are definite life altering changes as that person finds themselves responsible for the life of another. Jim mentions that he feels like he and his wife have "grown up together." This suggests maybe a bit of physically growing up, but I think it implies more of a maturing together through shared experience. Certainly having kids together will cause a process of "growing up." Before the twins, Jim says that he had a much different view and approach to life, commenting that, "[My wife] and I promised to never post rules" after making fun of their friends for imposing so many on their children (67). However, under the spell of parenting, Jim finds himself dictating, something he promised he would never do. He says, "only after the boys arrived have I started with this rule stuff." This indicates a definite change in Jim since he has become a parent and supports the remark made by Ruth, the friend he had made fun of for her rule-making. "Wait until you have kids," she responds.
Jim's worries and fears are what drive the story and set the events of the story in motion. It is essentially what the tale is about. He refuses to allow his children to be fingerprinted, calling the precaution a "raging paranoia." The true essence of his defiance is evident and the irony of Jim attempting to avoid "raging paranoia" is clear. He is avoiding what he thinks is a paranoid behavior because of the fact that he is paranoid. He is worried, afraid that if he accepts the fingerprinting of his children, he would be accepting the notion that something could possibly happen to them. This fear escalates as he becomes more and more obsessed with the thoughts of missing children, seeing them on flyers, the comics, and on the back of his milk cartons. It really begins bothering him, so much so that he starts attaching attributes to children he sees who are alone, attributes that one would find on a "Have You Seen Me?" poster. It becomes obvious that there is much more going on within Jim than the issue of fingerprinting. It has almost nothing to do at all with fingerprinting, itself. It has everything to do with the fact that Jim is utterly terrified of losing his children.
While, at times, Jim's feelings and thoughts tend to seem a bit unreasonable and exaggerated, there can be a certain understanding and empathy towards his reactions. Fingerprinting their children, to Jim's wife and his mother, is much like buying a fire extinguisher or buying life insurance. You do it just in case, but hope to God you won't have to use it. Normally, having to actually use the fire extinguisher is not in the forefront of the mind, but with Jim, it certainly is. While arguing with his mother, he exclaims that, "They use [fingerprints] to identify the body. And my children will not need fingerprints, because nothing is going to happen to my children." This shines a grim light on parenthood. It shows that parents sometimes need to take certain precautions for their children, and by taking those precautions are forced to accept that something unspeakable could happen to them. If you believe there will never be a fire, there is no reason to buy a fire extinguisher. This appears to be Jim's thought process and having to accept the reality that something horrible could happen to his kids is something he's not ready to embrace.
Through the fear and paranoia, the reader begins to question Jim, his actions, and reactions. It is initially unclear as to why he is so obsessed with this and why he is significantly overreacting to something so seemingly trivial. However, the story seems to suggest that fear is not the stimulant for Jim's behavior, although it definitely plays a role; but it is love. The love Jim has for his children is what stimulates an array of emotions (fear, anxiety, suspiciousness, nervousness, etc.) causing him to worry excessively about the twins. At the same time, his love for the twins seems to keep him sane and give his life meaning. He describes them as having "beautiful faces" and that they "resembles angels so much that its troubling." It is almost a paradox how such loving positive feelings can lead to such negative behavior. It's like I said in my blog post; the love Jim portrays for his children really demonstrates how that love can lead to a crippling, unrelentless fear of losing them.
"Milk", on the surface, is a story about a father's defiance against fingerprinting his children. It is about a relationship between a husband and wife, a son and a mother, and certainly a father and his children. But beneath the surface lies a mantra of parenting and what it means to be a parent. What Jim goes through is, I assume, what every loving parent would go through when approached by the realization that bad things happen in the world and could possibly happen to their child. While this is true, it is not something any parent wants to accept as a possibility. By writing the story, I think Carlson wanted his readers to really delve into the mind of the father and find empathy and understanding for his internal struggle. It is a story about tiny fingerprints, how much a father doesn't want them, and how much he is afraid to lose them.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
And....Another Essay
"I am an English Major but I hate reading and writing" - Derrick W.
Haha, so, it's a given that we have to write papers for English classes. Such is the life. After some deep thinking (along with a vast amount of sighs of desperation and immense complaining), I decided I would write about "The Fix." It is the story that I most enjoyed and certainly has a nice metaphorical quality to it. My approach will be to analyze the story for what it is on the surface, as far as the way it is written, the tone, the conflict, etc. Then compare that to the underlying meaning, answering the questions (or attempting to, haha), "Why is Sherman an empty sea?", "Why is Douglas so drawn to Sherman in the beginning when he's still just a stranger?", and so on. These are the types of things we discussed in class but I'll elaborate on them and hopefully find and expound meaning...
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Comedic Paradox
So, we examine an essay called "Dead Man Laughing" by Zadie Smith; an essay who's underlying essence is driving by the aspect of humor, but only by the aspect of humor...not by humor itself. Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a paradox where the "comedy" is only examined on the surface, as a specimen, and therefore does not appear to be funny at all. Maybe by doing this, Smith is able to connote seriousness and the not-so-funny ideals throughout the essay, allowing them to maintain this solemn quality, and expressing that she merely sees them as being funny (not that they actually are). The reader is not permitted to share this humor, we are only informed that it exists.
It appears that it is in laughter how Smith deals with the death of her father, how they dealt with the low-class status they lived within, and just how they dealt with life in general. Comedy is the connection within their family and I found it interesting that she readily connected death with comedy. She suggested that comedy was a way to deal with death but when she begins describing her brother's stand-up act, she intertwines the two and relates them. She worries that her brother will "die" on stage. But, she also expresses the Lazarus-like ability of comedians to resurrect themselves after "death." I think that what she accomplishes by this is in the examination of death, itself. In the beginning of the essay, she mentions that death is a joke, a meaningless place marker that is not even a real event; it's "only a word, signifying nothing." She knows, however, that death is a real event and is something that can certainly be experienced but the joke is, "in death, one person goes in [the room] and none come out." The comedy-death tie, I think, is just her attempt to reduce the reality of death, reducing it something trivial, a bad night of jokes, something that can be rectified and resurrected in the morning. And I guess, this absurdity makes her laugh...and she deals with it.
It appears that it is in laughter how Smith deals with the death of her father, how they dealt with the low-class status they lived within, and just how they dealt with life in general. Comedy is the connection within their family and I found it interesting that she readily connected death with comedy. She suggested that comedy was a way to deal with death but when she begins describing her brother's stand-up act, she intertwines the two and relates them. She worries that her brother will "die" on stage. But, she also expresses the Lazarus-like ability of comedians to resurrect themselves after "death." I think that what she accomplishes by this is in the examination of death, itself. In the beginning of the essay, she mentions that death is a joke, a meaningless place marker that is not even a real event; it's "only a word, signifying nothing." She knows, however, that death is a real event and is something that can certainly be experienced but the joke is, "in death, one person goes in [the room] and none come out." The comedy-death tie, I think, is just her attempt to reduce the reality of death, reducing it something trivial, a bad night of jokes, something that can be rectified and resurrected in the morning. And I guess, this absurdity makes her laugh...and she deals with it.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
A Mosaic Coinage
Hemon's "A Coin" appears to be a set of letters (and perhaps thoughts) between the narrator and a woman in Sarajevo named, Aida. This writing employs a narrative style which, I believe, would be characterized as collage; where the author submits scenes in a nonlinear fashion, juxtaposes them, and therefore pulls the reader through a series of moments that continue to fill in a larger, more significant picture. Writing this way allows Hemon to continually jump back and forth through time, moving seamlessly through scenes that would otherwise seem unrelated or at the very least, an abrupt transition. I noticed that, on Robert's blog, he compared this style of that of what we see in film, and I definitely agree with that. The author utilizes "fade outs" and "fade ins", fast forwarding and rewinding, each paragraph transporting us somewhere else in the narrators mind, effectively keeping the reader actively involved and, in my opinion, effectively building and maintaining tension.
You could also say that the mosaic, sort of randomness of this piece reflects the actually story, itself. It could reflect the chaotic world of the story, the fear and uncertainty that leads to the racing thoughts; untethered and unable to be controlled. It doesn't read particularly like letters for the most part, but more so like the scenes are unfolding at that very instant. It's not merely a "this happened, then this happened" type of narrative. It certainly brings the reader into the moment, and I don't know about you, but I definitely felt the fear and anxiety, the immense rush of adrenaline, and the "overload of senses" associated with the perilous journey to Point B. I know this is considered to be experimental, but I feel like that without this "mosaic" sort of exposition, this story would certainly lose its effect...
You could also say that the mosaic, sort of randomness of this piece reflects the actually story, itself. It could reflect the chaotic world of the story, the fear and uncertainty that leads to the racing thoughts; untethered and unable to be controlled. It doesn't read particularly like letters for the most part, but more so like the scenes are unfolding at that very instant. It's not merely a "this happened, then this happened" type of narrative. It certainly brings the reader into the moment, and I don't know about you, but I definitely felt the fear and anxiety, the immense rush of adrenaline, and the "overload of senses" associated with the perilous journey to Point B. I know this is considered to be experimental, but I feel like that without this "mosaic" sort of exposition, this story would certainly lose its effect...
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Milk Mug-shots
Carlson's Milk was an interesting story. Written in 1st person narrative, it tells the story of fatherhood. We get insight in the father's love for his children and also his insecurities. The story immediately dives into the plot, beginning with what is plaguing the father's mind; fingerprinting his children. However, it is obviously not the fingerprinting itself that he is against but the idea of having to face what would happen if they ever needed to use them; he finally would exlaim to his wife that it was because "they were used to identify dead bodies."
Carlson took his father character through several scenes and aspects of life in order to portray more and more of the father's inner fear of his children being missing. The title, "Milk," alludes to the milk carton in the family's refrigerator, which had photos of missing children on the back. The father's reaction to these pictures gives us a sense of how the whole situation is really affecting him, that it's not something trivial but something deeper going on within him. He begins to see "missing persons" everywhere, and since the story is in 1st person, we, as reader, are permitted to hear his thoughts and begin to understand how it is haunting him and empathize with his struggle. If Carlson would have written it any other way, it would not have had nearly the same effect.
When he takes the twins at the end, without telling his wife or his mother, and the whole scene about "Namma" and the Lion King song, really portrays the love he has for his children, and how that love can lead to a crippling, unrelentless fear of losing them..
Carlson took his father character through several scenes and aspects of life in order to portray more and more of the father's inner fear of his children being missing. The title, "Milk," alludes to the milk carton in the family's refrigerator, which had photos of missing children on the back. The father's reaction to these pictures gives us a sense of how the whole situation is really affecting him, that it's not something trivial but something deeper going on within him. He begins to see "missing persons" everywhere, and since the story is in 1st person, we, as reader, are permitted to hear his thoughts and begin to understand how it is haunting him and empathize with his struggle. If Carlson would have written it any other way, it would not have had nearly the same effect.
When he takes the twins at the end, without telling his wife or his mother, and the whole scene about "Namma" and the Lion King song, really portrays the love he has for his children, and how that love can lead to a crippling, unrelentless fear of losing them..
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Girl
First off, I'm really struggling with this stuff. I'm actually a writer myself, but I find it difficult to read these stories and appreciate them because it just doesn't feel like good writing to me. I feel like "Cold-Hearted" and "Fiesta" seemed more like personal essays or journal entries than well-written stories that involved the reader with some sense of plot and tension. I mean there's certainly tension between the characters but the reader is left out of that tension. I understand a lot of people enjoy these stories and I can respect that. I guess it's just not my thing...
Anyways, that was my inital response. My analysis is on Kincaid's Girl, which is an interesting piece of writing. It seems like it should have been written as a poem, because it doesn't really read like a story. Regardless, it appears to be a mother's conversation with her daughter. The mother is attempting to impart in her daughter a sense of classiness and respect for herself. She tells her how to wash clothes, how to wear them, how to cook, how to eat, how to walk, etc; all the qualities she feels like a "lady" should possess. She tells her how to do several other household things, how to treat people, even how to make homemade birthcontrol, which I thought was interesting. The whole issue with the "slut you are so bent on becoming" phrase is up for interpretation. I not exactly sure if she really expects her to become a "slut" but more so the "type of woman the baker won't let near the bread;" A woman who has little respect for herself, little respect for others, little respect for nature ("don't throw stones at blackbirds, pick other people's flowers), etc. I think it's about respect and "the slut you are so bent on becoming" is the mother worrying that her daughter will not heed her warnings for respect and will grow up without it...
Anyways, that was my inital response. My analysis is on Kincaid's Girl, which is an interesting piece of writing. It seems like it should have been written as a poem, because it doesn't really read like a story. Regardless, it appears to be a mother's conversation with her daughter. The mother is attempting to impart in her daughter a sense of classiness and respect for herself. She tells her how to wash clothes, how to wear them, how to cook, how to eat, how to walk, etc; all the qualities she feels like a "lady" should possess. She tells her how to do several other household things, how to treat people, even how to make homemade birthcontrol, which I thought was interesting. The whole issue with the "slut you are so bent on becoming" phrase is up for interpretation. I not exactly sure if she really expects her to become a "slut" but more so the "type of woman the baker won't let near the bread;" A woman who has little respect for herself, little respect for others, little respect for nature ("don't throw stones at blackbirds, pick other people's flowers), etc. I think it's about respect and "the slut you are so bent on becoming" is the mother worrying that her daughter will not heed her warnings for respect and will grow up without it...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
