I encourage you to be creative and innovative in your postings. But as you post, please keep in mind the following guidelines:
1. Postings are always due by 6 pm on the date indicated on the syllabus. There is a time stamp. Don’t be late (no credit for late postings)
2. Postings should be 350-500 words and should incorporate material from the reading (such as small quotes or phrases, key words, or imagery). The post must clearly demonstrate that you’ve completed the assigned reading and thought about it. If the post is due on Sunday, you must demonstrate that you’ve completed and thought about the reading for Monday; if the post is due on Tuesday, you must demonstrate that you’ve completed and thought about the reading for Wednesday
3. Your tone may be less formal than the tone you might use in a paper, but you should remember that you are writing on a course-related blog. In other words, the blog is not your facebook page or a personal blogspace. Please make sure that the content of your postings is related to the course, its readings, or our class discussions.
4. Suggested Topics (No need to answer all of the questions that follow. These are just to help you think about what to write): a) Is there a question you have about the reading? If so, ask and suggest an answer for it; b) What did you learn from the reading? Why you find this aspect of the reading illuminating or interesting; c) How might you connect Monday’s and Wednesday’s reading?; d) You may respond to the reading and class discussion – is there anything you don’t understand? Do you have a different interpretation that we haven’t discussed in class?
5. You are welcome to respond respectfully to another person’s blog posting. If you choose to do so, please avoid personal attacks. Remember to be professional.
6. Remember that this is a public space, accessible and available to anyone. One useful way to think about it: avoid posting anything that you wouldn’t want a future employer to read.
7. Please review the course plagiarism policies (all of which apply to this blog), and remember to cite page numbers or outside sources when appropriate.
8. Blogs will be evaluated on a check-based scale (see syllabus). Grades will not be public, and they will be regularly posted on Oncourse.
The above Guidelines are lifted almost wholesale from the Guidelines at the Blog for an American Studies class taught by Denise Cruz at Indiana University. The class was called "From Jackie Chan to Fu Manchu: Love and Fear in American Culture <http://amsta350.blogspot.com/>.
Dante – The Writer v The Protagonist
ReplyDeleteDante’s Inferno attempts to depict a posthumous topic that due to its relation to humanity cannot be proven correct or false by mankind alone. It is in this intricacy and lack of understanding of the afterlife that Dante is able to attract readers to his book and allow those who believe similarly in his faith to consider the possibilities of this reality. Here, Dante is able twist reality into his own manipulations and force the readers to think as he does while avoiding some criticisms of his own creations. One of the more intriguing aspects of Dante’s Inferno lies in the fact that the author of the story also acts as its lead character. It is important to realize this fact in analyzing his work.
The separation between the author Dante and the journeyman Dante exists at the beginning of the story, but by the end of the story I believe these two forms of Dante have become the same person altogether which I think is the point of the entire journey. Dante could not face sin in the form of the three beasts on the mountain and must now learn how to in hell.
In distinguishing between the two Dantes, the author Dante is impartial and strict. He made hell, in a sense, and sent actual members of his society and those before his own time in these punishments that he himself has construed. In contrast, Dante the protagonist begins the story consumed with fear, weakness, and compassion. He is relatable to the audience as one would assume to show compassion to those that have nothing to look forward to but suffering. However, throughout the story Dante appears to harden to the sin around him. In the beginning he would faint in the sight of the more trivial of punishments and weeping for the people trapped hopelessly. But by the end, he began to realize his compassion should be distrusted. To weep for sin seems counter-intuitive to the purpose of hell for which his just God has created. I believe Dante’s greatest realization of this truth occurs when he pulls the hair out of the traitor Bocca. He himself adds suffering to those that sin and do not comply with him.
The realization that the protagonist gains, is what the author Dante knew all along. There is no hope for those that did not seek God and repent. What is due to them will be given to them. There will be punishment to those that do wrong and it is worthless to pity it. The just God, that He is, assigned the correct punishment for the correct sin. There is no mistake thus there should be no pity. Sin is an evil that Dante must avoid to reach the top of the mountain, possibly a reference to paradise. (It is important to remember that Virgil is neither God nor a soul of God’s kingdom. This invalidates his reasoning for rewarding or disapproving of Dante’s pity. He is led by his own preconceptions and must learn just as Dante in what to believe.)
Daniel Neal
Life As Hell
ReplyDeleteIt is important to understand that Dante wrote Inferno in a time when Christianity was viewed in a very narrow manner. Especially in Italy, the language in which the original language was written, Christianity was the be all and end all. What you did while living is what determined your after-life, be it hell or heaven. It is very interesting to think that the entire piece of literature is based on life after death. It is very ironic though, the reference that Dante makes saying, “There is no greater sorrow then to recall our times of joy in wretchedness.” It is ironic because the feeling of joy can only be felt while one is living on the earth, at least in this particular incidence. This is due to the fact that if you are in hell you will forever be tormented by the memories of your living life. Dante here is saying that reminiscing of those sweet memories in a way is more painful than any pain hell can cause, so does that make life itself hell?
If one thinks about it, without life there is no hell, so is life itself that is hell. I believe that in a way, that the impact of the sins we have in our life is what determines hell. This is because, though god may rank sins differently as Dante himself says the true pain in life is when we reminisce on the good memories of our life. That being said, the true pain in life is also what we experience when we are alive. That is demonstrated when Dante says, “love, which absolves no loved one from loving, seized me so strongly with its charm that as tou seest, it does not leave me yet. Love brought us to one death”. Love is an emotion that can only be felt when we are alive and it is what brings us death or pain equivalent to it, thus making our very lives hell.
When it is our own living lives itself that are hell, god cannot rank the impact of different sins on us, as he isn’t living our lives. Thus the raking of sins mean nothing in that clearly as Dante sees it is remembrance that brings the most pain not hell itself. The way we react to each sin committed against us or by us is different so in a way the ranking of circles in hell is irrelevant regardless of the time period this novel was written in as humans always had and will always had feelings.
Manifestation of Dante's Personality in Film vs. Movie
ReplyDeleteThe main difference that stood out to me between Dante in the poem vs. Dante in the movie is the way in which their personalities develop. In the poem, Dante begins his journey through hell as a terrified, confused man. As he travels through the first levels, he has pity on several damned souls. Virgil explains to Dante that the souls in Hell are there for a reason; because they sinned. Dante's personality in the poem seems to manifest and develop based on those he pities. It seems that he has compassion for those souls that have committed sins he himself may committed during his lifetime. As we discussed in class, this makes hell more personal for Dante. We begin to see what his personality on earth was through looking at the sins of the souls he pities. In contrast, the Dante in the film seems to pity those whom he liked during his lifetime. Dante's background is explained more directly in the film. In the beginning, he wakes up and describes his pervious night of drinking and partying, and seems to know that he is on the wrong path. He has pity on those he knew and liked during his lifetime, but does not seem specifically fearful of his own fate. As Dante in the poem moves through hell, he is clearly terrified of the punishments being given, and worries that he too will be punished. In the movie, Dante recognizes that he has committed many sins, but seems much less afraid of his punishment than in the poem. This might be explained by the different level of intellectualism in the poem Dante versus the film Dante.
In the poem, Dante's feeling of superiority is extremely evident. He feels as if he is better than the souls in hell, including Virgil. However, he seems to learn as he goes through his journey, that he must change his ways in order to make it to heaven. He understands the reason that Virgil is leading him through hell. Dante in the film however, is much less intelligent. He does not understand what is going on in each level or why he is going through hell for the majority of the experience. When he finally does, he does not seem genuine about changing his ways. The Dante in the film is a much more static character than the Dante in the poem.
In making Dante a much less complex character in the movie, the directors seem to imply that society today is much less intellectual than society in Dante's time. The Dante in the film cannot change his ways, understand the meaning of his journey, or comprehend many of the punishments given in hell. Though the Dante in the poem is slightly arrogant, the Dante in the film is much harder to respect.
-Caroline Kryder-Reid
Although the character of Dante serves the same role in both the film and the poem version of The Inferno, the journey that each goes on is different. In the poem, Dante begins the story as a slightly arrogant, although intelligent man, who is called upon to take the journey through Hell for divine reasons. In the film, Dante is a lazy, slightly immoral sinner. He is not very intelligent, and although both versions of Dante gain knowledge through the course of the story, the Dante in the film seems to be receiving these lessons mostly for his own betterment, while in the poem; Dante is tasked with recording the things that he sees for the living. This difference partly explains the greater arrogance with which the Dante in the poem enters hell. Both men realize that they have more in common with the sinners in hell than they previously thought, however this realization is humbling for the Dante in the poem, and affirming for the Dante in the film. There are many points through out the poem that Dante places himself on the same level as the greats of philosophy and literature. For instance, in Canto 26, he states, “and more than usual, I curb my talent, that it not run where virtue does not guide” (239). He believes that his gifts have been given to him by God, and is confident of his talents and abilities. In the poem, Dante goes from self-assured, to frightened and confused, to slightly humbled and awed by what he has learned. When the film begins however, Dante is passed out in a dumpster, and it is made obvious that he is not living a fulfilling and enriching life. The Dante in the film goes from an ignorant sinner, to frightened and confused, and ends the story with a new confidence and optimism for the future. Both characters are at some points bewildered by the things that they encounter throughout hell, and both gain knowledge about aspects of heaven and hell that they did not previously understand. However, while the Dante in the poem is frightened and appalled by most of what he sees, the Dante in the film is fascinated, and even intrigued by some of the punishments (such as the one for the lustful). This is partly due to the fact that the Dante in the film identifies with the sinners, while the Dante in the poem holds himself above them. As the journey progresses however, both encounter sinners that they identify with, the Dante in the poem finds fellow countrymen and politicians that he respects, and the Dante in the film finds a gym teacher that he was fond of. This humanizes the sinners allowing the Dante in the poem to acknowledge his own faults, and the Dante in the film to reconcile with his. At the end of the poem, Virgil states, “Get up, be on your feet: the way is long and the path is difficult” (315). This shows that Dante still has things to learn and improvements to make; the path to heaven will be difficult even for him. At the end of the film, Dante escapes from hell, and sees the light of day again. Although the ending is ambiguous, it suggests that he has the opportunity to better himself, and someday will be able to get into heaven, despite his many faults. Catherine Brizzi
ReplyDeleteWhile Inferno by Dante Alighieri attempts to establish clear morals and an indisputable sense of good and evil, the modern film adaptation of the novel by Dermot Mulroney and James Cromwell, called Dante’s Inferno, purposefully questions the idea that an indisputable set of rules may be establish through using Dante’s structure of hell with modern, recognizable characters that hold more significance to current U.S. citizens.
ReplyDeleteInferno by Dante Alighieri never leaves open ended questions about whether a condemned individual belongs in hell or not. In line 55 of Canto XXIX—page 267 of the Allen Mandelbaum translation—Dante describes hellish punishment as the “unerring justice” of God. Many other instances in the poem, Dante also writes that the morals he establishes are unquestionable by writing that they follow God’s will and God’s will is itself unquestionable. In Canto III line 5-6—Page 21 of the Mandelbaum translation—on the gate of hell is written, “My Maker was Divine Authority, the Highest Wisdom…” This statement establishes that hell, its punishments, design, and who gets punished are all determined by God. Later in Canto III, lines 94-96 state the absoluteness of God’s will by describing God as One who may do as He has willed and no more shall be asked. Combined, these ideas are used to justify the black and white picture painted by Dante in determining what is good and what is evil.
As opposed to the poem Inferno, the film Dante’s Inferno does not agree with straightforward ideals of morality and suggests that some “sins” are open to interpretation. One such example is when Dante comes across his old gay teacher condemned to dance in a club for eternity because of his sexual orientation. Dante feels pity for this man and is not rebuked by Virgil for it. Also, having a gay teacher is something that the audience may easily have experienced and can thus relate to. This scene provoked my opinion that a gay man would not be condemned to hell solely because of being gay. I believe this is the effect which the producers intended to arouse. Other viewers may agree that the teacher is indeed being justly punished, thus causing dispute amongst the audience and causing people to question if overarching rules for all areas of morality may actually be set. Another example of the film doing this is when it equates Ronald Reagan with Adolf Hitler by putting them in the same section of the eighth circle. There would likely be no dispute that Hitler belongs that deep down in the depths of hell, but whether Reagan would belong there or not is likely a touchy subject over which many viewers would disagree.
In conclusion, the film suggests that old ways of thinking about morality need to be questioned in modern times when addressing current issues while Dante’s 1300 A.C. poem implies that morality, as established by him, is not open to interpretation.
In Drown, by Junot Diaz, the decency of Yunior (and the other male protagonists) is often overpowered by the desire to live up to the Latin stereotypes of masculinity. When Yunior is young, he spends a lot of time with his brother, who often speaks to him about the different girls that he has been with. He looks up to and respects his brother, at one point he says, “I was too young to understand most of what he said, but I listened to him anyway, in case these things might be useful in the future”(Diaz, 6). When he and his brother decide to torment Ysrael by ripping off his mask, Yunior is nervous and guilty during the trip there, and once he sees Ysrael’s face, he is sympathetic. He states, “Ysreal will be ok…they’re going to fix him” (Diaz, 19). He is innocent and does not really want to harm Ysrael, but he desires his brother’s approval and so he pretends to be tougher than he is . Junior’s behavior is also influenced by his observations of his father, who is unfaithful to his mother. Although Junior and his brother are aware of the affair, the family does not talk about it. He says “The affair was like a hole in our living room floor, one we’d gotten so used to circumnavigating that we sometimes forgot it was there” (Diaz, 40). Although he never confronts his father about the other woman, he is angered at the betrayal of his mother, and hurt by the actions of his father, which is demonstrated when he says “I don’t remember being out of sorts after I met the Puerto Rican woman, but I must have been because Mami only asked me questions when she thought something was wrong in my life” (Diaz, 42). He does not approve of his father’s infidelity, but it is the only model of male behavior that he is exposed to, and so it influences how he treats his own girlfriends. The way that these characters view relationships is demonstrated when a young man hears his neighbors arguing and says, “It’s all sweet talk, they’re yelling because they’re in love”(Diaz, 52). In “Aurora”, an ambiguous male protagonist is also conflicted between the romantic love he claims to feel and his need for aggressive dominance. The young man attempts to take care of Aurora, buying her cigarettes and driving her to the Hacienda, but if often violent and horrible to her. He says “and after a while I hit her and made the blood come out of her ear like a worm”(Diaz, 65). This disrespectful attitude is also demonstrated in “How to date a brown girl”, as a young man explains his rituals for picking up different races of women. Although he is not violent with the woman that he sees, and does not force them to do anything that they don’t want to, he views them as interchangeable bodies for him to entertain himself with, and not as individual people. He says “If the girls from around your way take her out to El Cibao for dinner. Order everything in your busted up Spanish. Let her correct you if she’s Latina and amaze her if she’s black. If she’s not from around the way, Wendy’s will do” (Diaz, 145). The men in Drown are not inherently bad or violent people, they are often truly attracted to the girls that they interact with, but the machismo that is modeled and expected of young Latin boys causes them to act in aggressive and sexist ways, even if they regret it afterwards.
ReplyDeleteDoes Ramón care?
ReplyDeleteThough Ramón de las Casas is undoubtedly the most morally reprehensible character of Junot Díaz’s novel Drown, he does in fact care for the wellbeing of his family.
Ramón—Yunior’s papi—does no set a good moral example for his children as a father figure. Ramón beats his children so regularly that “anytime Papi raised his voice her [Madai, Yunior’s little sister] lip would start trembling” (Díaz 26). Aside from being abusive, he leaves his family for five years in a house with a leaky zinc roof (Díaz 69) and forces his wife to work twelve hour days at a low paying chocolate factory job earning barely enough money to sustain the children without sending them off to relatives’ houses for extended periods of time. During childhood Yunior also knows his father cheats on his mother with three women: the overweight woman from Santo Domingo before he leaves his family, Nilda while he is away from his family, and the Puerto Rican woman after reuniting with his family. Ramón is even overt enough to have Yunior meet the Puerto Rican woman and stay at her house while he sleeps with her upstairs (Diaz 35-36). All of this combined paints a clear picture of the emotional and physical abuse Ramón deals out to his family and provides a good counterargument to claiming Ramón cares.
How then, could Ramón be caring? The last section of Drown, “Negocios,” reveals to readers previously unknown information regarding the life of Ramón while he is away from his family. While he is neglectful, in the end he works very hard to improve their lives financially. During the first year he works “nineteen-, twenty-hour days, seven days a week” out in the cold “coughing explosively, feeling as if his lungs were tearing open” (Díaz 177). Ramón was also forced to deal with the racism of his coworkers (Díaz 194) and the struggle to move upward from dishwasher to construction worker in five years, injuring his back during the climb. It is also uncharacteristic of a completely uncaring individual to write to his family scribbling on any form of paper he can find, which is what Ramón does for a time (Díaz 177). Though Ramón was inconsistent in sending money to his family and communicating with them, in the end his work paid off because he brought his family to the U.S. with a new house and first-world living standards.
Working hard alone, however, does not directly demonstrate care for others. The real question readers need to ask in order to determine if this morally incompetent but diligent character truly cared for his family’s wellbeing is, “Why did Ramón leave Nilda for his other family, instead of just leaving everyone?” Think about it. Ramón had a clear getaway location and new job set up for himself after leaving his second family. He could also slip out of contact from his first family and continue living life failing to meet patriarchal obligations, but this is not what happened. Instead of choosing complete freedom, something internal, maybe sparked by Jo-Jo, made Ramón return to being a financially supportive father. In the end he did not decided to completely abandon Rafa, Yunior, and his first wife, which, as explained above, he could have so easily done.
In conclusion, Ramón is a horrible role model and does not emotionally support his family. However, he does—entirely by choice—work extremely hard to save his family from poverty in the Dominican Republic through having some debilitated form of a conscience. This clearly demonstrates some deep level of care for his family’s wellbeing.
The importance of masculinity and power in Junot Diaz's Drown is evident throughout the novel. Yunior goes through his childhood looking up to his older brother, Rafa. Being his older brother, Rafa is more experienced than Yunior, and therefore acts more manly. He tells Yunior about his hookups with the girls in their town, describing them in vulgar terms such as "tetas" "chochas" and "leche". Yunior describes his reaction; "I was too young to understand what he said, but I listened to him anyway, in case these things might be useful in the future" (Diaz 6). Through his brother, Yunior was taught that in order to be considered manly, one must degrade women and hold in emotions. Later on, when Yunior and Rafa go to find Ysrael, Yunior breaks down crying after a tense moment in their journey. When he finally stops, Rafa calls him weak, saying, "Are you always going to be a pussy?" (Diaz 14). Throughout the novel, sensitivity is considered weak and feminine. "Masculine" men make fun of others by using slang for female genitalia. They use words including "tetas" "leche" "chochas" "puta" and "pussy" to degrade other men.
ReplyDeleteFor much of his childhood, Yunior grew up with a callous older brother who exposed him to sex and violence early in his life. His father left his family while he was young and when he finally came back, he was mentally and physically abusive. Growing up with this kind of family situation caused Yunior to become hardened. He accepted the common belief that masculinity is power and that both sensitivity and femininity are signs of weakness.
The question of morality is once again in question in many situations in Drown. How these decisions have impacted a person and those surrounding him/her is the part that I found most interesting in Junot diaz's Drown. One such example is when Yunior’s dad lies to his grandpa about him not seeing any one else but his mami to get money to go to America, yet he has no gratitude and pretty much makes no change in his life to savage his situation with his family and make it really complete again. But it is interesting to see that he honors his promise of bringing his family to America. What cause this turnaround is kind of vague but these random acts of saneness are just a sin that maybe there people are just victims of circumstance. It is very hard for me personally who is from the suburbs of Chicago to relate to yunior. Though I am no white, and the neighborhoods I have resided in tended to be predominately Caucasian I have never felt out of place or been discriminated against with an intent of malice or ignorance. Growing up in a neighborhood that understood what it meant to be accepting of everyone shaped my outlook on other races from my perspective as well. Basically having grown up amidst love, I had no reason to hate on anyone just because of the color of their skin nor have I ever felt jealous due to that factor alone as my life was in many ways above and beyond in terms of quality when compared to that of my peers. It is just interesting to see the impact such oppression can have on people. Just so much so that they don’t even treat people like actual people but rather view them as objects of being.
ReplyDeleteFukú or Zafa?
ReplyDeleteThroughout the Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Díaz, Yunior mentions the existence of a curse that complicates three generations of the De León family. It is questionable though, whether the family has a curse or is actually lucky in situations that would otherwise be fatal.
Yunior describes the origins of fukú americanus (fukú, the curse) as coming from Africa “carried in the screams of the enslaved” (Díaz 1) and makes much mention of it as he and Lola narrate the stories. It is unquestionable that the De León family has an astounding number of tribulations, such as the unrelated but near simultaneously occurring deaths of Belicia’s mother and two sisters, Belicia’s near fatal beating, Sr. Cabral’s imprisonment, Belicia’s terrible childhood before La Inca, Oscar’s death, Oscar’s beating, Belicia’s cancer, and Oscar’s suicide attempt, in regards to which he states “it was the curse that made me do it” (Díaz 194). However, one must question if it is actually a curse that ails the family or it is a strange mix of life and zafa (luck).
Ambiguity in regards to the family curse begins when Yunior mentions that “everybody in Santo Domingo has a fukú story” (Díaz 5), suggesting that fukú isn’t so much a specific De León curse as it is a part of Dominican life. This idea is further reinforced by Lola when she says “if you ask me I don’t think there are any such things as curses. I think there is only life” (Díaz 205). Both of the statements support the claim that severe difficulties for Dominicans are common expectations.
Deciding whether the De León family has Zafa or not is a different task. Assuming their unlucky situations are disturbingly commonplace, the supernatural figure of the black, golden eyed mongoose suggests the De Leóns have some form of guardian that miraculously appears to help them in times of need. It appears to motivate Beicia and save her from dying in the cane fields, it appears on the bridge to be with Oscar when he attempts to commit suicide, and it appears in Oscar’s dream to motivate him to live after he is beaten in the cane fields.
It should also be noted that the tragedies of Sr. Cabral, Belicia, and Oscar were avoidable with common sense. “You’ll hurt yourself” and “You’ll kill yourself” were the warnings and please of Oscar’s loved ones before he got himself murdered (Díaz 319). La Inca warned Belicia multiple times about dating a Trujillo-era gangster. Sr. Cabral’s mistress arranged for the safety and escape of his family from Santo Domingo but he refused to take the opportunity. Oscar didn’t have to jump off a bridge. If horrible judgment is a form of fukú, then I guess one can argue the family is cursed. If not, then the family suffers from bad decision making skills, for which the mongoose—the embodiment of zafa—attempts to save it from.
Catherine Brizzi Blog 4 “The Inextinguishable Longing for Elsewhere” Throughout The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, the central characters all express a longing to be in different situations then the ones they are in. Oscar is portrayed as a sweet and intelligent boy, but even his sister Lola, one of the people who loves him the most, feels that he has to change who he is if he ever wants to be happy. She says, “you’re going to die a virgin unless you start changing” (Diaz 25). Although he is a good person, in many ways even better then the stereotypical Dominican male adolescent (macho and domineering) the people who care about him believe that he needs to change if he is ever going to be successful. In Lola’s mind, there is no way to reconcile his personal characteristics and a fulfilling life-if he wanted to improve his life he needed to start by changing himself. Lola also feels as if she has to fundamentally change herself in order to change her circumstances. When she runs away from her home and her mother, she leaves everything behind, disappearing with out telling her family-including Oscar- where she is going. Although she is a strong and independent women, often aggressive and standoffish with men, when she leaves her home, she goes to live with a boy. She is willing to pretend to be someone she is not-to let herself is influenced by a boy she hardly knows-in order to attempt to begin a new life. She says “It was the stupidest thing I ever did. I was miserable. And so bored. But of course I wouldn’t admit it. I had run away so I was happy. Happy!” (Diaz 64). Although she is miserable living with her boyfriend and his father, she would rather be miserable then return to where she had come from. She says, “but I wasn’t looking back. No-I was running…so there was no way my sick mother, my messed up tio, and my fat brother were going to catch me”(Diaz 69). She longs to be far away from everything that she knows, even her family, even the people that she loves. Bani also wants to escape her past. It says, “but what did she know about her family except the stories she had been told ad nauseam> And, ultimately, what did she care> She wasn’t a maldita ciguapa with her feet pointing backwards in the past. Her feet pointed forward, she reminded La Inca over and over. Pointed to the future”(Diaz 81). She at first tries to escape her identity as a poor, awkward girl by getting involved in a relationship with a powerful man, but when he disappoints and betrays her, she wants to leave her home, and she never returns. The book describes, “the loneliness of Diaspora, that she will never again live in Santo Domingo, her own heart” (Diaz 164). When one set of circumstances let her down, she abandons them completely. The central characters in this work feel the need to remove themselves completely from their unlucky history and past, in order to move ahead to a better future. In order to forge ahead, no part of their former identities can remain behind.
ReplyDeleteDominican Masculinity:
ReplyDeleteThe idea of masculinity is one that is very relevant in Dominican society. We can see this is the case due to various examples of Oscar. The ideal male according to society is one that is handsome, witty, and most of all one that has the ability to “be pulling in the bitches with both hands” (Diaz). We see that when Oscar had the ability to attract girls he was something in the eyes of society, this fact is illustrated during Oscar’s “Golden Age” (Diaz). But suddenly when he loses the ability to lure women, he loses his status in Dominican society and this is a direct correlation to the emphasis Dominican society has on the idea of masculinity and male domination. It’s completely okay for the beautiful Maritza Chacon to be beat by her boyfriends because, well they were masculine. An interesting to this result of this idea of Dominican masculinity is also seen in the women when Oscar’s mom refuses to let Olga in the house as she is Puerto Rican. This could symbolize overall the pride Dominicans take especially their men. In terms of plot effects and how Dominican masculinity almost seems to be the central theme, the main influence of this idea on the plot is that men in power have everlasting effects. This constant pressure of living up to this sense of masculinity blurs the characteristics of major characters thus affecting their actions and in return the plot.
Dominican masculinity takes over the projection of yuinors character while beneath though he does enjoy some of these other “non-masculine” activities/things. This could be paralell to Oscar as both of their escapes from the norm are done via writing. Here we see an example of how the pressure put on by the idea of masculinity thus leading into the other major theme of a need to “escape” from this society. Another example of this need to escape due to Dominican masculinity is present in almost every female character in the book as they are pretty much abused by men and really want to leave their current situation.
Yunior is a naturally good guy whose judgment suffers from the negative events and bad role models of his life. Over time while looking at the progression of how certain events negatively affect him, one notices a curve of childhood purity followed by an increasing period of bad behaviors during adolescence and early adulthood (where most of the calamities and bad influences were) finally ending with the triumph of Yunior’s good side . Yunior begins life as a typical good child then slowly becomes corrupted and impacted by Rafa, Ramón, the DR male culture, Rafa’s death, moving to the U.S., facing racism, Oscar’s death, and Miss Lora. Yunior goes through a long period of terrible decisions—with moments of good sprinkled in the mix—but slowly matures and learns to deal with past calamities.
ReplyDeleteAs a little boy—which is primarily discussed in Drown—Yunior gets into trouble at times but is mostly led by the negative influence of his older brother Rafa, such as in the story “Ysrael” in which Rafa leads Yunior to help attack a child with facial deformities and rip of a bus boy. Rafa also spoils Yunior’s innocence by setting a bad example of how to view and treat women. When around 12 years old, Rafa tells Yunior “When I get home, I’m goint to go crazy—chinga [fuck] all my girls then chinga everyone else’s” (Drown, Díaz, 4)
Later in his childhood, Yunior moves to America where he encounters racism, his father’s abusive rage, and his father’s terrible example of how to treat women. As Yunior grows into adolescence, Ramón abands the family, Rafa dies of cancer, and Miss Lora’s statutorily rapes Yunior, corrupting his inherently good nature. Yunior clearly displays how Miss Lora hurt his ability to have relationships by writing, “every time [dating] doesn’t work out you’re convinced that you have trouble with girls your own age. Because of her [Lora]” (This Is How You Lose Her, Díaz, 173). We see the negative influences coupled with smoking marijuana and sexual promiscuity. After Rafa’s death, Yunior describes himself at 16 as “messed up and alone like a motherfucker” (This Is How You Lose Her, Díaz, 154).
By the latest point in his life that we know about, Yunior has matured and grown out of his bad habits. He takes care of a pregnant college girl without ever mistreating her, he tries “every trick in the book to keep [his girlfriend]” whom he loves, and also feels compelled to financially support a lying Dominican woman in poverty for the sake of her child (This Is How You Lose Her, Díaz, 212). By the end of This Is How You Lose Her Yunior has stopped drinking, smoking marijuana, and cheating on woman. With time to deal with past events and get away from bad influence, Yunior shows his humanity in adulthood.
Dead/Living vs. Jungle/Human Village
ReplyDeleteThe Graveyard book was named that because the story takes place in a graveyard and the Jungle book was names as such as it takes place in a Jungle. Though there are many underlying reasons for the naming of the titles, this is the most obvious one. The setting plays an important role in defining the roles of the characters that are paralleled depicted in the Graveyard book and the jungle book.
In the Graveyard book, the barrier between the graveyard, and the world of the living is separated by the cycle of life. So, when the worlds meet, it’s not an act of conflict as it is an inevitable fact of life. Perhaps this is why Gaiman made bod more educated as bod went to “school” and had knowledge of the ways of the actual world. Thus, bod’s assimilation into the real world seems a lot more plausible.
In the Jungle book however, the barrier represents conflict between the jungle and human society. This is seen when the creatures of the jungle feel inherently different from the human race, ““I had never seen the jungle. They fed me behind bars from an iron pan till one night I felt that I was Bagheera - the Panther - and no man's plaything, and I broke the silly lock with one blow of my paw and came away; and because I had learned the ways of men, I became more terrible in the jungle than Shere Khan.” The jungle feels alienated from the human race due to the humans behavior, thus making the possibility the mowgli will successfully go back to human society a small one.
The main difference between the two “worlds” or realms in these two works is that in the Graveyard Book the same man that lives in the world goes to the graveyard when he is dead but the jungle is no place for a man, and vice versa. This basic disconnect is reflected in the different ways the two societies view each other, one as the inevitable counterpart, one as the begrudging rival society.
Villains in The Junglebook and The Graveyard Book--The villains in The Jungle Book, and the Graveyard Book, are both primarily defined by their fear of the children that they believe will one day defeat them. This theme defines most of their actions and motivations, although their fear affects them in different ways. Although both are outsiders, (Shere Khan for breaking the laws of the jungle, Jack due to his membership in the mysterious Jack of all Trades), Jack protects himself by blending into society, where Shere Khan isolates and removes himself from the other creatures of the jungle. Jack wears expensive suits, presenting himself as a normal man, and befriending Scarlett and her mother in an attempt to get closer to Bod, while Shere Khan definitely flaunts the laws of the jungle, and makes his vendetta against Mowgli known by all. Shere Khan operates through brute strength and intimidation, while Jack relies on subtly and stealth. Although Jack is better able to hide the fact, both he and Shere Khan are outsiders in their respective communities. Jack Frost and the Jack-of-all-Trades have the power to gain magical powers through killing, stating “We know…we remember things most people have forgotten. The old knowledge…There’s a magic you take through death”(Gaiman). Shere Khan is marked as an outsider by his black stripes, which signify how the First of the Tigers brought fear to the jungle by killing a buck-the first animal ever to die. It is explained to him, “Thou hast killed the buck, and thou hast let death loose into the jungle, and with death comes fear, so that the people of the jungle are afraid one of the other, as thou art afraid of the Hairless One” (Kipling). Both Jack and Shere Khan believe that they are marked for death, as they are both warned (Jack by a prophecy and Shere Khan by Tha) that the transgressions they (or there ancestors) have committed will one day result in their downfall. Both gain knowledge through violence, although the knowledge brings them fear and eventually destruction. Catherine Brizzi
ReplyDeleteFreedom and Law
ReplyDeleteIn comparing the structure of The Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling to that of The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman, one sees a clear parallel between the Law of the Jungle and the Freedom of the Graveyard; however despite being parallel in structure and used to protect those they influence, the two ideologies differ greatly in philosophy and meaning. Such differences arise upon examining the language used to express both ideologies and their uses within each book.
To begin the two most important distinguishing words between the Law of the Jungle and the Freedom of the Graveyard are “law” and “freedom.” The word “law” used in Law of the Jungle suggests the purpose of the Laws of the Jungle are to dictate the behaviors of those subject to the law and to punish unpermitted behaviors accordingly. The word “freedom” used in Freedom of the Graveyard, however, does not imply any form of restriction or dictation such as the Law of the Jungle, rather it implies the absence of restrictions.
The manner in which characters describe the Law of the Jungle and Freedom of the Graveyard laso reflect the difference between the linguistic implications in each ideology’s title. Silas explains the importance of the Freedom of the Graveyard to Nobody by saying, “You were given the Freedom of the Graveyard…so the Graveyard is taking care of you” (Gaiman 38). Silas goes onto to state that the Freedom of the Graveyard also grants Nobody special abilities such as seeing in the dark, Fading, and access to areas where the living may not travel. Later while confronting the Sleer, Bod says, “I have the Freedom of the Graveyard and I may walk where I choose” (Gaiman 53). It is important to note that not only does the freedom allow Bod to live without special restrictions, it also enables him to do things he otherwise could not do. The reason the graveyard enables Bod is so it may protect him from the dangers of the outside world. While running from one of the men Jack Bod could “feel the graveyard itself trying to hide him, to protect him, to make him vanish” (Gaiman 266). Here the graveyard is capable of acting as its own entity and expresses care towards one of its inhabitants.
Like the Freedom of the Graveyard, the Law of the Jungle also protects the lives of those residing within the reaches of its influence, however its protection comes in the form of restriction rather than permission. Kipling writes down many of the laws that apply to the wolf pack in The Jungle Book which set rules such as “kill not for the pleasure of killing, and seven times never kill man” and “the Wolf that shall keep [the Law] may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must die” (Kipling 172). Numerous other rules are listed throughout the book and while their purpose is to protect and promote peace, the laws are laws nonetheless dictations of behavior. The authoritarian and dictating nature of the Law of the Jungle is further expressed when Kipling writes “the head and the hoof of the Law and the haunch and the hump is—Obey!” (Kipling 174).
In summary, the Law of the Jungle and the Freedom of the Graveyard both serve to protect Mowgli and Bod respectively, but the graveyard’s protection comes in the form of freedom, care, and enabling whereas the jungle’s protection derives itself from the legal obedience of its subjects.