"Hamlet"- overall reflections and questions

Reflections:

I enjoyed reading this play, although it was a challenge to read at the beginning, I slowly got better at it. However, I didn't enjoy it just because it got easier to understand. I enjoyed reading it because of how much was going on and thus how many different interpretations could be taken and discussed. I liked how we weren't assigned anyone we "had to like" because almost all of the characters were flawed that you could make your opinions of them and they didn't  have to change because the author says so (although the opinon's of many characters often still didchange because of new actions/information). For example, Hamlet can be disliked by many people because he kills people and is cruel to people, or he can be pitied because his sense of obligation and desire to do well by his father drives him to these actions, or he slowly grows on people as the play goes on because he is slowly revealed to be a very moral person who is stuck in a hard position (having to kill his uncle to avenge his ghost father that keeps reminding him of his task) while acting/being insane. 

Questions: 

Why poison all the swords? In their planning, Laretes and Claudius makes it seem like will only be Laretes' blade that positioned. Is it Laretes' guilt that makes him decide to poison all of them?

Why was it so important that Ophelia be buried in "Christian" ground? Why were victims of suicide not given this privilege? 

Is Hamlet, or any other character, able to be considered a tragic hero? 

"Hamlet"- the end (Act V post)

In this blog post I will be discussing the final lines of the play with Fortinbras and Horatio. 

In the final lines of the play, Horatio suggests that he explain what happened to result in 4 deaths at one party in the form of a play. This proposition and then the following preparations made me wonder at what the rest of the play was: was it Horatio's play or was it a more "truthful" play because Horatio hadn't been in every scene, but just heard about the scenes he wasn't in from other people. This second play recounting the same story as the play I was about to finish reading reminded me of many of the conversations we had in class about what is "real" and what is not while we were reading The Things They Carried. I think that Horatio's proposed play within a play, along with other ironic allusions to acting and stages throughout the play, and with the inclusion and focus on madness (something which can be caused by a difficulty at determining what is real and what is not) that Shakespeare was trying to challenge the idea that people immerse themselves in entertainment/literature and make it "real" when in it isn't truly "real", only a story being told by a group of people who take on the personas of fictitious (even if they were potentially based upon actual people) characters in order to tell it.

"Hamlet"- Gertrude and the Ghost

Why can Gertrude not see or hear the Ghost in Act 3 Scene 4?

One possible answer to this question could be that only those who have the desire for revenge can see the ghost. Gertrude has no desire for revenge, or at least revenge through violence, so she cannot see/hear the cause of her son's insanity (desire for revenge caused by the Ghost's story, thus the Ghost is the cause of Hamlet's madness). However, if this is the reason why Gertrude cannot see/hear the Ghost, then what drives the guards to want revenge? Perhaps the guards can see the Ghost because they will be involved in Hamlet's revenge or they are lying in wait for Fortinbras' army of revenge to come attack them.

Another, simpler, explanation could be that the Ghost can choose who is able to see him. He could have chosen not to reveal himself to Gertrude in order to keep her from going into any further shock, or to keep Hamlet's persona of a madman alive in order to ensure that he will get his revenge (thus helping the Ghost), or a combination of the two, or for some other inexplicable reason.

"Hamlet"- Challenges

In this post I will be discussing how reading Hamlet has been different for me than reading other Shakespeare plays.

Shakespeare is one of my favorite authors, so I'm really excited that we are reading Hamlet. Overall, I am enjoying the play so far, but this play is much more challenging than any play I have ever read before. In the past with Shakespeare, I can read it normally like a book and pick up what it is saying (or look up a few things in the side notes).  However, so far with Hamlet, I have had some trouble understanding what is going on and have had to look at the notes frequently for guidance on what the characters are saying. I think that this challenge comes from several places. First, I haven't read Shakespeare for English class in two years (we read Macbeth sophomore year), but I have read several plays for fun in the years between, as well as for my Independent Study in Theatre this year (A Midsummer Night's Dream), which sort of negates this reason. Secondly, and I think more accurately, that Hamlet is a more complex play with respect to underlying meaning/themes than many of the others that I have read, and thus the language needs to be more complex to reflect that. I think that, as we discussed in class, that Hamlet focuses much more on the psychological (which results in more difficult readability in contemporary English) than on action. To overcome this challenge, I will read more closely and possible check things that I am still very confused on with No Fear Shakespeare (although I typically don't like their translations, but it might help clear some plot confusion up). 

"The Dead" - response

In this post I will be discussing the similarities and differences between Joyce's "The Dead" and Ibsen's A Doll's House.

It is difficult to tell when "The Dead" is set, but it seems to be around the late 1800s in Ireland, which is the same time period as A Doll's House, except that that was set in the Netherlands.

The male main characters of these two works are also very similar. Gabriel is a successful, intellectual, upper-class man with a seemingly happy marriage, a patriarchal view of women (mostly his wife), and a desire to travel to the more sophisticated Continent. Torvald is a successful, upper-middle/upper class man with a seemingly happy marriage, a patriarchal view of all women, and a high moral code. Both men love and think of their wives in accordance with their societies' traditions: that she is in charge of the household, doesn't have complex thoughts, and exists for no other purposes other than to be his wife and to be a mother to his children (this last piece is very explicitly shown in Torvald). Due to their similar time periods and classes, both Gabriel's and Torvald's societies are similar as well. Both of them express something similar to Victorian age morality, with one of the gravest errors a person can make is lying, as expressed through Torvald's sentiments on the subject, and the lyrics to the song that the party guests sing to the aunts after Gabriel's speech.

The wives too, are very similar to each other (although not nearly as similar as their husbands). Both Nora and Gretta are not understood by their husbands and harbor secrets from their husbands that are revealed at the end of the work. However, their goals are very different. Nora wants Torvald to treat her as an equal, or at least as a fellow human being. She leaves her husband and children in order to discover herself.  It is hard to discern what Gretta desires, but I think she would like to be respected by Gabriel as an intellectual human being. She does not do anything but tell Gabriel the story of the boy she loved when she was young.

As similar as these characters, and the works they are a part of are, there are major differences in aspects not relating to the characters. "The Dead" takes place at Gabriel's old aunts' party, whereas A Doll’s House takes place in the Helmer family home over several days. "The Dead" alludes to political conflicts in Ireland and human mortality (hence the title), in contrast, A Doll's House seems timeless in terms of allusions to events and discusses illusion vs. reality of many things, as well as feminist ideals. "The Dead" as a whole is a much simpler plot structure than A Doll's House, but is much more dense than Ibsen's play and has complex themes concerning morality and patriotism (though A Doll's House has complicated themes in its own right, but due to the style of the play, they can appear to be much more transparent than Joyce's short story's themes).

"The Dead" - word

Mechanical.

"The Dead" - question

What was the "secret life"  that Gabriel mentions several times towards the end of the story?

When I first read about this "secret life", I was very confused, but I thought that it could mean that they really were in love (many couples at the time this was set weren't due to arranged marriages/status marriages). However, by the second time it appears in this short story, I wasn't so sure that it was a happy "secret life". I thought that it could be saying that they really hated/disliked each other, and maybe even lived separate lives under the outward-facing image of a happy marriage.

After thinking about "The Dead" for a little while, I am still very confused about what this "secret life" really is, but I have a couple more theories. One of which is that maybe their "secret life" is their history together; perhaps they were lovers first and got married out of obligation, or that there is some other complication (or even several complications) in the past that Gabriel can define as a "secret life". My second, and final, theory is that their "secret life" is nothing so dramatic as lost love or a complex history, but instead is just that they have a life away from their young children, the elaborate social gatherings, and his aging aunts; a life just as a married couple, however unhappy or happy they might be.

"As I Lay Dying"- clues into Darl's instability

In the last few chapters of the book, we learn that Darl set Gillespie barn on fire and that he is not well psychologically. The only possible reason for why Darl did what he did is in Cash's second to last chapter: that Darl set fire to the barn to burn Jewel's horse (take away its trade value). Darl's actions that were confusing in earlier parts of the book (for example, laughing at Addie's coffin) are now closely replicated (crying after the barn burned and laughing after he has been exposed) and can signal his instability growing. Darl is also described as a little odd earlier in the book, meaning that he could have been mildly unstable or even just different, in general, not just psychologically. His elevated vocabularly suggests an education that none of the other characters recieved, which is puzzling because Cash would have been educated first, thus probably gone father as the eldest son of a southern family in the early 20th century. It is interesting that Jefferson is the place they burry Addie, the home of the new Mrs. Bundren, the largest town closest to the Bundren's home, and the name of the prison/insane asylum (as they would have called it) that Darl is sent to because using only one name makes it seem that they are all the same thing: death, containment, and renewall. By his last chapter, Darl sounds incredibly like Vardaman. Readers can assume that he is in his cell in the Jefferson asylum/prison for insanity (that probably isn't what he had, but they really only had one mental health diagnosis in those days -- though mental illness diagnosis was slowly getting better). 

Perhaps, the philosophy of The Things They Carried had too much of an influence on me and this di super out-there, but Darl's omniscience, his intersection of his language into other's chapter (particularly Dewey Dell), and his comment to Jewel when he asks about who his father is ("your mother is a horse..") that matches exactly what Vardaman thinks/says, and his complete change in diction and syntax to mimik Vardaman's makes me wonder if this entire story was real or if only the basic facts and some of the people were real, or if all of this is what Darl expierenced and is recounting in his mind as he sits in Jefferson. The characters, who are probably real, could be talking as he views them and they change their diction, etc. when Darl's mind goes back to the way that he thinks, not the way the characters think; or the characters could all be real to an extent, but Vardaman's story isn't his but Darl's "insane" one because their syntax and diction are so similar. 

"As I Lay Dying"- the ending

The ending of this novel was very sudden and vague, complementary to the rest of the book. Anse's sudden remarriage to a woman, whom he only met twice as far as we know, reflects accurately on his personality and the dynamic of the Bundren family. Anse needs a wife figure in his life to take care of him and for him to work for. He doesn't need love from his wife, as evidenced by his first marriage. The new Mrs. Bundren seems very similar to Addie in a way. She seemed to have a comfortable (as is evidenced by the phonograph-- a luxury item during the time immediately following the Great Depression), but probably lonely, life, and marries Anse for seemingly no other reason than to have a change of lifestyle and status (it probably wasn't for love or because of his looks). Society was not kind to single women in the 1930s and 1940s, particularly after they reached a certain age and were still unmarried, so both Mrs. Bundrens had incentive for marrying so quickly. Anse's quick remarriage suprises Addie's children, because he remarries the night of Addie's burial. Anse's matter of fact manner, the sudden news, and the additional shock of Darl's mental instability/criminal nature can only have a negative effect on the children, particularly Vardaman, who is so unstable since Addie's death, the journey, and Darl's departure. 

"As I Lay Dying"- Addie's chapter

In this post I will be discussing Addie's chapter and its purpose.

I was initially very confused by Addie's chapter because she is dead and that would make it hard for her to narrate the present. As her chapter continued, it became apparent that it was not the present, but a flashback of her married life. I am still confused about why Addie married Anse if not for love because she never really seems to love him during their marriage. They are a partnership, they are each other's family, he provides for her, she cares for his household and gives him children. Addie doesn't seem to truly love her children either, which in broken marriages is often the only thing that the wife/mother does love. Cora calls her sinful in her previous chapter because Addie likes to wish all of them -- Anse and her five children away into nothingness when she goes to sleep. Addie agrees with Cora in her sin, and considers Jewel her punnishment, even though Darl remarks earlier in the novel that Jewel never loved her either. It is confusing trying to figure out what is wrong with Jewel that makes everyone think of him as a "punnishment" (other than he is abusive towards his beloved horse and doesn't like his family).

I think that Faulkner writes Addie's chapter because it helps explain Anse's devotion because it was only a matter of duty for them, a simple sense of honor and responsibility that held their relationship togehter. This chapter also puts everyone's varied feelings and opinions of Addie into perspective because Addie seems to have been very different to certain people or groups of people than she was to others. Addie cares for her children, perhaps a little more to Jewel than the others, as she is supposed to, respects Anse as she is supposed to, acts pious around Cora most of the time, and all the while she follows her father's advice, "the reson for living is getting ready to stay dead." (169) Addie never enjoyed her life because she thought she would be happy in death, making sure her family would be able to function without her when she does die, and making sure that she would get what she wanted when she died (to go home to her family who are all buried in Jefferson). She spent her entire married life satisfying the needs and desires of others, or repaying debts she thought she owed (like having Dewey Dell and Vardaman to "negative Jewel... to replace the child I had robbed him of.) (176) I think that the last line shows the division of family loyalties: Dewey Dell, Vardaman, and Jewel seem to "side" with his wishes/mentality, as much as they "side" with anyone other than themselves, and seem to think of their mother as a stranger that they love. Cash and Darl, the oldest and the seemingly most loved by Annie as infants, seem to truly love Annie and "side" with her wishes. Anse feels the responsibility to return Addie to the family that raised her and, hopefully, loved her more than this family did. Anse is repaying his debt to Addie because she gave him happiness at the expense of her own. I think Addie's chapter is used to give context to the living characters and their motives and explain the true nature of this family. 

"As I Lay Dying"- word post 1

Balance.

"As I Lay Dying"- Content 1

In this post I will discus Vardaman's fish and how he relates it to his mother.

Throughout the first 84 pages, Vardaman tries to connect the fish that his father makes him clean and his mother's death. Vardaman seems to be a young boy who had never expierence death before, and the sudden loss of his mother has left him unable to cope. He knows and accepts that the fish is dead, and he knows but does not accept that his mother is dead, but I think that when he tries to process the fact that his mother is dead and accept it, all he can think of is how the fish is dead and his mother is not a fish. His relation of the fish to his mother leads him on a confusing journey of what is real and what is not and why God would take his mother so far away if he can invent such wonderful things as a train. I think that Faulkner makes Vardaman's reaction to his mother's death so strong in order to convey the extreme emotions that grief can take a person through, particuarly someone who has never expierenced death. I think that Faulkner chooses a fish, something so common that is gross when dead, but beautiful while alive because that is sort of what death does to his mother- it takes something beautiful and turns it into something inhuman, something that isn't what it once was in Vardaman's eyes. Vardaman also goes through many of the most important stages of grief over his mother's death with the fish: denial- he runs out of his mother's room and passes the spot where he cleaned the fish, questioning- asking why God made the fish just go into the pan when it died and took his mother so far away, discussing it on page 70 with Vernon in terms of the fish's death because Vernon could relate to Vardaman -- "'You was there. You seen it laying there... You seen the mark in the dirt", and finally acceptance on page 84, "My mother is a fish." All of the comparisons that make Vardaman seem crazy with grief resulted in his acceptance of it because he combined his two encounters with death into one that makes his mother's death not seem so terrible because she is now something different and beautiful that he could see again whenever he sees a fish. 

"As I Lay Dying" - Style 1

In Cash's chapter after he finishes the coffin,  Faulkner's style completely changes from prose with South-Eastern syntax and diction and mostly their person point of view to numbered lists divided by sentence and is framed by first person. 

The purpose of this change in style is to emphasize how Cash deals with his grief, similarly to the slight changes as each character narrates their grief over Annie's death. Cash seems to be very logical,and spends all his time working on his mother's coffin, so Faulkner conveys this aspect of Cash by making his chapter like an instruction manual of his reasoning as well has how to build a coffin correctly. This chapter's style also represents Cash's calmness as everyone else in his family transforms with their grief.  As the list goes on, the sentences being to form into couplets, as if he is writing down his thoughts and they branch off of each other. An example of this is scentences 6 and 7, which together seem to be one thought, but are broken up for emphasis. 

One thing that confuses me stylistically about this chapter is the purpose of the numbers, other than to create the feeling of an instruction manual. However, it seems that the numbers correlate to every scentence in the chapter, but numbers three and four have two scentences each. I think that the idea of the couplets later in the chapter, combined with these two sections of sentence pairs supports the idea that each number represents a thought in Cash's logical, calm, carpentry-centered brain as he finishes his mother's coffin.

"The Things They Carried"- question 3

In the chapter, "Good Form", why does Tim O'Brien admit that the entire book was made up, a "work of fiction"? How does this admission and then the following examples of made up stories that seem true help his purpose of exploring what is true and what is illusion?

I think that these questions are important in terms of the whole book because answering this question would help define the purpose of the book, which up until this chapter has been mostly stories that seemed true despite the warning of it being a work of fiction on the title page. If this question was answered, it might reveal that Tim O'Brien had a purpose intended for this book. He could have written it for the purpose of explaining how people accept things as true that feel true to them and what they know about the Vietnam War, which is a similar concept to the purpose of exploring the concepts of truth and story. These questions help to nail down the focus of the purpose of the book and Tim O'Brien's truthful seeming fiction.

"The Things They Carreid"- Tim and the man he killed

In this post I will be discussing a possible reason that Tim O'Brien portrayed the young man that he killed as almost identical to himself (other than the fact that it might be true in this fictional collection of memories).

As far as I have read in the book (through "Speaking of Courage"), Tim has only killed one Vietnamese soldier. The young man that he killed, and his injuries, are described with some of the most graphic imagery in the novel thus far. I think that they way Tim O'Brien described the man, first in terms of his injuries, then in terms of his life, and then finally in terms of his motives for being in the war. Obviously, Tim (the character) never knew this man before, so all of his analysis is based upon his body and speculation. I think that Tim O'Brien (the author) used his vivid memories and Kiowa's comments designed to make him feel better, to get him out of his state of shock and horror to heart when writing this story. Tim O'Brien portrays the man that he killed as an almost-exact copy of himself in the Vietcong army. He pictures this young man to be someone who thought that the war was wrong too, who wished the Americans could go away just as Tim wishes he could go home, who had an intellectual brain and lots of promise and plans for continuing his education, who had fallen in love and had a happy life that was spoiled by his obedience to tradition and honor and Tim's instinctive throw. The similarities between Tim and his victim are uncanny, even down to the reasons for joining a war they did not support -- fear of disappointing their families because they didn't have the courage to desire to go to war with a dangerous foe. Tim O'Brien uses his image of the man that he killed and the person he had been before the grenade to demonstrate why Tim was in such a state after he saw the carnage of what he had done, and why even his friend Kiowa's comments could not break him out of his trance. Tim knew that the man was human, but until he saw the man's body I don't think it had fully registered what he had done and how possibly similar that man could have been to himself. It is empathy in the most extreme sense. Kiowa tries to console Tim by telling him that it could have been him (Tim) lying on the ground rather than that man had their places been reversed. But Tim also realizes that this man's death was avoidable, if his instinct had not controlled his body as if he were only a computer programmed to kill, this man could have lived, or at least not died at Tim's hand, the man who is arguably so similar to him. Tim O'Brien uses his imaginations about the man that he killed almost as a symbol of his death because he killed another man. He makes the man so similar to himself, or his characterized self, that it is as if he has killed who he was and he is staring at what he was and could have been if he had not thrown that grenade and become like so many others in Alpha Company.

"The Things They Carried" - question 2

In "How to Tell a True War Story", Tim O'Brien tells what he says to be true story about how to tell a true war story using his own for examples. The longest war story that he tells is about his friend Rat who wrote a letter to his best friend's sister after he (Curt Lemon) died.  What is the purpose of conveying the idea that Curt Lemon probably thought he was killed by sunshine and not by a booby trap?

A possible answer to this question would be that this idea is a metaphor. Sunlight represents happiness and/or youthful bliss/innocence as a contrast to the darkness and gloom of the war. Rat and Lemon are the only ones who exhibit a youthful demeanor, a carefree outlook on the world that fades for most people with time and exposure to harsh reality. They play chicken with smoke grenades when they break during marches, a reckless but mostly harmless game of displays of masculinity, while everyone else relaxes. They are playing in the gloomy woods where there isn't any sunlight, but as soon as Lemon steps out of the shade of the trees into the sunlight so that he could face the camp, his life violently ends. The patch of sunlight, the only seemingly comfortable place in the area where they are, is in reality the most lethal. The sunlight almost counters its qualities of symbolism by acting as a spotlight to death, a false sense of security or comfort that leads to death.
Tim O'Brien probably speculates that Lemon thought that the sunshine killed him because it is probably true in a metaphorical sense; Lemon and Rat thought of the war as  "a nature walk", and seemed to think that they were untouchable (66). By emphasizing that Lemon thought he was killed by sunshine could also mean that he thought that he was killed by his own confidence or appearance of confidence and carefree attitude. He was killed by his "sunshine", the thing that kept him sane as a nineteen year old fighting in a war millions of miles away. The war was almost a booby trap in itself, with the draft entrapping any able-bodied young man over 18 into the deadly and hated war.  By keeping their carefree and youthful perspectives alive – their “sunshine”, Rat and Lemon kept the darkness and the nightmares of war and death at bay, just as the older men had letters and other articles of home to keep them sane. Just as Jimmy Cross was blinded by his "sunshine" (Martha) and Ted Lavender died; Lemon was blinded by his and it cost him his life.

"The Things They Carried"- question 1

In the fourth story in Tim O'Brien's collection of short stories, "On the Rainy River", readers learn of O'Brien's deepest, darkest, secret: he attempted to go to Canada to escape the draft, but didn't do it out of cowardice.

After reading the first four stories in this fictional auto-biography, I have some lingering questions. One of which is why does Tim O'Brien feel that Elroy Berdahl saved his life when he seemingly did nothing at all?

A possible answer is one that Tim O'Brien suggests quite often throughout this story; that Elroy saves him by doing ordinary tasks/activities with him that make him think about what he is doing and if he can really live with his choice. To me, Elroy is a representation of God, some other divine being ( I know how that sounds with Jimmy Cross representing a Christ motif), or Tim's conscience, because of how he seems to know all of the conflicts Tim is facing without actually asking any questions of him. He saves him with this knowledge and how he treats him accordingly. Perhaps Tim isn't the first almost draft-cutter that Elroy has encountered, thus he knows what people like Tim need -- time to be alone with themselves, away from the pressures, and a little indirect guidance to help him decide which path to take. The very end of the story (the fishing trip and Tim's departure) helps solidify the idea that Elroy represents God or some other divine being, almost more than just being a very empathetic, observant, conscious-like old man. In this scene Tim realizes that Elroy purposely takes him into Canadian waters to test him -- to allow him the time and space to make his final decision, with the prospect of escape only twenty yards away. However, Elroy only speaks when he realizes that Tim has chosen (probably because he is crying). "'Ain't biting'" are the only words he says in this scene, as if to say that the fish (drafted young men) are resisting the bait of Canada and exile, and more are continuing to swim along and live life as they had before (to some extent); just as Tim just had just done. (57) The next morning, Elroy is gone before Tim departs -- as if he never existed; as if his task was complete so he could move on to the next young man in trouble, like a guardian angel. That is how I think that Elroy saves Tim by seeming to really do nothing at all -- the distant relationship, the silence, the uncanny understanding of his plight, and the gentle tests all help Tim to realize that he is making a mistake by trying to do the courageous thing, and so does the ironically cowardly thing and joins the war.

Unnacustomed Earth- Short Story 1

Rereading the story, "Unaccustomed Earth", really helped me understand the conflicts between the characters that I only understood in terms of plot, and not as much in terms of literary meaning the first time. 

One lingering question that I still have about this story is why Ruma and her mother were considered "allies" when they argued so much, where as Ruma and her father had never had a conflict until the end of this story, but were as distant as if they had an irreconcilable difference? 

It is possible that, although they argued frequently and were so different, Ruma felt much more "open" and "allied" with her mother rather than her father because she felt that her father was judging her because he was trying to be the traditional father/husband of their culture, as well as assimilate into American culture, and provide for his family. Ruma's mother was home all the time, and so that is who Ruma talked to, and as a result, argued with. 

Combined 2: "How to Read Literature Like a Professor" and "Unaccustomed Earth

In this final post, I will be discussing how Jhumpa Lahiri uses the symbolism of meals in her short stories in Unaccustomed Earth, particularly in the story entitled "Year's End". 

In the second chapter of his book, Proffessor Foster writes that "whenever people eat or drink together, it's communion....breaking bread together is an act of sharing and peace....writing a meal scene is so difficult, and so inherently uninteresting, that there really needs to be some compelling reason to include one in the story. And that reason has to do with how characters are getting along. Or not getting along." (Foster 8) This concept of meals reflecting the status of relationships is used frequently in Jhumpa Lahiri's short story, "Year's End",  to gauge the relationships between Kashik and his new step-family. 

The first meal that Kashik has "with" his new family is when he comes home from college for Winter Break. I put with in quotations because his new step-mother and sisters don't eat with him or his father. From Kashik's meal alone where Chitara, his step-mother, tries to wait on him hand and foot, and his father has hidden the alcohol that he once drank with Kashik's mother, Kashik seems to be at complete odds with Chitara and her traditional customs. He is used to helping around the kitchen with the dishes, etc., having meals toghether as a family, having a drink after dinner, and having an independent woman in his family. She objects to all of this, and their language barrier further drives a wedge in their already distant, but short relationship so far (they had met for the first time at dinner) -- she doesn't really speak English and he doesn't really speak Bengali. She has no desire to drive a car (even when he offers to teach her), or even let her daughters go outside alone. Kashik can't help but compare her to his independent, outgoing, untraditional mother. This meal also reveals how Kashik's relationship with his father has changed and is now beginning to deteriorate rapidly. This is clearly shown when Kashik asks where the scotch that his father and his mother always used to drink was, and his father reveals how he had given up his old ways to avoid "alarming" his new wife. Kashik is astonished by how much his father has changed and makes him feel like his father is almost be trying his mother by completely changing who he was. This meal wasn't quite fitting of Professor Foster's definition of communion, but at least it did prevent the open argument that was waiting to happen but never did. 

The second meal, and last that demonstrates the symbolism of the meal. that Kashik has with people in his new family is breakfast the next morning with Rupa and Piu, his step-sisters, at Dunkin Donuts. Even if he is at odds with Chitara, Kashik can't help but like her daughters. They both are much younger than Kashik, and are portrayed by Lahiri as very naive and cute in a little kid-sort of way. Their excitement at getting donuts, and paying for them themselves (with Kashik's money, but they got to give it to the chashier) was contagious. But even this very happy meal and relationship were not without conflict. Rupa and Piu, unversed in how to treat store clerks in America, come off as rude (pointing at what they want instead of asking and not thanking the cashier). Kashik tells them this, perhaps a little harsher than necessary and the girls become slightly sullen, embarrassed that they have angered their step-brother and also still worrying about the upcoming start of school. Kashik reassures them about school and the relationship, and the meal, are back on happier notes. The girls bring back donuts for their mother and tell her all about their fun breakfast with KD (what they call Kashit, short for Kashit Dada - the Bengali term of respect for a brother combined with his preffered name) also helps to slightly strengthen the very fragile relationship between Kashit and Chitara. This meal was much closer to Professor Foster's idea of the purpose of meals in novels -- reflecting the status of relationships and helping to create peace between characters. 

Combined 1: "How to Read Literature Like a Professor" and "A Prayer for Owen Meany"

In these final two posts, I will be exploring how the authors of the two novels I have read this summer use elements that Professor Foster discusses in his book. This specific post will discuss how John Irving uses the importance of location and geography in his book; a topic which Professor Foster devotes the entirety of Chapter 19 to.

Most of A Prayer for Owen Meany is set in a small town in New Hampshire called Gravesend. It is a small town where the same families have lived there since before the nation was founded. The Meany family seems to be the only outlier in town - descendants of much more recent immigrants; a family who has not lived in Gravesend for generations. A more "working class" family, the Meanys always seemed to live much further outside of town than Johnny's "aristocratic" family, the Wheelwrights, did. The location of the Meanys' house also reflects their social status as well. Mr. and Mrs. Meany never seem to interact that much with the rest of the Gravesend community. The Meanys, especially Owen, are also excluded from another location for most of the book: Sawyer Depot. Sawyer Depot was the home of Johnny's rowdy cousins and his traditional aunt and uncle. It was also where the Wheelwrights would all gather together for Christmas and other vacations. Irving portrays it as a very luxurious, aristocratic place compared to Gravesend. Owen was never invited to Sawyer Depot, although he longed to go. Johnny always told him it was because of his concern for Owen's safety, that his cousins would demolish him in their violent games. Owen suspected that Johnny simply didn't want Owen to go at all, that Owen would embarrass him in some way. Even though he never went to the exclusive land of Sawyer Depot during his childhood, Owen and Johnny did go once they were older. Owen had expected it to look like Johnny had always described it when they were kids, but he was surprisingly disenchanted. It was a house by a lake with a boat house and boats. It was not the world that he had dreamed of visiting for so long; it was beautiful but it wasn't nearly as wonderful now that the cousins had grown up (he and Hester were actually in a relationship)- the sense of action and excitement that was there when they were kids was gone. It wasn't just that it was a different kind of place without the images of childhood mayhem, but it was also that the sense of exclusion or being forbidden to come to Sawyer Depot was gone; Johnny had taken him there and Hester's parents had been very civil, if not outright kind, towards him (they were not on the best terms with Hester, their daughter).

Another incredibly important place in A Prayer for Owen Meany is where Owen dies. Owen has two visions concerning his death: one when playing the role of the Ghost of Christmas Future, he sees his gravestone with the date of his death on it, the other is a dream that he has frequently describing how he dies- in a sunny, hot land with palm trees where he is surrounded by nuns after having saved a group of Asian children. Owen is not told expressly where, but with the context of the 1960s in America and all of the global events associated with that era (the Vietnam War), Owen logically assumes that he will die in Vietnam and so does everything in his power to get there and make sure that Johnny, who is a part of his dream, does not (particularly as the death toll rises in Vietnam). Owen feels he must go to Vietnam and not avoid his death because he claims that it is what God wants him to do. It turns out that Owen was wrong; he doesn't die in Vietnam and he doesn't spare Johnny the sight of his death. It happens in a place that today is one of the more observed places for violence such as this in the world: an airport. Owen thought he would die in battle, a war hero. He did die a war hero by saving those children and preventing the grenade explosion from causing more deaths than just one, but it wasn't where he thought it was going to be. It wasn't across the globe in a wild and terrifying place, it was across the United States. He wasn't killed by a foreign enemy, a classic "bad guy"; he was killed by a very sick teenager whose brother's body Owen had just escorted home. The location of his death doesn't allow Owen the almost stereotypical war hero's death, but it allows him a hero's death that has a profound effect on audiences today because of all of the security measures taken to prevent such a terrible attack from happening.


Professor Foster writes that geography allows for the character's words, actions, and thoughts to gain contextual relevance and meaning that is unique to the location where the novel or even the scene is set. John Irving uses this a lot in his novel, A Prayer for Owen Meany, particularly in reference to Gravesend, Sawyer Depot, and the place of Owen's death.

"A Prayer for Owen Meany"

In this post I will answer the following prompt: Is the appearance of characters in any way a factor in your novel? How?

Owen Meany was a very special person in John Irving's novel, A Prayer for Owen Meany. He not only is one of the two main characters of the novel, the other being his best friend, Johnny Wheelwright, but he is the most unique character in the novel and perhaps one of the most unique I have ever experienced in a novel. Owen's appearances are a major part of what makes him so unique and influential in the novel. He was tiny, barely reaching five feet tall, but it was his voice that would turn people's heads the most. Owen's voice was, as Johnny's mother's voice teacher, Graham McSwiney said, "in a permanent scream". This was not intentional on Owen's part, his Adam's Apple was stuck in this position, perhaps because of the amount of granite dust he was exposed to as a baby. The way Owen's voice is conveyed by Irving in the novel is through only capitol letters (also how Owen wrote his column for Gravesend Academy's student newspaper and how he tried to write in college). This contrast in the physical novel also contributes to the power of the appearance and sound of Owen Meany. Owen's unique physical characteristics set him apart from every other character in the novel, which, along with his intellectual and humorously serious personality, allowed him to be heard almost more than any other character, even Johnny, whose memories are the tool with which we can see Owen and the story of his short life and his relationship with Johnny. Owen's tiny physical features somehow drew people to him, making him very popular with people, particularly women. Johnny, on the other hand, was so "normal" that he seems to almost fade in Owen's enormous shadow of "extra-ordinariness". Owen's voice could repulse people, but it also had a hypnotic-like quality because it was so strange; allowing his extremely wise and occasionally religious thoughts to be heard by his audience (often Johnny, but sometimes a myriad of others, including priests and other adults). Stereotypically, Owen's abnormal appearance would render him a social outcast and the victim of many bullies. Although he was teased by his Sunday School class (including Johnny) and often slightly prejudiced against in Little League, Owen Meany was incredibly popular and influential in his small town of  Gravesend, New Hampshire and once he was a little older, never teased again. His unique physical appearance helped make him so special and helped him to make such a difference in Gravesend and be so influential on people, particularly Johnny.

"Unaccustomed Earth" post 2

In my second post about this collection of short stories, I will be answering the following prompt: Are there any generational conflicts in your novel?

The short answer is yes. In several of the short stories there is a rift between two generations, often a parent and child and their relationships with others (often non-Bengali people). However, I will focus on one example from the book. The second chapter, entitled "Hell-Heaven", tells of the narrator's relationship with her mother, especially with their family's interaction with another immigrant referred to as Pranab Kaku. Pranab Kaku is a much younger Bengali immigrant who the narrator and her family semi-adopts. Their family loves Pranab Kaku just as he does them. Eventually Pranab Kaku brings a girl to dinner with the family. Not a Bengali girl like the family is expecting, but an American. Her name is Deborah. The narrator loves Deborah, her mother does not. Her mother is not only against Deborah's American culture, but as the narrator looks back on this, she discovers that her mother was jealous of Deborah's relationship with Pranab Kaku. Deborah represents the "evils" of American culture that the narrator's parents and many other immigrants like them try to avoid at all costs. As the narrator grows up in American culture, she feels that the things that her parents, particularly her mother, fear and thus despise to be normal. Things such as being forbidden to go to school dances, to date, to wear a bra , and many other things that her peers were allowed to do and were normal for them to do made the narrator resent her mother. Deborah and the narrator became close while Deborah and Pranab Kaku were dating, but the couple became more distant once married. The narrator's mother blamed Deborah, but personally I suspect it was the fact that Pranab Kaku's family did not approve of the marriage as well as the difficulty that Deborah and their children later would have faced in an attempt to fit in with the very selective Bengali immigrant community that drove them away. This is another generational conflict inside of this story. However, When the narrator was a teenager, Deborah and Pranab Kaku (who had married several years earlier) invited them over to their house for Thanksgiving dinner, something that the narrator's family had never celebrated before. The dinner is very tense for the narrator's family, as they are the only Bengali family there. The narrator somewhat enjoys the dinner (partially because there is a cute boy her age there and she is snuck a drink of alcohol in the kitchen), but her mother is clearly tense and is as polite as she has to be while not enjoying herself and being appalled by the differences in culture (drinking for example). At this dinner, her mother kind of accepts defeat in the generational conflict by letting the narrator go for a walk with the boy her age (in which they stay out so late that her parents leave without her). 

Defiance is a hallmark of both of these generational conflicts between Pranab Kaku and the narrator and their parents. Pranab Kaku defies his parents by rejecting the marriage that he was supposed to be arranged into back in India by marrying Debroah, even at the cost of his relationship with his parents -- though he does not know that they threatened to disowned him and blame the narrator's parents for his betrayal. The narrator defies her parents in a more secretive way since hers are not across the globe from her. She sneaks out to parties with her friends and is much freer with her choices about drinking and sexuality and even drugs than she probably would have been had anything of that sort not been so strictly forbidden. These generational conflicts in this short story, "Hell-Heaven", mirror many others throughout this collection of short stories by Jhumpa Lahiri. 

"Unaccustomed Earth" post 1

In this first post of two about this book, I will be answering the following prompt: Discuss the title of the novel. Is it appropriate? In what way? If you could give the novel a different title, what would it be?

The title of this novel, "Unaccustomed Earth", is very appropriate for Jhumpa Lahiri's collection of short stories because of the common ties that it acknowledges between all of the stories. These common ties are the basic back stories of the characters: Indian-Americans who are either immigrants themselves, or are the children of immigrants. All of these families feel like outsiders in their new environment; parents in particular resisting assimilation like the plague. As many of the children grow, they often try to assimilate more, often straining relations with their families. The title of this novel demonstrates the unfamiliarity that these families feel while in America, as America might seem to them like an entirely new planet from India when they first arrive or even once they have settled. 

If I had to choose a different title for this collection of short stories, I would title it "Journey to a New World of Isolation: life of Indian Immigrant families living in America through short stories". I would title it this because it captures the common ties of the stories and acknowledges that Lahiri's book is not a traditional novel, but a collection of stories. 

"How to Read Literarure like a Professor"

In this post I will be answering the following prompt: Is there anything peculiar or special about the writer's style? How does this affect your reading or understanding of the story?

Thomas Foster's style is one that is very personal and relatable for readers. Though this isn't special in its own right, Foster's humor/attempted humor helps his style to make his book appeal to more readers and help readers understand the material better than if he droned on and on like a textbook. By making his narrative style personal, funny, and by using many different examples to prove his points, Foster makes readers feel like they are sitting in on his lecture and learning along with the students that he talks about often in the book. Foster is aware that his subject has the potential to be very dry for people who are not literature professors themselves, so he uses this knowledge and his personal writing style to make his book less of a textbook and more of a learning conversation, always reiterating major points as the book progresses. Foster's humor/attempted humor also helped with the readability of the book and was always featured at the beginning of each chapter as if to say, "This chapter won't be as boring as you could possibly think it is because this isn't at all like a textbook, I promise!" I think that if Foster did not have such a personal style of writing, this book might have been much harder to read and less understandable than it is because of all of his examples, his humor/attempted humor, and his personal style. 

Introduction

Hello! This is a project for AP English Literature and Composition's summer reading assignment.
I will be reading the following books this summer for this class:

• Unaccustomed Earth by Jhumpa Lahiri
• How to Read Literature like a Professor by Thomas C. Foster
• Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving

I hope you enjoy my blog posts throughout the summer!

-Cece