20th Century Blogging

I really enjoyed having this blog. It gave me a chance to say some things that I couldn't or didn't get the chance to say in class. It also gave me time to really shape my thoughts so that I could make a coherent point. That can sometimes be more difficult in class. When I blogged, I usually made my point and then expanded on it to an extent I could not in class. I enjoyed having the ability to say a lot without worrying about taking up too much of class time.

The blog also helped in my writing. I used the blog to test out response paper ideas a few times, and it really helped. The blog posts gave me something to work off of. It was if I had written a rough draft. I liked being able to get my ideas down, look at them, and work with them before I dove off into writing the actual paper.

However, what I didn't like about the blogging was that I sometimes found it difficult to blog. I procrastinate, and would put off the posts, because I had no idea what to write or just didn't have the time to.  This usually meant that I would write a lot just before the due date to make sure my blog was updated enough. I think to help with this problem, next year's class could use the method I used last year in Non-Fiction Writing. The class was split into two groups, one a Tuesday group, one a Thursday group. Each week, you would make one blog post on your respective day by a certain time at night. Now, we could tweak that a bit to say that there's one required blog post a week, but you can write whenever you feel like writing. I think that would help solve the problem of procrastination and rush blogging.

Names

Names hold a lot of meaning in Song of Solomon. The Dead family's names come from the Bible, so those have inherent meaning in and of themselves. Even though most of the names were chosen at random, they loom over their owners, and separate them from the fold. I mean, have you ever heard of a girl named First Corinthians? The names make the Dead family stand out more than they already do. Here is a Northern, black. well-to-do family doing whatever they can to remain respectable. Having Biblical names enhances this respectability, but it also further separates the Deads from the other blacks in the neighborhood, and especially from the lower class Southside black people. In the Southside, names may seem just as odd, but are better justified than the Biblical names. For example, Guitar is called Guitar because he wanted to play the guitar. First Corinthians wasn't called First Corinthians because she was reading First Corinthians as a baby.

In addition, names hold a lot of power over people. Think of how much the nickname Milkman affects him until no one even uses his actual name. This is why Pilate holds her name so close to her, literally in a box in her ear. No one can take her name from her, and if they ever try or attempt to give her a new name, she'll have her actual name right there for her. Losing a name is a common theme in a lot of books and movies, and so Pilate here is showing that her name can never be lost. Her name will always be known, because it will always be on her.

Now, the person whom names really affect is Milkman, or rather, Macon Dead Jr. The fact is, Milkman is trapped between these two names, and neither is particularly favorable. For one, Milkman comes from a past of shame. It's a nickname poking fun at his mother for breastfeeding him for years, and is basically calling him and his family dirty. It's a shameful name, and one most people would be glad to be rid of, but Milkman can't seem to ditch the name. It follows him, it's a part of him, and while he uses it when he's younger, as he grows older and learns what it truly means, he tries harder and harder to avoid it. Milkman then begins to start using his given name, Macon Dead. However, he is not the first Macon Dead. His father is also Macon Dead, and Milkman has been trying for a good part of the novel to not be like his father. Yet, here he is, taking his father's own name. Sure, he has moments where he's proud to be his father's son, like during his journey through the South, but most of the time Milkman doesn't want to be his father and does all he can to be the complete opposite of him. So why take his name?

I think Milkman is stuck. He doesn't want to be known by his shameful nickname, but he doesn't want to be known by his given name, his father's name either. But what can he do? These names are going to stick with him, regardless of what he does. I mean, he could change his name or get a new nickname, but I'm sure, somewhere out there, someone would call him Milkman or Macon. These names are a part of him, a defining aspect of his past, present, and future. Just like the ornament on the hood of the car, Milkman is moving forward, but stuck in the same place, with the same names.

A Response to "Christohpine's Amazing Ju-Ju Luv Magic"

Recently, I read a blog post by one of my classmates and was extremely offended. It suggested that Antoinette giving Rochester the love potion was akin to date-rape. Here is the link to the post.

http://charles20thcenturylitjournal-blog.blogspot.com/2011/11/christophines-amazing-ju-ju-luv-magic.html

Now, I will concede that there is a similarity between the love potion and a date-rape drug, and that similarity is control. However, the love potion is for control of the heart, while the date-rape drug is for control over the body. And while it is terrible to try and force someone to love you, it is even worse to take control of their body and use it without consent.

Here's where my classmate and I differ. He thinks that Antoinette used the love potion so that she could sleep with Rochester. I disagree. I don't think sex was on her mind at all. I think all she really wanted was affection. This man is her husband, and he wont even acknowledge her. He uses different names for her, is cold to her, and virtually ignores her. I think all Antoinette wanted was just a sign that Rochester cared about her, and when he never gave her that, she sought to get her for herself. The love potion was supposed to make Rochester love her. I don't think it was so that she could take control of him at all. I don't even think Antoinette really wants to control Rochester's heart. She just wants him to love her, and this is the only viable option she sees. I'm not commending her or saying she did the right thing, not at all, but I'm just pointing out where she's coming from.

And I don't think Antoinette wanted Rochester to forget everything. She wants him to love her always, not just for one night. That's also why I think the potion is for the heart and not for sex. Antoinette wants something that will change Rochester permanently, almost in the way he's changing her. She wants him to want her. Yes, the use of the love potion is a completely selfish and one-sided act, and it's why I don't approve it. However, the topic of consent in this issue is a little tricky. You can't make somebody love you, especially if they don't want to. Forcing them, blackmailing them, using love potions on them without their consent is  a terrible thing. And the love that does arise from this love potion is probably not even a real love. It's fake. Fabricated. An illusion. But that's all the person wants. They want it to at least seem like they're being adored. But anyways, I do think Antoinette had no right to use the love potion, but I think she may have thought consent was implied. She's married to Rochester. There is supposed to be love in marriage. He has made it seem that he does love her, and she's just trying to bring back that love. I mean, when she does give him the potion, they are talking and sharing and for a moment, they're a happy couple. I think Antoinette was honestly just trying to win back Rochester's affection, but she did so in an extremely selfish way that caused more harm than good. And sex had nothing to do with it.

That's where date-rape changes. It's not about making that person love you. It's about taking control and using another person's body without their consent for one's own pleasure. Literally, taking advantage. Love isn't a factor in date-rape, lust is. The person wants what they want and they take it, forcefully, without consent of the person they're taking it from. And it's not usually a more than one time thing. That does happen, but you rarely hear of one person repeatedly date-raping the same person.

Though there is similarity with the factors of control and consent between the love potion and a date-rape drug, there's a vast difference in the motives and the execution. And I just...I am disgusted in the fact that this was brought up and written about in such an offhand manner. Date-rape is a serious issue and should be treated as such.

Rochester/Rochester

Last year, in 19th Century Novel, I read Jane Eyre. I really loved it, and I actually really liked Mr. Rochester. However, reading Wide Sargasso Sea has really changed my views. I mean, I know they're two completely different books written by two completely different people, but I'm getting a completely new perspective on Rochester that I didn't have before. Reading Wide Sargasso Sea is definitely making me rethink my views on Rochester in Jane Eyre, and not in a good way.

Though Rochester is "prideful" in Jane Eyre, I still liked him. I thought he was an interesting character, and very intriguing. I wanted to see him fall in love and marry Jane. I was devastated when she rejected him, and overjoyed when they finally were married. I felt sympathy for Rochester, I truly did. I felt bad for him that he had this mad wife that he had to keep locked away. Reading Jane Eyre, it did seem like Bertha Mason wasn't Rochester's fault at all. He truly had been tricked into marrying a mad woman for money, and there was nothing he could do about it. You know, I really felt for him. Here was a man, desperate to move on and find new, true love, and he literally can't because of his past. I'll be honest, I wanted Bertha out of the way so Rochester and Jane could be together, and I was so happy when they finally could be. I may have been one of the very few people in my class to actually feel that way.

But now, reading Wide Sargasso Sea, everything changes. I mean, what a difference a simple change in perspective makes. See, since I had only seen Bertha as mad in Jane Eyre, I could never imagine her coherent, and thus Rochester became the only source of reliable information. But in Wide Sargasso Sea, being with Antoinette as she grows up really changes the way I see her and Rochester. I have much more sympathy for Antoinette, and hardly any for Rochester now. I see Antoinette as the one who has been tricked and deceived, instead of Rochester. In Jane Eyre, it seemed like perhaps Rochester had had some sort of care or affection for Bertha. In Wide Sargasso Sea, however, I truly think Rochester never had any sorts of feelings for Antoinette. Sure, he thought she was beautiful, but he never seemed to actually care about her, he just went through the motions. Anyone can kiss, but not everyone can kiss with love and passion. I honestly think Rochester deceived Antoinette, as Christophine said, and "made love to her till she was drunk with it." And we've seen what happens when Antoinette gets drunk.

See, that's why I just can't believe that Antoinette is going insane. You have to consider her situation. I can pretty safely say that most women would go ballistic if their husband slept with another girl right next door to them. I mean, Rochester did that completely on purpose, he was rubbing it in Antoinette's face. I really lost all respect for him at that moment. Deception is one thing, but rubbing that deception in someone else's face is another thing entirely. Before, Rochester was being a jerk, but only in his head. Now, he's a complete and utter jerk.

But I digress. As I was saying, Rochester gets Antoinette drunk on him with love, and love can cause people to do crazy things. Especially since, it seems to me, that Antoinette is desperate for affection. She never felt wanted by her mother, or by the people around her. The only person Antoinette really ever got affection from was Christophine. But here's this strapping young Englishman, and he tells Antoinette he loves her, and she, never really knowing or experiencing love, believes him right off the back. She's basically an innocent impressionable child that he's manipulating. I mean, he's turning her into a proper English woman so he can bring her back as his wife. It's clear he doesn't love her, he doesn't even like who she is. He jumps at the possibility of her being insane, and uses it as an excuse to hate her and try and get out of the marriage. I mean, what an absolutely rotten guy!

I really hate Rochester in Wide Sargasso Sea, I really, really do. I don't like him at all. Not even a little tiny bit. In Jane Eyre, he was romantic, or at least I saw some romance in him. But in Wide Sargasso Sea, though you could argue that Rochester is being romantic, there is nothing underneath it. Rochester actually cared about Jane, maybe cause she was the proper English woman he was always looking for, but without any feelings towards Antoinette whatsoever, all of his charm and romantic acts on her are completely deceptive and make me sick.

The Women of "The Stranger"

The women in The Stranger are almost all seemingly minor questions. Meursault's mother is dead as the novel starts, Marie is his lover, and then Mason's wife and Raymond's mistress are never even given names. At first glance, it seems like the women are just secondary characters and don't add much to novel. I disagree. To me, the women, and especially Raymond's nameless mistress, are some of the most important characters in the novel.

Let's start with Meursault's mother. Her death starts the novel, and it's through her funeral that we first get a glimpse at who Meursault is. We see him not reacting to the situation in a way that is deemed socially acceptable. It seems off to us, and makes some people say that Meursault doesn't have any emotions at all. Meursault's mother's death is not just the starting point of the novel, it is also the starting point of our understanding of Meursault as well. Her death is a window to his soul, in a way, because it's through his lack of proper emotional response at her death that we start to know who and what kind of a person Meursault is.

Meursault's mother is also very important because it's because of her that Meursault is thrown in jail and then executed. Ok, yeah, it's not super directly, but again it's his lack of proper emotional response at her death that causes him to be deemed less than human by the prosecutor. That's a crucial part of the case against Meursault. He doesn't show emotion towards his mother's death, and so he is accused of "burying his mother with crime in his heart" and that is why he is executed.

Marie is also important for a similar reason. Meursault's relationship with her is used against him in his trial, as a piece of supporting evidence to show that Meursault has no emotions and is less than human. Because Meursault and Marie went swimming, went to a comedic movie, and had sex the day after Meursault's mother's funeral, the prosecutor makes the claim that Meursault didn't care about his mother at all. Once again, he buried "his mother with crime in his heart."

It really is something that Meursault is basically on trial for who is, not for what he has done. He is basically executed because he doesn't show the proper emotional response, not because he killed a man. But let's look further into that. If Meursault hadn't killed the Arab, he wouldn't have been on trial, wouldn't have been convicted of "burying his mother with crime in his heart," and wouldn't have been executed. So what led to Meursault killing the Arab? Raymond's feud with the Arab. And what was that feud about? Raymond's (abusive?) relationship with the Arab's sister.

And that's where Raymond's mistress comes into play. She seems to me one of the most important characters in the novel, even if she doesn't seem like it. It is because of her that Raymond and Meursault become "pals" and it is because of this involvement in Raymond's relationship with his mistress that Meursault is drawn into Raymond's feud with the Arab. Would Raymond and Meursault have become buddies if Raymond had never asked him to write that letter for him, or testify for him? If there was no mistress, I don't think their "friendship" would have ever happened. And without that friendship, there'd be no trip to the beach. And even if they did go to the beach as friends, if Raymond wasn't involved with his mistress, then the Arabs wouldn't have been there, and thus Meursault couldn't have killed the woman's brother. And without that murder, there would have been no trial, and thus no execution.

It's a complicated game of "what ifs" but it's very striking that if this one seemingly minor character did not exist, then The Stranger could have turned out very differently.

A Quick Kafka Comic

Just a little something to amuse you :D

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ld1pb5q7YJ1qax068o1_500.gif

Raymond-The Creep That Got Away With It

Raymond is such a creepy guy. Let's just face it, he's a total creep. He lives off of women, in more ways than one. He's a pimp, so his job and how he earns a living is based off of women, selling and advertising them more specifically. But the focus goes beyond his job. Raymond had a mistress, a Moorish woman, whom Raymond suspected of cheating and thus decides it's right for him to beat her and make her suffer.

Now let's pause here for a minute. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Raymond's mistress actually did cheat on him. All we have is his word. It could be that Raymond's mistress didn't realize she was "monogamous" or whatever with Raymond, and thought she had more sexual freedom. Or maybe she was actually one of Raymond's women from his job, so she had to be with other men to make a living. Or it could be that she didn't cheat at all, and Raymond just made the whole thing up! I can totally see that happening. Raymond doesn't strike me as a guy who has respect for women, which explains both his job and how he deals with his mistress. I mean, he has this whole plan to lure her back to him with a seductive letter, written by Meursault and not him interestingly enough, only to beat her. He's like an abusive Don Juan. You'd think that after having been hurt the first time around, his mistress wouldn't return to him. You'd think she'd know better. But she doesn't. She returns to Raymond, just as he planned, and the abuse is hard to miss.

What amazes me is how he gets away with it all. First off, Raymond has to have some sort of charisma to not only make Meursault write the letter for him but to make it convincing enough to have his mistress return. I would have to think that Raymond dictates the letter to Meursault to write, though it's not really that clear, because Meursault doesn't strike me as the seducing type, despite his swims with Marie. Then, his words must've been pretty convincing to make his mistress return to him. Then what happens? Raymond beats his mistress up in a public place, with many witnesses, and doesn't suffer for it at all! Once again, Meursault acts as Raymond's "pal" and covers for him with the police, but even the police fall under Raymond's charismatic spell. They take his story about how his mistress was cheating on him as a perfectly good and plausible explanation for the beating. That just really blows my mind. How is infidelity a good reason for abuse? It's so sexist too, because if Raymond's mistress had beaten him up for cheating on her, you can tell that she would be the one off to jail immediately. However, if Raymond says that it was his mistress who was cheating and that's why he beat her, then he gets off without a hitch, and an almost nod to his masculinity from the police. And that's just sickening. What's even more sickening is the fact that this not only happened in the 1940's, but still happens today. But that's a different subject all together.

Moving on to Raymond's finest achievement in the entire novel: getting away with murder.

Ok, ok I know what you're going to say. Raymond didn't actually murder anybody. True, yes, I will agree with you there. But he definitely had a hand in it. He got Meursault involved in his problems with the Arabs, and not just involved by Raymond telling him about the issues, oh no Raymond has Meursault armed and ready to fight the Arabs with him! Meursault doesn't really care about anything, and so Raymond is able to once again charismatically manipulate him into always coming to his rescue and taking his side of the story. Though Raymond did not shoot the Arab, Meursault shot him with Raymond's gun, and in a way was simultaneously ridding Raymond of his problem while also taking the blame for it. The Arab is dead, and Raymond is free to live a happy, womanizing life in the world with no threat of jail time. Meursault gets all the blame, and to me it seems like it's all Raymond's fault. He's an accomplice to the murder, definitely, but once again he gets away with it.