mildly disorganized thoughts on the shed scene

As we discussed in class, it’s quite interesting that arguably the most important scene in Beloved is told from the perspective of a character who isn’t present for most of the book. While this choice and this scene in general is intriguing for a number of reasons, what stood out to me personally is the fact that so much of the language has to do with animals. The first three pages of this chapter are written with a some kind of a reference to an animal in most of the paragraphs.

This language sets up a (blatantly obvious, yet ever disturbing) dynamic for the chapter: the “four white horsemen” are hunters, seeking out “Negroes” who are viewed as equivalent to animals to be hunted down, and even worse, damaged property. The chapter is told in this “hunter vs. hunted” dynamic, and to the hunter, Sethe killing her first daughter, is just a failed hunt.

This dynamic also puts the reader in a position where they would expect Sethe to act animalistically, because the reader is in the head of white men who see Sethe as an animal and expect her to act as such. The context of the chapter lends to a reader who is somewhat more cynical of Sethe than a reader who just read a chapter that talks about Sethe at Sweet Home. This complicates the story for the reader because up until this point it is still possible for the reader to be completely sympathetic towards Sethe, but this chapter certainly challenges what  sympathy the reader has left. To demonstrate this effect, we can look at Paul D, who is portrayed as a kind, empathetic character (especially towards Sethe) that leaves Sethe as soon as he comes to terms with the fact that the story he heard of her murder is true.

Entering the minds of the four white horsemen allows us to take a look at exactly the mentality that runs the world that Sethe is running away from. From the moment Sethe overhears Schoolteacher’s nephews discussing “human characteristic” and “animal characteristics” of the slaves, she is scarred. These men have treated Sethe beyond horribly and don’t even think of her as a human being, which is clearly laid out in how they think of her in this chapter, as if it hasn’t been clear enough in Sethe’s “rememories” of Sweet Home. This is what Sethe feels she can’t possibly let herself, or any part of her family, return to.

As someone mentioned in class, tPaul D’s later comment that Sethe has “two legs not four” so hurtful because it plays into the mindset of the people and situation she (Sethe) has been trying to escape. Paul D seems to enter the mentality that the horsemen share, which puts him in a different world from Sethe, and a “forest” springs up between them.

Why the world of The White Boy Shuffle feels real to me

Why the world of The White Boy Shuffle feels real to me

In class we discussed the prospect of prospect of reality in The White Boy Shuffle, and I personally felt like this book is consistently realistic, even though some aspects are certainly outlandish once looked upon closely. Maybe this is because I can’t believe parts of my own life are real when I look back on them, even though I definitely lived through them, but I think there is more that supports this idea.

So I don’t think Beatty created a new type of world in this novel, it feels like he just chose to emphasize different parts of the same world we live in.

One of these reasons is that some parts of the book stand out as feeling extremely real. It’s certainly true that this novel hits on some pretty hard subjects. Some of the subject matter that the characters interact with is very heavy and very real. For example, racism and bigotry in general are pertinent forces throughout the book, but there are also more specific examples like the LA Riots and what it means to be black and good at basketball in high school. I think this book shows that the world we live in is full of both things that are real and heavy, and things that seem totally ridiculous, and often times these two types of things are connected and/or the same.

In contrast and conjunction with the stark realism present in this book, the tone and style of the narrator makes events and ideas seem more exaggerated. Beatty tells this story through Gunnar who has a strong sense of typically sarcastic humor that changes the way the story is told. This can be seen in the very first line of the novel. “Unlike the typical bluesy earthy folksy denim-overalls noble-in-the-face-of-cracker-racism aw shucks Pulitzer-Prize-winning protagonist mojo black man, I am not the seventh son of a seventh son.” However despite this unique voice, there is never a point in the novel at which the reader does not trust the narrator. This means that however bizarre the narrator’s statement is, the reader trusts it. I believe that this shows that the novel is realistic because otherwise the reader wouldn’t be able to digest it so easily.

The Gun Totin’ Hooligans exemplify this dynamic between stark realism and exaggerated quirkiness throughout the book. One example of this phenomenon can be observed through the depiction (and really existence) of the Gun Totin’ Hooligans. Gang violence is a serious and heavy issue, and the seriousness of it is not ignored in this novel. Psycho Loco kills multiple people in the book, and all of the members of the gang struggle with their realities in the book. For example, Psycho Loco at one point in the book can be found crying in front of Gunnar’s shower. This also shows the vulnerability of gang member in this book. While vulnerability isn’t a trait classically associated with those who partake in gang violence, it is an important part of the Gun Totin’ Hooligans. This aspect of the gang is realistic because members of gangs are real people and possess vulnerability just the same as any other real person. Psycho Loco’s gang is also fairly cartoonish in their methods, and much more feminine than your typical gang for several reasons we discussed in class. While these aspects may not be traditional to street gang culture, I don’t think that they are completely unbelievable because Beatty is already showcasing a less represented side of gang life. I think that this representation may come off as strange to anyone who is expecting Gunnar to join the kind of street gang the media promotes, but that shouldn’t make it any less realistic.

"Feminism" in Their Eyes Were Watching God

There is no evidence anywhere that Zora Neale Hurston purposefully wrote Their Eyes Were Watching God to be a feminist novel. From what I understand, Hurston wrote this novel about a black woman in the south simply to tell her story. The book reflects both Hurston’s sociological research in the south, as well as aspects of her own life that she experienced first-hand. Hurston wrote this book to share a folk-like tale about Janie, not just use her as a prop in a protest novel. I feel like some people are making the same argument about this book as Richard Wright, but with a feminist focus rather than a civil rights focus. By this I mean that people are saying that Hurston’s novel isn’t “feminist enough,” regardless of the fact that it is very unlikely that it was written as a feminist book. However, even though I acknowledge that this book might not be purposefully trying to suggest anything about what a woman “should” be, I think it it is interesting to think about in light of feminism.

I see Janie herself is a feminist character, but I do not see Their Eyes Were Watching God as a feminist book. Janie is the heroine of her story and often seen as a feminist icon, as she should be. She is strong, makes her own decisions, and is only 16 years old when her journey begins. Janie knows what she wants, even as a young girl who is predestined to follow the path of marrying up like her grandmother wants her to. Although she does marry Logan like she is supposed to, she has the agency and courage to take the exit and marry Joe. However, Janie doesn’t take no for an answer, and finally ends up marrying Teacake to achieve the more natural version of love she had set out to find when she was younger. In addition, she owns herself and her actions when she is telling her friend Pheoby her story.

Although Janie is an independently thinking being, we cannot say that men do not play a substantial role in the novel and in Janie’s development both as a character and as a person. Men help Janie discover her destiny. Although she is alone in her sweet melancholia at the resolution of the book, she wouldn’t have been able to get to that point without the men she encountered previously, especially Teacake. She would not be able to find her fulfillment if it wasn’t for Teacake who allowed her the opportunity to live as part of a group she was not a part of before. I don’t believe that is entirely Janie’s fault, because Janie did not go out searching for love. Instead, she was searching for a better way of living. Janie is a character who loves socializing, talking to people, and having a good time. Rather, I believe that the fact she needed men in order to find her serenity is the fault of the world she lives in, which can otherwise be thought of as the book as a whole. If it was up to Janie, she would very likely choose her own fate it she could, because she has so much agency throughout the book. But she can’t do that because the book necessitates a love story in order for herself to be fulfilled. Although Janie makes her own decisions about how she wants her life to go, it is the men provide the movement in the book. This is also evident because the book focusing on Janie when she is with a man, rather than by herself. For example there is a small number of pages compared to how much time has passes when Janie is widowed and working at the store in Eatonville. The periods of her life are marked by the different men she is with. This makes sense because she is living a different place with each man, so her life is drastically different with each one, but nonetheless it is her life only is different in each case because of the man she is with. Through these different adventures, the men drive the plot of the book, even though Janie herself is a “feminist” heroine.

Dialect in Their Eyes Were Watching God

The characters in Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God use very flowery and complex language while speaking. They also speak in a dialect very similar to, if not the same as African American Vernacular English (AAVE). This is an interesting phenomenon because commonly in literature when characters speak AAVE or another dialect typically associated with a lower socioeconomic status, these characters are depicted poorly. For example, in Native Son, Bigger says things like “yessuh” instead of “yes sir” and is not depicted particularly intelligently. There are better examples out there where the character(s) solely speak in AAVE, speak more often, and are more explicitly depicted more negatively. Besides books, several TV shows and movies are among the abundance of examples of this all-too-common phenomenon.

At first it is unclear to the reader whether or not Hurston is painting her characters in a positive light. The fact that they are speaking in what is often called “broken English” seems negative upon a surface-level reading. (This English would be considered broken by some people because it does not obey laws of vocabulary, pronounciation/spelling, and grammar that are widely accepted as proper.) The fact that how Hurston's characters speak strays from what is accepted as the formal, respectable, and correct way of speaking can initially imply that the characters that speak this way are none of these things.

However, it is clear upon a close reading that the way these characters talk has very little to do with their intelligence. In fact, Hurston elevates her characters rather than demeans them by having them speak in this way. In the particular dialect that Hurston illustrates, simple images or concepts are frequently replaced with witty, clever metaphors and similes. For example, someone in the first chapter declares, “‘taint no use in tryin’ to cloak no ole woman lak Janie Starks” (3). While the example is nowhere near the most obscure in the book, or even in the chapter, it demonstrates how dialect-style spelling and phrasing are used in tandem with inventive metaphors. This figurative language is most likely initially difficult to Hurston’s average reader, but it is spoken naturally and understood easily by her characters. For example, we wouldn’t write “I” as “Ah” and therefore might take an extra second to recognize it, but that is how it would be identified by the characters in the book. In order to speak in such metaphorical terms all the time, these characters must be quick-thinking and creative. It also requires for the characters to be able to understand their language on a figurative level, which is a whole nother additional level that we are used to nonchalantly speaking in. Take the phrase “you switches a mean fanny round in a kitchen,” for instance (5). The words “switches,” “mean,” “fanny,” and “round”  all have different meanings in this sentence then they do when we first think of them. All of the characters in the book have storytelling voices that, like Hurston’s, appeal to a particularly strong sense of imagery and emotion. The sentence “An envious heart makes a treacherous ear” (5), gracefully gives the idea being explained a certain level of detail that couldn’t be achieved with more direct language. There are other sentences with figurative language in the book that evoke emotion as well.

I am writing this blog post very early on in the novel, and quite curious as to how the dynamic between how the characters speak, and how they are depicted continues throughout the book. I wonder if the characters will still be depicted in a generally positive light, and whether or not we will come across any characters

thoughts on Invisibility and Police Brutality (Invisible Man)

.

Throughout invisible man, there are sections that seem surreal and dreamlike. In fact, a majority of the time it feels like the narrator is dreaming. However there is one scene in particular that stood out to me as feeling very real, almost too real. This would be the scene that Clifton gets shot. This scene feels so real because it feels like it could have happened just yesterday.

When I first read this scene it was very easy for me to imagine this vendor on the street, maybe not selling racist dolls, but Clifton’s calls and catch phrases sound like something you could still hear in New York today. The paragraph that stood out to me the most reads, “I could see the cop push Clifton again, stepping solidly forward in his black shirt, his arm shooting out stiffly, sending him in a head-snapping forward stumble until he caught himself, saying something over his shoulder again, the two moving in a kind of march that I’d seen many times, but never with anyone like Clifton.” It continues discussing in detail describing the movements of Clifton and the cop that sound just like motions in cases like Eric Garner, who was killed in 2014, and so many other recent cases. It is so typical in our society that it’s not usually publicized. Clifton’s arrest was for vending without a permit, and he was on his knees when he was shot. Today, black people still are shot by policemen regularly for trivial offenses. Unfortunately, this kind of abuse happens all time, which makes this scene feel eerily familiar and realistic.

Police brutality is all over the media right now, which makes Clifton’s death hit closer to home for the modern reader than more surreal scenes. This scene and the few that follow that handle the aftermath of his death are unsettling to the narrator, as well as the reader, because of how easily the Brotherhood and the police brush off Clifton’s death. When the narrator attempts to approach the cop who shot Clifton, he gets shooed away.

Possibly the most epitomizing line of the narrator’s speech at Clifton’s funeral is “His name was Clifton and he was black and they shot him.” The narrator attributes Clifton’s death to racism, specifically. The narrator repeats Clifton’s name, saying things like “His name was Clifton, Tod Clifton,” several times, his name which the Brotherhood tries to strip him of. Clifton’s name can be seen as a direct representation of his identity, that is struggling to stay visible. This reminded me of the protests after Trayvon Martin’s death, and several other Black Lives Matter protests particularly directly after shootings. From what I have seen, the victims’ names are a prominent part of these protests on signs, in pictures, and vocally. I was reminded of these protests while reading these chapters because both seemed to be trying to get rid of a certain anonymity or invisibility for victims of police brutality that would typically be brushed aside and forgotten immediately by drawing attention to them.

Identity vs. Freedom (Invisible Man)

In chapter 11, the narrator says “when I discover who I am I’ll be free.” But if the prologue is any indication of the narrator at the end of the book, he just becomes more invisible. He certainly seems to feel more free, but he explicitly says that “people refuse to see [him],” meaning that he has no meaning to other people and therefore no identity.

On the contrary, identity is very important to other characters in the book. Bledsoe has spent his whole life working to create his identity, and has one of the most prestigious identities in the book. His identity is so potent, that he is trapped inside of it. Bledsoe has little to no freedom because he must adhere to the expectations of his identity. The paint mixer has a very definite role and identity to everyone who works in the paint shop, but he in the lowest basement.

The more the narrator tries to get somewhere in the world by following the rules, to be someone and create an identity for himself, the less free he is. In the beginning of the book he allows himself to be tossed around, and all aspects of his life are determined by people other than himself. This is literally symbolized in the battle royale scene where other people are pushing him from one thing to the next, purely for their own benefit.

The vet has a very little identity. We don’t know much about how he got to where he is now, but he is able to say nearly whatever he wants, whenever he wants to. He has freedom of speech and little consequence if he acts out, and is essentially free.

When the narrator is “reborn” in chapter 11, he realizes his identity is essential to his freedom, at least subconsciously.  After his identity is literally zapped out of his brain and he can’t remember who he is anymore, he is free in that he stops following the rules like he did in the beginning of the book. Instead of total compliance like in the battle royale, the narrator plays games with the doctor in the hospital, and dumps a spittoon on the leader of the men’s house. The freest the narrator has even been is when he has completely lost his identity, which shows that freedom in this book comes from a lack of identity.

Native Son blogpost

There is no doubt that Native Son is filled with a feeling of inevitable doom, as if Bigger is cornered. From the very first scene of the novel. While the reader is not yet aware of it, the rat in Bigger’s home that he entraps and murders is a paradigm for his life in the rest of the book. At the very least, it certainly set the tone of inevitable tragedy. These occurrences that hint of tragedy continue throughout the novel. Later in the beginning of the book, Bigger sees a poster of Buckley has “You Can’t Win” printed on it. Bigger feels as if the eyes on this poster follow him as he moves, much like the reader feels a sense of doom follow them throughout the book. Every choice is the wrong choice is the wrong choice for Bigger; they all lead to a disastrous fate. He tries to pick the benevolent job over joining the local gang heist, but still ends up getting in the same amount (if not more) trouble.

There is no right choice because everything eventually leads to execution. There is something very ironic about this fact. Whenever Bigger tries to do the “right” thing, it ends up going poorly for him. For example, he puts the pillow over Mary’s face to keep her quiet and to keep them both from getting in trouble, but ends up murdering her which is much more problematic. Also earlier in the novel with the gang, he did the “right” thing by saying he didn’t want to kill anyone, even though he ended up doing just that anyway, twice. Not to mention that during both of the murders he carried out, he had a gun in his pocket that he almost never touched. Similarly, Bigger is working with relatively a very liberal white family, which one would think would be beneficial for him as a black man, but ultimately only muddles him. Mary and Jan try to befriend Bigger but in turn they are ignorantly being more racist.

Bigger is set up as a very logical character. To the reader, he seems to always do the only, right thing in his situation, however ironic it may be. So in the reader’s mind, there is no doubt that Bigger’s circumstances are due to something greater than Bigger himself. The impending doom that fills this novel symbolizes how the system of white supremacy is set up to doom even very logical people like Bigger. This shows that Bigger is entirely a product of his environment, because he is set up to be a fairly benevolent person but his circumstances cause him to commit terrible crimes. This idea that Bigger is forced to react this way because of his environment follows the naturalist worldview. This novel serves as an example of situations for people to see how white supremacy imposes upon black men.