Father Roles in Song of Solomon

Throughout Song of Solomon, we see Milkman struggle to understand what it means to be a Dead. We see Milkman go on a hero’s journey to find gold. However, he finds out more about what it means to be part of a greater dynamic than himself.

First, I think it is interesting to look at how Macon Jr. treats Milkman. As we find out from Milkman’s journey, Macon Jr. grew up on a farm, with humble means in a small town in Pennsylvania. Macon I moved there presumably after being freed from slavery, and all he wanted to do was acquire land, a relatively sensible idea given the situation Macon I came from. In many ways, the bond between father and son is a unique one. The father tries his best to learn from mistakes that his father made while still keeping the positive aspects of his parenting. For example, Macon I acquired lots of land for his family. However, he did not acquire the land to be greedy or malicious, I believe he acquired it to provide opportunity to his family, something that he did not have before. He worked with his son (Macon Jr.) in the fields, again as a way of instilling drive and work ethic. Unfortunately, Macon I died when Macon Jr. was young, and he ultimately lost the father figure in his life. When Macon Jr, however, decided to have kids, we see the same aspirational narrative brought forth. We see Macon Jr. bring his son to work from a very young age, allowing Milkman to work alongside his father. Macon Jr. buys lavish things in his life because of the values his father instilled in him. He also tries to set an example for his children by exposing them to this extravagant lifestyle, in hopes

However, it takes a certain level of maturity for Milkman to fully understand what his father is doing. He only begins to understand the reasoning behind his father’s actions when he visits where his father grew up. By going to Pennsylvania he may not find the gold he desired. However, he ultimately found something far greater.

3 Questions in Wide Sargasso Sea

In the wonderful literary novel, Wide Sargasso Sea, we meander through the protagonist’s (Antoinette) life in various stages. Much is to be said about Antoinette’s life, including examining her relationships with other main characters in the story. I wanted to address some interesting thoughts and questions I had while reading the book.

Question #1: Who is the largest antagonist in the story?
I think this is one of the more interesting questions. Given the vague standard character definitions (is Antoinette even the protagonist?), this question becomes even more confusing. Say Antoinette is the protagonist, is the antagonist Rochester for how he treats her? This is perhaps the most straightforward and concrete answer. He did in fact lock Antoinette in an attic. However, are the white creoles in general more antagonistic? I think if you believe Antoinette is simply the victim of societal rifts, this argument makes sense as well. Is it specifically Mr. Cosway?, Annette?, Christophine? The list goes on and on.

Question #2: How do we effectively understand the race/class divides presented by Rhys in the book?
I think this question is touchy and difficult to understand. Nevertheless, I will try to answer it. With the introduction of Rochester into the story, the book becomes a “skepticism triangle” with the white creoles, the ex-slaves, and the English colonists. Obviously there is a huge rift between the white creoles and the ex-slaves, given the history of both groups from before Antoinette’s time. We see this manifest between Antoinette and Tia, who both serve as symbols for their respective cultural groups. We see Rochester (the symbol of white colonization) resent both the ex-slaves and the creoles. The result of this jumbled mess ultimately leads to the strife at the end of the book, and results in a tragic ending for Antoinette. It is almost as if Antoinette is stuck in the middle of the triangle, constantly trying to gravitate toward one side but always getting pushed back towards the middle. 

Question #3: How the heck did John Duigan believe this was some sort of tropical romance novel?
Mr. Mitchell discussed in class the 1993 movie representation of Wide Sargasso Sea. I briefly perused through Rogerebert.com and found the correct rendition. After looking at the comments from the director about arguing with (located on Wikipedia.com), I am baffled why somebody chose to hire Mr. Duigan as a director. Not only did he desecrate the book, he also created a steamy tropical romance that quite frankly didn’t resonate with viewers.  Remarkably, the movie received a 57% rotten tomato score, and I’d be willing to bet a majority of those who read the book were not fond of the way it was portrayed. Fortunately, the 2006 version was significantly more accurate to the book.

Overall, I thought Wide Sargasso Sea has been one of the more interesting books we've read this year. If anybody agrees/disagrees with anything stated above, feel free to comment on the post below!

Trying to Understand the Deeper Messages in The Stranger

In Albert Camus’ The Stranger, we follow Meursault around “modern” (circa 1940’s) Algeria. Meursault was a fairly pedestrian man, ultimately getting lured in by a “bad man” Raymond, and committing a terrible crime. However, rather than discuss merely the plot, I would like to discuss the author, the storyline he created, and trying to frame the story in a larger context.

            In class, Mr. Mitchell discussed how Camus served in the resistance movement in World War II. My initial thought about the book is that it would provide some sort of commentary on the intricate politics of the war. More specifically, I figured Meursault would symbolize the people of France. Throughout Part 1, it was very easy to spot parallels between European politics and the storyline. For example, if you perceive Meursault as a symbol of the people one could perceive Meursault’s mother’s death as the symbol of Nazi Germany “killing” countries (a good example is Poland). In addition, I saw a parallel between Nazi Germany and Raymond. Both try to influence the innocent bystanders (in this case Meursault and the French people) and ultimately lead the innocent to commit unthinkable crimes.

However, Part 2 is drastically different. We see the “innocent” get put on trial for their actions. Camus frames Meursault as committing a crime without fully understanding a “rational” reasoning behind it (eg. revenge killing). Within the Nazi Empire, we saw some ordinary people committing crimes they otherwise wouldn’t commit for no explicable reason. In this way, Camus is symbolizing the eventual trial of these people (as this book was written in 1942) in the court of public opinion, similar to the way Meursault is put on trial.

            In final, I believe Camus was trying to send 2 different messages to the people of France. The first was trying to send a “wake up call” to those who may have been joining the Nazi cause to stop for a moment and think about the implications of their actions. The second was a message to those who were impartial. He was trying to say that taking no sides (similar to how Meursault goes along with Raymond's plan while trying to remain neutral) ultimately makes the impartial just as guilty as those who are actually guilty. Obviously there are various different way to perceive Camus’ message in this story. Let me know what you think in the comments below. 

What Does It Mean to be Human Anyway?

Recently, we started (and finished) the short story The Metamorphosis. The early 20^th century novella does a fantastic job of capturing the true nature of humanity. When Gregor awakes as a bug, he literally transforms into something different than himself. However, what he transforms into is extremely important. He transforms into a bug, and not an inanimate object incapable of communication. This is important because it allows Gregor to overcome the metaphorical wall of communication between him and his family. However, we see throughout the novella that this simply does not occur. We do find that he maintains human consciousness, which presents an interesting question. At what point does Gregor lose his humanity? Is it when he turns into a bug himself? I disagree with that conclusion because we see that he still has coherent thoughts even while he is in bug form. Is it when he is unable to communicate? Again, I also disagree because he is still able to use nontraditional forms of communication. Rather the family doesn’t really attempt to communicate with Gregor. Is it when the family takes all the “human” objects out of Gregor's room? In this case, I believe yes. The removal of Gregor’s human objects in my view symbolizes the completeness of his transformation from human to bug. It is then, at that point, the family has lost hope for Gregor.

If we read the subliminal messages in Gregor’s actions, Gregor too knows he is permanently lost. I believe he died because he simply had nothing left to live for. His family appeared to be functioning just as well as (or even better than) before. He only seemed to provide economic support, and even that was well taken care of. At that point, Gregor realized he was causing more problems than he was solving. With a heavy heart, he took his last breath. It was only then that the burden of caring for Gregor that was placed on the family was lifted, and the family could finally be free.

.

Examining Hemingway's Psychological State

            Recently, we read the book The Sun Also Rises. This Earnest Hemingway book challenges modern (read:20^th century) ideas in a complex way. The 1920’s was a liberated, yet sobered time. As society’s grasp on reality decreased, the amount of booze consumed skyrocketed. In the setting of the story, Paris, this culture is even more prevalent. As we follow the pragmatic narrator of the story, Jake, around Paris, an interesting character development arises.

            To start, Hemingway created a plot line with characters very different than what people traditionally accepted at the time. Traditionally, stories had domineering male figures and simple women’s characters. However, this book has a strong female character, Lady Brett, and weak male characters (such as Jake). The “gender switcharoo” is peculiar, as Hemingway tried to play the role of “manly man” throughout his adult life. Given what we know about Jake and what we know about Hemingway, the puzzling thing to me is why Hemingway would portray a character similar to himself in such a negative light. Given what we know about Hemingway, basing Brett off his mother subconsciously, it would be a rational conclusion to assume that he also subconsciously made Jake similar to himself. This makes the situation even more confusing. If Hemingway is providing negative commentary on himself through Jake, why continue the “tough guy” persona if subconsciously Hemingway knows it leads Jake to so many issues? Is the “tough guy” persona just a front, similar to the way Samuel Clemens uses Mark Twain?

            I think to answer these questions, one must dive even further into Hemingway’s personal life. Hemingway himself was injured in the war, and when asked about his injuries, he provided a terse statement that his condition was “fine”. His defensive reaction reveals an emotional wound which left a scar resembling a Napoleonic complex. The parallels are remarkably similar. Both Napoleon and Hemingway had emotional damage from something they could not control, ultimately leading to hyper-masculinity. It is easy to see where Hemingway (and Jake) get their sense of superiority and intense masculinity from. However, one key connection is still missing. Hemingway’s inability to see the plight of his actions after writing essentially about himself still remains a mystery. Perhaps Hemingway’s twisted view of himself ultimately led to him supposedly committing suicide in 1961. Regardless, debates about Hemingway’s psychological state will continue for years to come.