Balancing between American and Indian Cultures

I know that I said in a previous post that my favorite book that we read for this class was Self Help by Lorrie Moore, but now coming up on the end of the semester, I would have to say that my favorite book was Interpreter of Maladies by Jhumpa Lahiri. While I thoroughly enjoyed the second person point of view that Moore used, something about the simplicity of which Lahiri wrote drew me into the stories.

I also felt as though I could relate more to the stories Lahiri wrote. Even though I was born in this country — I even admit that I have never even been to India —  I could relate to the struggle of balancing between American and Indian culture that was presented in some of these stories.

The first story that comes to mind when I think of this struggle is "A Blessed House." In the story, Twinkle finds these Christian posters and statues all over the house. Twinkle wants to put them on display, however Sanjeev doesn't. While I agree with the point brought up in class about how the little statues don't really matter that much, I can see where Sanjeev is coming from. The specific detail that made me sympathize with his point of view was when we were told that it was the first thing that you see when you enter the house.

When I read this, I thought about my own home. If you enter through the main door, you will see two statues of Indian gods, and if you walk through our house, you will see decorations that my parents brought from their hometowns in Africa. A home is a reflection of yourself. I could tell throughout the story that Sanjeev seems more tied to his culture than Twinkle did. One details that really solidified this conclusion was that when Sanjeev goes to introduced Twinkle he uses her real name, Tanima, she immediately tells them to call her Twinkle. I saw this as an attempt for her to separate herself from the Indian culture and become more Americanized. The two seem to be connected to their culture in different ways and because of this I could see why Sanjeev didn't want the statue to be front and center. I can see Sanjeev wanting to stay connected to his roots and his culture.

We never hear Sanjeev's reason for not wanting the statues, posters, etc. around the house. This is my justification for his reasoning. What do you think his reasons were?

Second Person: Díaz vs Moore

When I first opened up "How to Date a Browngirl, Blackgirl, Whitegirl, or Halfie" by Juno Díaz, it instantly brought me back to the last collection of stories that we read from Lorrie Moore. I was instantly excited because I really enjoyed the second person stories that Moore wrote. A major part of Self-Help was the stories written in second person and how they related back to the theme of the book being a "self help" book. I couldn't help but compare they two stories when I was reading the story last night.

I would first like to mention the title. The title starting with "How to .." was the first connection that I made to the stories in Moore's Self-Help. When I first read this I was expecting more of a tutorial, but I was surprised at how similar it was to Moore's style of writing. Both authors do a good job of bring you as a reader along for the ride through the actions of the main character. I struggled to connect to the narrator in this story, but I feel that it was because the actions we centered around a male's perspective while Moore's were centered around a female's perspective.

I have to admit that I felt as though Díaz was covering to many topics at once in this story. With Moore's stories, I felt as though I could follow the story with a bit more ease; and because of that, I could read it as more of a story without acknowledging the advice side of the story which comes with it being a "how to" story. With Díaz though, I felt as though he kept jumping back and forth between the type of girl that he was talking about. As I was reading the story, I wished that he separated the girls up. I thought that they each had the potential to be there own individual story. While I didn't find this totally appealing, I do think that it added to the feeling of it being a "how to" story.

I think that both authors did the second person story very well. Even though I think I do prefer Moore's second person stories, I can appreciate what Díaz did with the story and how he was able to capture what in my eyes was a more accurate depiction of a "how to" story.

Second Person in "Self Help"

After finishing Self Help by Lorrie Moore, I can honestly say that this is probably my favorite collection that we have read so far. One of the things that drew me was the unique writing style Moore possess. I found myself being drawn to stories like "How Be an Other Woman", "How", and "Amahl and the Night Visitors" which were all written in second person. This is one of the few times that I have read a story in the second person and I found myself becoming fascinated with the narration style.

The use of the second person narration allows the author to establish a connection with the reader and to put yourself as a reader into the story. I think that this is an effective tool especially when it comes to the stories that I have mentioned above. There is a common theme dysfunctional relationships in both "How to be an Other Woman" and "How". The use of second person in these two stories allows us as the readers to sympathize with the character and because of that I found myself justifying the actions of the characters. In the case of "Amahl and the Night Visitors", I think that the use of second person allows me as a reader to understand why someone like Trudy would be so distrustful of her husband.

In class today, while discussing the last story in this collection "To Fill", someone made a comment about how Moore chose not to end the collection with a story written in second person. I like others was upset by the fact that this last story wasn't written in second person. One student made the comment that Moore might have written this story in 1st person point of view because of the worry that not many people would relate to the character. By writing this story in second person, the author is urges for the reader to create a connection with the main character. With this story however, there could be a worry that with such a character, people would pull away from the story.

While I agree that writing the story in second person could cause readers to pull away from the story but I think that if we had the opportunity to read the story in second person point of view, we would get a much more intense ending to the story. If the story was written in second person, we as readers would seeing ourselves as Riva in the story. Yes, it would be hard to imaging stealing money and being paranoid throughout the story. I think that is the think that would make Riva more understandable to me. I enjoyed the story overall but I think that it would be interesting to read this story in second person to see what more we could learn about Riva as a character.

Who is the real "Man Child"?

The story "The Man Child" was one that was filled with suspense but it left me with two questions. What prompted Jamie to kill Eric? Who is the real man child in the story, Eric or Jamie?

The entire story starts in the present where Eric is walking through the woods by himself. Then we go into a flashback of 2 months before during Jamie's birthday party where you can tell tension is really being brought to the surface. To answer my first question, I went back through the story and looked at Jamie's actions as well as his reactions. It is clear from the interactions between Jamie and Eric's father that there is some tension between them. Later it becomes apparent that Eric's father bought Jamie's land from him. Throughout the birthday party, we find out that Jamie doesn't have a lot. He doesn't have land he owns anymore and he doesn't have a wife or a family. Maybe Eric was jealous of Eric's father and even Eric to a point. It is clear to Jamie that when Eric's father passes that all of the land, including the land that he feels is rightful his, will be passed down to Eric. To me, I believe that after Jamie hears that Eric's mother loses the baby, he is prompted to strangle Eric because in his mind if he can't have his land than nobody can. I was also thinking that if there is nobody to pass the land down to, Eric's father might have to pass it down to Jamie, giving Jamie his land back and more.

I think both Jamie and Eric are the "man child" in the story. They both encompass different aspects of what a "man child" is. Jamie is a man that acts like a child. Jamie has to be taken care of by Eric's father and mother like he there own child. He is clearly that he doesn't have the life Eric's father has but instead of working towards creating a life like that he acts like a child. He is trying to find a way of making Eric's life his instead of making his own life better. It is possible that Jamie sees himself as a child of Eric's father and that he deserves the land more than Eric does. On the other hand, Eric is a child that acts like a man. He is much more knowledgeable about what is going on around him than a typical kid. He had to grow up before his time and deal with situations that he shouldn't have had to as an eight year old boy.

These are just some of my thoughts about why Jamie did what he did. I wish we were able to hear more about what was going on in Jamie's mind and what prompted him to do this. What are some of your theories about why Jamie killed Eric?

The Laughing Man and The Chief

“The Laughing Man” is one of the stories we get in Nine Stories by J.D. Salinger that is very much a traditional story. In this short story, two stories were really being told. One was about the Chief and his life and the other was the tale of the Laughing Man. One of the things that was unique was the sense of confusion that both of the stories presented. The limited knowledge of the narrator adds to the confusion.

One of the things we are left pondering by the end of the stories is what happens between the Chief and Mary Hudson. A popular belief is that their relationship ended because of Mary’s possible pregnancy, a major hint to this being that Mary is sandwiched between two women with baby carriages at the last baseball game we see her. A few of my personal theories are that Mary is in fact pregnant but is unsure of if it is the Chief’s or the “dentist” that she visits quite frequently and that Mary might be too young to have a baby

Another thing that we are left wondering by the end of the story is why the Chief decided to kill off the Laughing Man. As the story showed, it was possible that the Laughing Man could have survived, the Laughing Man decided to kill himself. For me, this happened because the Laughing Man is a story in which the Chief himself plays a role in deciding the fate of all the characters. Because of this, I think it is clear that the Chief buts himself in the story. I think that when the Chief was going through a hard time with Mary and that the ending of the story is a result of all of the emotions that he was feeling at that moment. I think that the relationship between the Chief and Mary Hudson is similar to the relationship between Black Wing and the Laughing Man. I saw the death of the Laughing Man as a response to the murder of Black Wing as a symbol of what the Chief was feeling when his relationship with Mary Hudson ended.

What do you think? What do you think happened between the Chief and Mary Hudson? Why do you think that the Chief decided to kill the Laughing Man?

Nick Adams' Rite of Passage

After I finished In Our Time by Ernest Hemingway I was desperate for a connection. I felt that while reading the whole book, I was trying to find something that brought the book together as a whole. I knew that there wasn't going to be a obvious connection between all of the stories and chapters in the books but I felt that there was something significant about the Nick Adams stories. Through out the Nick Adams stories in this book, we see Nick change and in a way go through a rite of passage.

As we start the book, the second story we encounter is "Indian Camp." In that story, we see Nick as a young, innocent boy, that is until the end of the story. Even in this story, we see Nick evolve. Some of that innocence is stripped away. Nick starts asking his dad some deep questions about life and death. Even though his dad is responding in short answers as if trying to end the conversation, Nick continues on asking questions and thinking about it even though the conversation is over.

A few chapters later and we see an older Nick. This is a slightly more mature Nick than we have seen before, but he still ends up trouble. Nick is traveling around on the trains until he got kicked off by the brakeman that threw him off but not before giving him a black eye. This for me symbolized that Nick not found himself or a place for himself. It was as if he was traveling to find out who he was, rushing from place to place until he found that. Nick starts talking to Ad Francis and almost ends up in a fight with him, but he is rescued by Bugs who knocks Ad out. To me, this drove home the fact that Nick was still a child and needed protecting. He hasn't really learned how to take care of himself.

Finally in the last two stories, "Big Two-Hearted River Part 1" and  "Big Two-Hearted River Part 2", we see Nick mature and become an adult. He has learned to slow down and enjoy life. He is able to make a nice, though temporary home for himself. He is alone and able to care for himself. He doesn't need anybody there to help him. For the first time we see Nick being able to take care of himself. We have seen Nick goes from a small innocent child to a man capable of taking care of himself without doubting himself.

"I was Nam"

So we all just finished The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien last night and there were a lot of surprising chapters. One of the ones I found the most shocking was “The Ghost Soldiers.” Throughout The Things They Carried, we gained sympathy towards Tim O’Brien but in “The Ghost Soldiers”, we see a different, more cynical side of him that we had yet to see. It is important to note the obvious differences in this story compared to the others in the book. “The Ghost Soldiers” was written in first person, like a few others in this story, but it lacked a metafictional element to it. It also seemed to be focused more on the plot and not on the emotions of the characters which might be typical for a story but not really typical for a story in this book. “The Ghost Soldiers” was one of the few stories in this collection that I wasn’t constantly debating the truthfulness of; but somehow that added to the intensity of it.

O’Brien starts the story with a vignette with a surprisingly positive tone. It seemed as though this was the story we were going to get as we read the book. However, as we read on, we know that this is far from true. We are quickly acquainted with a new more evil side to him. I think this is the point where we really see the war getting to O’Brien in a way we had never seen before. He was so dead set on getting revenge on Bobby Jorgenson that he has a hard time keeping himself in grips with reality. As the chapter goes on, we see him compare himself and Jorgenson — saying that he understands what Jorgenson is going through — but can’t bring himself to stop himself from wanting revenge.

The most notable part of the story for me was,

“I was down there with him, inside him. I was part of the night. I was the land itself—everything, everywhere—the fireflies and paddies, the moon, the midnight rustlings, the cool phosphorescent shimmer of evil—I was atrocity—I was jungle fire, jungle drums—I was the blind stare in the eyes of all those poor, dead, dumbfuck ex-pals of mine—all the pale young corpses, Lee Strunk and Kiowa and Curt Lemon—I was the beast on their lips—I was Nam—the horror, the war.” (199)

O’Brien sees himself as the war. He is so wrapped up in it that the horror of the war is becoming him horror. It was if the war finally won and took over. It fell in line so well with what the rest of the book was trying to represent, only a small part of the war is the fighting itself. The other major part is the way it affects all that were involved. He saw himself as the cruelty the war actually was. He is not though; he showed his true colors by saying, “Enough.” (201)