I think maybe where Lee went wrong was seeking knowledge and experience for other people. Several characters state from the very beginning that they don't really know what's up with Lee because he has this smirk, or he won't explain himself, and he's overall very ambiguous. I've always thought that he does everything for the shock value instead of self fulfillment. This may be partially to blame for Lee's naivete and inability to understand any point of view outside of his own.
When he goes to Russia is a double double double (whatever) agent, or at least he wants to be. And, it's not because he believes in one cause or the other, he just likes being important. Can you really have a fulfilling life if all of your accomplishments are based around impressing the rest of the world? This is my problem with Lee, because I don't think you can. I don't see him as his own person, he's more of a tool. It's also why I see him as childish, because mostly children seek the approval of others in this way (they'll do anything to get a reaction and anything to get affirmation )
Friday, May 16, 2014
Being sympathetic
Throughout class discussion people have expressed sympathy for complex characters like Lee and Ferrie, but have gotten annoy with Marguerite and the like. I somewhat understand this point of view, although I do not agree with it. Much of the sympathy that Lee gets is because he doesn't really know what he's getting into. Lee gets played and used and doesn't take responsibility for his actions. While I will admit that he was used, I do not think he is faultless. The phrase "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" comes to mind. Lee is, to put it bluntly (and the way my friends and I see him," a grown a** man. Repeatedly he puts himself into situation where he doesn't consider the repercussions, gets mad when he is penalized and treated like any other person would, and then won't own up to his actions. This is juvenile, it is naive, and it is unfair to those who deal with him. For this reason, I do not particularly sympathize with him. At a certain point everyone must grow up and everyone must learn how to take care of themselves.
Lee's mother is a more sympathetic character I think. At the end she does get a little nonsensical, a little crazy. I don't see that as a reason to find her annoying though. She just lost her son who is now hated by the country, she found out she has a grandchild that was hidden from her, and she doesn't even get the closure of a proper funeral service because everyone hates her son so much. I don't know everyone's family history, or who you love that you've lost, but funerals are not always a logical place. Just personally, I don't expect anyone to behave calmly or keep everything together at funerals. Honestly I don't really think Marguerite is that out of line.
Lee's mother is a more sympathetic character I think. At the end she does get a little nonsensical, a little crazy. I don't see that as a reason to find her annoying though. She just lost her son who is now hated by the country, she found out she has a grandchild that was hidden from her, and she doesn't even get the closure of a proper funeral service because everyone hates her son so much. I don't know everyone's family history, or who you love that you've lost, but funerals are not always a logical place. Just personally, I don't expect anyone to behave calmly or keep everything together at funerals. Honestly I don't really think Marguerite is that out of line.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
One of the main messages I see in Kindred is how the passive forms of harassment and abuse are just as bad as, if not worse than,the obvious and aggressive forms. Throughout the book there are characters that are more aggressive, like Tom and Margaret Weylin, which were not well liked but were at least understood. We can anticipate the actions of obviously prejudiced people because they wholeheartedly believe in their views and have voiced them, and by knowing what reactions we can expect from these characters we worry less about what they're going to do. It is the people that are morally ambiguous and partake in more passive and less regular forms of harassment that we should worry about. These are the people that normalize racist and sexist behaviors and make it less obvious that it's wrong to perpetuate such attitudes.
The passive aggressive prejudices I've found so far in Kindred is not a complete list: guilt tripping and emotional blackmail, and fetishization all three of which are based on sex/race. Rufus is the most obvious example of all three--convincing Dana it's her responsibility as a fellow woman and as a friend to make Alice come to bed quietly and taking absurd interest in Alice beyond the natural growth of a childhood friendship. However, Dana's family also plays on her emotions when she wants to marry Kevin, telling her how betrayed they are and how she owes it to the family to marry an African American. And, not to leave out the example of fetishization, there's Alice's and Kevin's coworker who is constantly talking to them about how they could make interracial porn. Beyond how this is a huge case of sexual harassment in the work place, he also isn't valuing them as a couple or two people who genuinely love each other;he cannot look past their race and how that makes them different.
These three examples are all instances that society has brushed past, even though they are obviously wrong when isolated. It is not right to toy with someone's morality in order to have an easier time raping someone. It is not right to hold inheritance and familial values over a person's head in order to get what you want out of them. It is not right to dismiss the validity of a relationship in favor of inquiring about their sexual activities. Yet, these kinds of situations are for the most part ignored because they are "isolated incidents" and "not everybody is that way"
The passive aggressive prejudices I've found so far in Kindred is not a complete list: guilt tripping and emotional blackmail, and fetishization all three of which are based on sex/race. Rufus is the most obvious example of all three--convincing Dana it's her responsibility as a fellow woman and as a friend to make Alice come to bed quietly and taking absurd interest in Alice beyond the natural growth of a childhood friendship. However, Dana's family also plays on her emotions when she wants to marry Kevin, telling her how betrayed they are and how she owes it to the family to marry an African American. And, not to leave out the example of fetishization, there's Alice's and Kevin's coworker who is constantly talking to them about how they could make interracial porn. Beyond how this is a huge case of sexual harassment in the work place, he also isn't valuing them as a couple or two people who genuinely love each other;he cannot look past their race and how that makes them different.
These three examples are all instances that society has brushed past, even though they are obviously wrong when isolated. It is not right to toy with someone's morality in order to have an easier time raping someone. It is not right to hold inheritance and familial values over a person's head in order to get what you want out of them. It is not right to dismiss the validity of a relationship in favor of inquiring about their sexual activities. Yet, these kinds of situations are for the most part ignored because they are "isolated incidents" and "not everybody is that way"
Extended in Class Arm Comments
So in class we were asked to comment on Dana losing her arm and I wanted to continue my thoughts from my notebook.
The arm presents a weird correlation, is it the arm she lost the one she used to stab Rufus? Maybe she lost that arm because it was the one that finally ended her "job" of keeping Rufus away from death. Every time Dana gets home it's because she fears for her life; I think many of the reasons she has feared are caused by Rufus. While there may not be a direct correlation, like him being the one about to hurt her or doing something so extreme as to drive Dana to suicide, if nothing else we can link her fear of death to being transported back in time in the first place which Rufus causes. My thinking is, if Rufus causes her fear of death, but he's dead, maybe she had to pay an alternative price (a physical one instead of a mental one that could cause trauma).
This theory does read a lot into the writing, but the point was also brought up that she lost her arm from wear Rufus grabbed her, down. It's a really interesting point that I can't believe I overlooked. In his last moments Rufus's clingy-ness and desperation not to be alone took more freedom from Dana. In his own time Rufus was able to steal her agency by emotionally manipulating her and reminding her of their co-dependence-- basically, much of his abuse is mental. However, in the end Rufus's desperation reaches new heights and he finally stoops to truly stealing her physical agency. Yes, he had had her whipped before and beaten, but I believe all of those instances had mental undertones. When he chooses to try to replace Alice with her and grabs her arm as she travels back (which I'm going to assume is the reason she lost it) he stoops to the level he treats the slaves with. He stoops to physical manipulation, which is the last shred of freedom she has in the past.
The arm presents a weird correlation, is it the arm she lost the one she used to stab Rufus? Maybe she lost that arm because it was the one that finally ended her "job" of keeping Rufus away from death. Every time Dana gets home it's because she fears for her life; I think many of the reasons she has feared are caused by Rufus. While there may not be a direct correlation, like him being the one about to hurt her or doing something so extreme as to drive Dana to suicide, if nothing else we can link her fear of death to being transported back in time in the first place which Rufus causes. My thinking is, if Rufus causes her fear of death, but he's dead, maybe she had to pay an alternative price (a physical one instead of a mental one that could cause trauma).
This theory does read a lot into the writing, but the point was also brought up that she lost her arm from wear Rufus grabbed her, down. It's a really interesting point that I can't believe I overlooked. In his last moments Rufus's clingy-ness and desperation not to be alone took more freedom from Dana. In his own time Rufus was able to steal her agency by emotionally manipulating her and reminding her of their co-dependence-- basically, much of his abuse is mental. However, in the end Rufus's desperation reaches new heights and he finally stoops to truly stealing her physical agency. Yes, he had had her whipped before and beaten, but I believe all of those instances had mental undertones. When he chooses to try to replace Alice with her and grabs her arm as she travels back (which I'm going to assume is the reason she lost it) he stoops to the level he treats the slaves with. He stoops to physical manipulation, which is the last shred of freedom she has in the past.
Agency confusion in Kindred
This is a weird way of saying this, but, I think in an odd way, agency is forced on Dana in Kindred. Until she gets her bearings, Dana does not want to cause waves and get noticed. Then after she understands her surroundings, she especially doesn't want to influence her environment. This is her choice; being a passive observer is her original goal. However, as Rufus ages and Dana's trips become longer and more frequent there is really no way for her to remain un-involved, so she is therefore forced to choose work (or she would be whipped) and forced to save her abusive and unstable ancestor ( lest her existence cease to exist.) It's like having the illusion of choice when in actuality there are no real options. Having real options would mean there was a path she could take with a desirable outcome.
Really, the very nature of Dana's trips is involuntary, yet she has to accept her circumstances (does her acceptance mean that they aren't really involuntary?). Maybe her agency is not forced upon her, but certainly decision she would have options for in her own time are ambiguous and have no real options (having to convince Alice to be raped passively, submitting to field work rather than suffering through a whipping).
I guess what I'm trying to ask is, even though there are hardly any positive answers to any of her problems, does the presence of a choice however negative it may be mean that she has agency?
Really, the very nature of Dana's trips is involuntary, yet she has to accept her circumstances (does her acceptance mean that they aren't really involuntary?). Maybe her agency is not forced upon her, but certainly decision she would have options for in her own time are ambiguous and have no real options (having to convince Alice to be raped passively, submitting to field work rather than suffering through a whipping).
I guess what I'm trying to ask is, even though there are hardly any positive answers to any of her problems, does the presence of a choice however negative it may be mean that she has agency?
Friday, March 14, 2014
Trafalmadorian ramblings
In class we've talked bout finding the "beautiful" moments in Slaughterhouse 5 in order to think of it as a Trafalmadorian novel. I think the problem with trying to make it fit this definition is the ambiguity of the term beautiful. One scene that could be considered beautiful is the raspberry sherbet colored snow. The coloration is gorgeous, and we could just stop the scene there instead of reading past the beauty to know the color is from blood (which takes away from the nice image you get from the sherbet). For this reason, I think finding the beautiful or happy moments in Slaughterhouse 5 is a shallow way to read the book. The endearing scenes have a much more lasting impact in my opinion because they contain lessons, so I believe we should focus on the moments that can teach us. This is in direct conflict with the Trafalmadorians though who don't think you can change anything.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, an adaptation of our definition of beautiful/happy needs to change in order to get the most out of this book (if we're reading it as if it's a Trafalmadorian novel). Looking for the pleasant parts leaves out the scenes of compassion and humanity that we can learn from. I've gained the most from scenes like Billy weeping over the horses' pain, where the overwhelming empathy the characters feel reaches you and makes you want to help. This effect of wanting to help fix problems in the world has the potential to be a successful method of stopping wars which could make this a successful anti-war novel.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, an adaptation of our definition of beautiful/happy needs to change in order to get the most out of this book (if we're reading it as if it's a Trafalmadorian novel). Looking for the pleasant parts leaves out the scenes of compassion and humanity that we can learn from. I've gained the most from scenes like Billy weeping over the horses' pain, where the overwhelming empathy the characters feel reaches you and makes you want to help. This effect of wanting to help fix problems in the world has the potential to be a successful method of stopping wars which could make this a successful anti-war novel.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Science Fiction in Slaughterhouse 5
Vonnegut phrases the role of science fiction in the book best saying it is a means of reinvention. It allows Billy to reshape his experiences using time travel, bouncing from moment to moment to only re-experience certain parts of his trauma. Being able to pick and choose (in a way) what moments of a traumatic experience you think about has the potential to leave behind some of the more chilling memories which could do more psychological damage. Billy could possibly be a completely different person to us than he is to the rest of the world because we could be with him after he's 'chosen' less violent memories to hold on to. If this is true, the science fiction element time travel has truly reinvented Billy from a scarred veteran to a person more understanding of his experiences.
Slaughterhouse 5 reinvents parts of us as well. The time travel Vonnegut incorporates makes World War 2 more fictional which in turn makes it easier for us to relate to. If Slaughterhouse 5 were simply another textbook on the the world wars our views on the atrocities would probably not change. But, since the book has the feel of fiction readers can more easily become invested in the outcomes. By pulling us in with the science fiction elements Vonnegut is able to reshape readers views from a black and white belief that the Germans were entirely at fault to the reality that both sides committed atrocities.
Slaughterhouse 5 reinvents parts of us as well. The time travel Vonnegut incorporates makes World War 2 more fictional which in turn makes it easier for us to relate to. If Slaughterhouse 5 were simply another textbook on the the world wars our views on the atrocities would probably not change. But, since the book has the feel of fiction readers can more easily become invested in the outcomes. By pulling us in with the science fiction elements Vonnegut is able to reshape readers views from a black and white belief that the Germans were entirely at fault to the reality that both sides committed atrocities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)