Bulldog Blog
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Role Playing
Monday, April 9, 2012
Yellow Wallpaper
KINDRED
Octavia Butler incorporates a number of different themes in her novel, Kindred. The idea of time travel, violence, gender roles, slavery, family, and playing certain roles in order to survive all play an important part in making Kindred the brilliant work it was. This book began in a way that allows for suspicion to occur and I thought that was very interesting. We are led to have certain expectations about the characters but we can then only suspend those beliefs because it is not the truth at all. I wasn’t sure if the author had a particular reason for doing this, or if she did it to make the reader aware of the fact that nothing is always as it seems.
One issue that I believe is worth talking about is the observation I made about the characters’ roles. For example, the colored boy Nigel is roughly the same age as Rufus, but he appears to already be aware of how things are going to be for the rest of his life. He knows how he needs to act and what he needs to say to please Mr. Weylin. With this being said he still wants to experience and be apart of things that white folks are granted. Nigel learns to live by Luke’s words: “’Don’t argue with white folks, don’t tell them ‘no.’ Don’t let them see you mad. Just say ‘yes, sir.’ The go ‘head and do what you want to do. Might have to take a whippin’ for it later on, but if you want it bad enough, the whippin’ won’t matter much” (Butler 96). I felt like he much rather do the things he desires and pay for it later rather than living a life full of what-ifs. Later when Nigel asks Dana to teach him to read he proceeds to make it clear he does not care about being beaten. Dana is at first hesitant in agreeing but eventually she breaks and states, “I’ll teach you. I just wanted to be sure you knew what you were getting into” (Butler 98). After she says this Nigel “turned away, lifted his shirt in the back so [Dana] could see his scars. Then he faced [her] again. ‘I know,’ he said” (Butler 98). This response took me back because I wasn’t expecting it. I find it very powering that Nigel is willing to risk his life for something like learning to read. To think that this is something we take advantage of and don’t fully appreciate makes me feel guilty for overlooking the severity of how slavery was enforced. They yearned for something as simple as spelling a word or reading a sentence and do we even think twice about how easily it comes to us?
The roles being played by Dana and Kevin are also important to this novel. The role as slave and slave master was necessary for both of them to survive. But have any events led you to believe otherwise? One in particular that made me question whether it was still a role or a new way of life was the little argument between Dana Kevin after witnessing the auction the kids were holding. It affected her more than Kevin and this didn’t sit well with her. He claims “’It has already happened. We’re in the middle of history. We surely can’t change it. If anything goes wrong, we might have all we can do just to survive” (Butler 100). I feel like Kevin’s main concern is getting Dana and himself back to the present safely. This is great, but has he somewhat become accustomed to his life on the plantation? For some reason when I read the line “’I see Weylin was right about educated slaves,’” spoken by Kevin, I read it as a negative remark. (101) I thought he was in agreement that slaves should not be taught to read because it gives them too much power but once I continued to read I do not believe that is at all how he meant it. He is rather encouraging her to teach him rather than deny him the privilege.
Kindred
I just don't understand the hatred towards someone else because of their looks. I understand disliking someone because they did something bad and unspeakable but condemning a whole race because their skin is black instead of white is a little absurd. But it happened. Even now there are the color lines and separations among people because they are different.
The doubling for Alice and Dana was also interesting. If Rufus loved Dana like he loved Alice, why didn't he try to sleep with her too? Rufus says, '"You were one woman. You and her one woman. One woman, two halves of a whole." (257)
While I was reading I kept trying to imagine that what if this were me. Would I adapt and play the role? Would I have such a close relationship with Rufus, even though he hit me and made me work in the fields?
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
No Named Woman
The story of “No Name Woman” by Maxine Kingston is one full of ambiguity from beginning to end. The narrator tells the story with different scenarios and possible situations for the purpose of getting the audience to question the facts given. When I first read this shorts story I couldn’t quite understand why the narrator was telling the story about her aunt, especially when the first line in directly states that she “Must not tell anyone what [her mother was] about to tell [her]” (Kingston 3). It wasn’t until our class discussion that I realized the narrator was trying to put the pieces together and determine what kind of person her aunt really was, despite the rumors of her throughout the village.
The first scenario somewhat plays the aunt as the victim. We are led to believe that a man in the village repeatedly rapes her. As the beginning of the story progresses we are immediately introduced to the raid that took place destroying everything in the house of the “No Name Woman.” Later we are told that the man who is said to rape her also threatens to kill her if she tells anyone. When she claims, “’I think I’m pregnant.’ He organized the raid against her” (Kingston 7). We see here she can possibly be viewed as the victim. Once the village assumes she must be sleeping around, since her husband has been gone for years, her name is ruined, she is tainted, and she is put to shame. But was she really raped? Was there absolutely no way it could have been her husbands’ child? Even though as a reader this is the information we are given the full truth is still uncertain. The narrator is giving us insight based on information from her mother, which could in fact be biased because tells her own daughter, “What happened to her could happen to you. Don’t humiliate us” (Kingston 5).
This leads me to another topic we discussed in class when Ronald brought up the idea about this story being ironic. Ironic in the sense that the “No Name Woman” was being punished when she was the one who was raped when it should have been the other way around. When you first read the story the situation could easily appear to be ironic because the victim is punished instead of the perpetrator. But when we started discussing the possibility of this in class a bigger issue came up. I thought it was really interesting when we came to the conclusion that this part of the story isn’t really ironic at all because it happens in our society today. Women are demonized by our culture and are, more often times than not, too afraid to speak up if they are victims of abuse.
Although as readers we don’t know which version of the story to believe, but the third version is the one I choose to believe. The “No Name Woman” committed her last act of love. “Carrying the baby to the well shows loving. Otherwise abandon it…Mothers who love their children take them along” (Kingston 15). This I strongly agree with. As the mother she knew that her baby was already deemed to be nothing and a no one. Instead she believed it was her “devotion,” “responsibility,” and ultimate “protection” to take her daughter to die with her. Ultimately we do not know the truth of the story in it’s entirety but the outright defiance from the narrator herself proves she is trying to find her own truth and guidance for who she should be.