Shakespeare's Sonnet 138

SONNET 138

When my love swears that she is made of truth
I do believe her, though I know she lies,
That she might think me some untutor'd youth,
Unlearned in the world's false subtleties.
Thus vainly thinking that she thinks me young,
Although she knows my days are past the best,
Simply I credit her false speaking tongue:
On both sides thus is simple truth suppress'd.
But wherefore says she not she is unjust?
And wherefore say not I that I am old?
O, love's best habit is in seeming trust,
And age in love loves not to have years told:
Therefore I lie with her and she with me,
And in our faults by lies we flatter'd be.

This poem has a speaker who says he knows his love is lying to him but he believes her anyway. Or at least he pretends to believe her so she will think he is young and naive and not as old as he really is. And she apparently pretends to believe this of him, although she knows he is not young. Both parties know the other is lying, and they also know the other knows of both sets of falsehoods. They tolerate each other's lies because they wish to have their own lies tolerated. So that's what they do and are flattered and seemingly happy with the situation. This is just another good example of why people tell lies, and how we can accept lies as truth even when we know they're not. People choose to believe what they will, for whatever reasons they will. Our truth is what we choose it to be, just like the two lovers in this poem. Our own versions of the truth do not depend on actual factuality necessarily; sometimes we all choose to believe something different. It may be because we need to, like in Life of Pi, or it may be for far less noble reasons, like in this sonnet where it's born of vanity and ego and a desire to be flattered. For whatever reasons, we all choose what "truth" we will believe.

Emily Dickenson's Tell All the Truth

Tell all the truth but tell it slant, Success in circuit lies, Too bright for our infirm delight The truth's superb surprise; As lightning to the children eased With explanation kind, The truth must dazzle gradually Or every man be blind. This is a very short poem, but it states quite succinctly the sort of ideas we have been discussing in class. Dickenson says one should tell all the truth, but tell it slant. So she's saying that a person can actually tell the "truth" while not exactly telling the entire facts. She goes on to say why it's okay to do that--that the truth can be too bright a surprise for people, that the truth must be eased into kindly and gently or else it would overwhelm us all. I like how she compares it to explaining lightning to children. That's something that could easily frighten a child a lot, much like the truth can frighten any one of us. But then she says it "dazzles", and I love that too--the truth as something that can enlighten us, impress us, inspire us. Dickenson knows that's something we have to come to gradually. I like this take on why the truth can be slanted; for such a short poem it has quite a message, even though it's presented subtly.

Memories

This semester we discussed memory, truth, and lies, during every meeting. Lucille Clifton’s poem relates well with our topics. In our four books we are constantly reminded that the authors were lying to us, but we were given the choice to choose which version we like better. Clifton’s poem does not tell us if her memories are lies or if “their” memories are lies but it shows the controversy between author and reader. She is choosing her memories rather than “theirs”, just like how Martel gave us the opportunity to believe the “better story” or how O’Brien gave us “story-truth”. During an interview, Clifton tells her readers that she wrote this poem because her and her sister had been discussing childhood memories for a book, but it was difficult to pinpoint all the details. This relates to the way Briony believed her story but did not know all of the details. The lacks of lines symbolize the lack of details she has in her actual memories, still she chooses to believe them. “Why Some People Be Mad at Me Sometimes” basically just wrapped up our class in four lines.

Final Exam, etc.

By way of clarification, the final exam is not on May 5. There is an error on the assignment schedule (thanks to Jessica and Margie for pointing this out). The final exam is on May 3 (next Tuesday), from 10:30 AM to 12:30 PM. This is obviously earlier than we usually meet, so please make arrangements to be there. I will discuss the final exam with you when I see you on Thursday so that you will know what to expect.

I also mentioned the possibility of making up some blogs. For every one of the following poems, stories, or films you read/watch and post a response to, I will make up one missed blog. (I'm putting you on your honor here. If you have already seen one of these films you will need to watch it again in order to post about it.) The responses should be of (at least) normal length, and they should discuss how these works fit in with what we have already read this semester. What themes are the same? How are they treated similarly or differently? What new insight do they offer into the questions we have been asking?

Poems:
1. Philip Levine: "The Simple Truth"
2. Lucille Clifton: "Why Some People Be Mad at Me Sometimes"
3. Emily Dickinson: "Tell All the Truth"
4. Robert Penn Warren: "A Way to Love God"
5. William Shakespeare: Sonnet 138
6. Edward Thomas: "Old Man"

Stories:
1. John Cheever: "The Swimmer"
2. Charlotte Perkins Gilman: "The Yellow Wallpaper"
3. John Updike: "A&P"

Films:
1. Memento
2. Fight Club
3. Big Fish
4. The Usual Suspects
5. The Neverending Story

Self-Forgiveness

Briony is able to atone for her actions, in her mind, by forgiving herself. She says she wanted to give Cecilia and Robbie the happy life they deserved. She convinces herself that by giving them a faux life by means of literature, she has redeemed herself. She was able to bear her mistake, and instead of sulking about it, she did the best thing of which she could think by giving them the happy life they deserved in her novel, albeit a fantasy. It was a grave mistake, and I think she would have found more efficacy by making amends with Cecilia, rather than keeping it all to herself and living in a land as real as Hoth or Tatooine.

Subtlety, Rather Than Blatancy

The ending of Atonement had a unique feel to it, almost as if I already knew the ending; or that I have already accepted it. I do not mean that I knew the exact ending or the events that would occur, but rather I knew the emotion or reaction I would give. Surely enough, I had the feeling of indifference or more appropriately, contentment. In the other books I always had this lingering longing for closure in the endings. The open-ended interpretations kept expanding the boundaries of truth. In, The Things They Carried, there was an obvious contrast between story-truth and happening-truth since O'Brien directly tells you what is fact and fiction. Through this, O'Brien made the reader wonder what is actually considered truth and what is not. In, Life of Pi, Pi describes two ideal stories of which both fully explain what had happened to Pi. The two contrasting stories gave the reader a sense of truth being used in a unique manner. By Pi using animals in his first story, he gave a deeper meaning it rather than giving dry, yeastless facts. In, Lying, Slater presents this idea of lying as being actual truth. Despite her lying about her epilepsy, or her lying about not having epilepsy, she ultimately wrote a memoir about her life by using epilepsy as the main focus. This basically forced the reader into thinking about lies being used as a way to convey truth. However, in, Atonement, the word truth is never really covered. Granted, though, that there is an interesting concept of truth in the book. The idea that what you fully believe may not be true, and the way it is done is elegantly subtle. There isn't this harsh contrast away from the actual story, so the author can explain or deduce what is happening or what they are trying to convey. This book had a more realistic feel to it, straying away from its philosophical brethren. The reason I think of realism is because this concept of truth directly related to a believable tragedy; because of that I believe that it is unique when put against the other books we have read.

Unable to Atone

By the end of the book, I feel that Briony has not completely atoned for her childhood 'crime'. Although I do believe that stories have to power to change things and make bad things right, I also believe that this only extends to a certain point.

I think that Briony's character expresses a great deal of guilt throughout the third part of the book, and I do believe that part of that is alleviated through the fictitious moments of happiness that she creates for her sister and Robbie. I also think that the character's very public admission of her 'crime' in the form of a novel helps to sponge away some of the guilt as well. However, I do not think that her guilt could ever be erased or that her 'crime' could ever be corrected or forgiven. It can be understood, because of her age at the time. Although I just do not believe that even her best efforts to punish herself or correct the past can make the pain that her sister and especially Robbie had to endure. Nothing short of going back in time and making it so that it never happened could fully make up for what she did, but it is endearing that she immortalized the ones she hurt most in her novel, giving them the happy ending that they so deserved, but were denied due to her actions of youthful ignorance.

The Ending of Atonement

I enjoyed the ending of Atonement. It was interesting. Briony, at the end, told the reader that the events that we read may or may not have happen. In this case, her narration is a lot like O'Brien's in that when he talks about killing the star-eyed soldier, the reader really doesn't ever know if he really killed the person or if, to him, it felt like he had. Also, in the book Lying, Lauren Slater definitely takes the reader for a ride when she says she has epilepsy, but then changes the truth, by saying she doesn't. In Life of Pi, Pi gives the interrogators two stories, allowing them to choose. Either story could be true; both stories could be false. Briony is like Pi. She describes in detail her sister and Robbie standing with her as she is about to depart for the train. However, she hints at the fact that Robbie died of septicemia and Cecilia died by a bomb. As a reader, I choose to belief the former. I feel that this book fit in really well with the other readings because it seemed to twist the truth in writing. As I was reading this, I was only thinking that this book relates to this class because of Briony's perception and memory, but because on the last page, she questions her story and thus the reader questions her story.

Atonement - Final Prompts

For tomorrow, please respond to one or more of the following questions:

1. To what extent is Briony able to atone for the mistake she made as a young girl?

2. How is the ending of this book similar to books we have already read, and how is is different?

3. If this book is, ultimately the power and capability of storytelling, what does this book have to say about stories? What can they do? What can they not do?

This is your last chance to blog about the book, so please take advantage of it.

The End

For me the ending had mixed emotions. I still don't know if I liked it or not. It really did not surprise me because we have seen this in other books with some twist. I think the reason I like the ending is because it is not the normal ending to a book and it does make you think about life in a different light. The reason I didn't like it is because I invested myself into the story and thought it was going to end somewhat happy, but it didn't. I would have rather not read it if it was going to end sad. I avoid sad movies because of this very reason. I know some people like these kind of things but for me, I like to think that all bad things can end for some kind of good and maybe this book can or does end that way. I still am not sure if Briony felt some sort of relief from guilt. I am not sure she does and so this book ends sad for me.

This book reminds me of a classic love story that I passionately hate, Romeo and Juliet. This does not mean that I hated the book altogether. There were parts of the writing I thought were good. Obviously not the over use of descriptive words. I still can't get over that it took a whole chapter and more for a little girl to run across a field to deliver a note. Back to what I was saying, I liked the part of the book when Briony talks about how she could write this love story she witnessed outside her window from three points of view in a book. This was when I realized that Briony is writing the story that I am now reading because it was exactly the way the book was written.

The End

Change of Schedule

In class today, we decided that we will not be meeting as a class on Thursday. Instead, I will be meeting one-on-one with students in my office during class time. These conferences are not mandatory, but they are encouraged. If you come, please bring your paper in whatever state it is in (draft, outline, notes, etc.) so that we can discuss it. Also, please have Atonement finished for Tuesday. I will post new prompts  on Thursday evening. Thank you, and I hope to see you on Thursday.

And, just for fun, the trailer for the film, in case you haven't seen more than what we watched in class.

Atonement Prompts

Here are some questions to think about for tomorrow. I would enjoy reading responses to any of them.

1. Cecelia's last words to Robbie-words she repeats in her letters--are "I'll wait for you. Come back." "Come back" are also the words Cecelia whispered to Briony when the latter was a very young girl, when she would waken from a nightmare (see page 41). Do you see a connection?

2. Why does Part I have chapters when the rest of the book doesn't?

3. There are several places in the reading that mention literature or storytelling. How are these significant? (Please use at least one example.)

4. Discuss the scene where Robbie and Nettle catch the pig (240-41). Compare this scene to something from another book we have read. What can it be compared to?

5. Why do you think Robbie has such a hard time putting the leg out of his mind? What might the leg symbolize?

See you tomorrow.

Poetry Readin'

Yesterday, I went to the poetry reading in the Reece Museum. The event was hosted by Jesse Graves, a professor in the English department. He introduced his book Southern Poetry Anthropology. The book includes poems by eighty different poets. Jesse Graves was the first poet to read. His poem was called, "Elegy for a Hay Rate." It was about working in the yard with his father. The second reader was Jane Hicks, known for her publications in the newsletter, The Mockingbird and for her quilts. Her first poem was entitled "Dust," and it is only published in this certain volume of poems. I really enjoyed her metaphors like "a perjury of promised rain," featured in "Dust," and "lay crucified on the quilt with love," in her poem that I think was called "Felix."

Alan Holmes was the third reader. I am not certain what the title of his first poem was called, but I think it was something like "Awning." This poem was about going to work with his father. He used descriptions like "pentacostal hair" to describe women in a hair salon. His last poem was entitled "Joan's Valley." I noticed in this poem that he contradicted Appalachain stereotypes like "backwards, southern, country." I liked that.

Don Johnson, the ETST Poet in Residence, was the next poet. His first poem, "Grappling," was about a young boy trying to figure out how to catch fist without getting in the water. His second poem was called, "Going to Chattem." It was about going to the family cabin on "Decoration Day." I liked his use of the word "directly" at the end of the poem. It fit well with what he was trying to describe.

After Don Johnson, Ted Olson, receipient of last year's Major Facualty Research Award, read his poems. He read "Writing by the Spring," his first poem ever published, "Swallows," and "River Baptism." I enjoyed "River Baptism" because it was very descriptive.

I did not catch the last reader's first name. I think her name was Areta Quillen. She read "Sunday School Lesson" and "Sugar and Spice." I liked her first poem, especially when she read that "it took me twenty-six years to figure that out, " while it took her young son a walk on Sunday to figure out some spiritual phenomenon. Her second poem, "Sugar and Spice," was about pieces of her girlhood childhood. It was light-hearted and funny.

I really enjoyed going to this poetry reading for several reasons. It was cool listening to the words of members from around this area and I liked hearing stories and experiences in a poetic form. The poems embodied both evidence of a strong Appalachian culture and a knack for literary excellence.

Yeah, I don't have to blog!

I am relieved that I do not have to blog, but because I was thinking about it I am at least going to quote a familiar thing that we have become aware of. "Self-exposure was inevitable the moment she described a character's weakness; the reader was bound to speculate that she was describing herself". (6) Yep, that about sums it up. It is hard to separate the writer from the writing because a reader will inevitable speculate.

Blogging, April 11-15

In order to allow you to focus on paper writing and keeping up with the reading, I am letting you take the week off from blogging. This will also allow me to spend more time grading your papers. However, I reserve the right to quiz you on your reading of Atonement, so make sure you are getting it done! Also, I am going to provide some make-up opportunities for those who have missed a blog or two. I will discuss these in class as well.

As always, you may post your thoughts on what we are reading at any time. You are just not required to do so this week.

Dr. Westover

Embelm

In the Afterword of her novel, Lauren Slater writes that, "Lying is a book of narrative truth, a book in which I am more interested in using invention to get to the heart of things than I am in documenting actual life occurrences." Slater goes on to talk about even her epilepsy, the main focus of the entire story, was only a metaphor. It was merely a clever metaphor, twisted from small shreds of her actual reality in order to convey a much more important truth.

To Slater, narrative truth is everything. It is her way of expressing her unstable and troubled life as she felt it while living it, not as it technically happened. The emotional impact of Slater's life, as she experienced it, is the most important type of reality to her. It takes weight over the factual truth of events. That is the reality Slater portrays in her novel. It's the reality that she felt she had to tell, like she was almost compelled to tell others about. Slater even speaks of feeling relief at having finally managed to find a way to express it in epilepsy. In the end, I loved this book even more, because of the truly artistic way she managed to use epilepsy as a metaphor to cleanly and crisply explain so many things about her life.

What Matters.

The first passage of the Afterward particularly caught my attention, because Lauren is defining what is important and what really isn't. She bluntly points out that the facts are not needed in some parts of the book, and that they cannot be in some. I felt this portrays the memoir perfectly, since she speaks of historical truth being foolhardy and coy when explaining one's own person. Throughout the book she stretches the truth, she admits lying, and she conveys herself to the reader in an empathic manner. As the reader you begin to understand Lauren on a level of clarity and faith. I say faith because you start to trust Lauren, at least I did. Despite the underlying theme of deceit in the memoir, there is this sense of truth/trust between Lauren and the reader. As the reader you expect her to explain her life-story and herself in general; this she does with any difficulties. And as the story progresses, I want to know more about what Lauren thinks and desires, rather than the factual events. The bendable, narrative truth that she praises as being the correct way of conveying oneself is what I desire. Furthermore, this passage supports the idea of this text being considered a memoir. For clarity, the definition of a memoir is:

a record of events written by a person having intimate knowledge of them and based on personal observation.

I think that she has accomplished creating a memoir, because she gives us these events in her life, whether they be factual or fictional. She also, prominently and expansively, gives us her personal opinions on said events. This entire books does. This passage in particular though talks about the overall concept that she is using. It speaks of using subjective truth rather than its counterpart, and through this she is recreating the stereotypical idea of a memoir.

Question Mark

In the afterword, Slater talks about different disorders like "epilepsy...boderline personality disorder...post traumatic stress disorder...bipolar...Munchausen's...OCD...depression...autisthat doctors have thought she had had at some point in her life (220). However, these disorders could possibly be metaphors for different phases in her life. In the novel, she suggested that her epilepsy may be a symbol for her constant restlessness, different angles of her personality, etc. Her PTSD could have been after the breakup with Christopher or the rejection of her articles. Though these illnesses are very present in modern society, I feel as though people and physicians throw the terms around. Maybe she did really have all of these illnesses. Maybe her doctors were just so confused with her psyche that they felt it necessary to put a label on her forehead. Maybe these disorders are just metaphoric of different phases of a child's adolescent life. Maybe no one really ever have illnesses; people just perceive them as different and thus place a name to their difference. Slater, in the afterword and the entire book, has shown that she is not epilepsy. She is a creative being, filled with imagination and invention that make her unique and fascinating character and thus person. However, as much as doctors and researchers explore diseases like Tourette's and epilepsy, they will not completely ever understand what is real or what is expected of the patient. Thus, diseases like epilepsy are metaphorical of people, they only ever answer questions with "a question mark" (221).

Metaphor as a Way to Convey Truth

I particularly liked the passage, "Metaphor is the greatest gift of language, for through it we can propel what are otherwise wordless experiences into shapes and sounds. And even if the sounds are not altogether accurate, they do resonate in a heartfelt place we cannot dismiss." That really sums up how I feel about this entire book. I'm not sure I agree with all the methods Slater uses in her memoir, and I'm not sure I even like the book that much, but I do have to admit that what she says does resonate with a kind of truth. I understand what she is doing, even if it kind of got on my nerves to read. And I do like the use of the metaphor of epilepsy to convey her feelings about growing up and coming of age. I think it's a very appropriate metaphor that does an excellent job of illustrating her experiences and the way she has felt about her life. I both like and do not like this book, but it has been very interesting and enlightening to read. It's a new way to look at truth, even after what we've already read in class. I do like that part.

Lying: Final Prompt

The prompt for tomorrow is very simple: choose a specific passage from the Afterword and use it as a way into a discussion of the book as a whole. In other words, discuss the passage specifically but also the book generally.

Thanks. See you tomorrow.

Literary Abiogenesis

I completely disagree with the notion that one's intended literary persona relies upon one's life experience. The ability to listen to facts, comprehend them, and systemize them into logical tenets is all one needs to create a persona- out of thin air; no life experience necessary. As an example, I didn't fight in World War 2. I didn't participate, involuntarily if I had, in the Bataan Death March. I wasn't present at the Battle of the Bulge, nor Stalingrad, nor Dresden, nor Okinawa, nor the flag raising upon Mount Suribachi. I have absolutely zero experience. However, I am learned and educated enough to concoct a persona which could lead a reader to believe I was a Japanese soldier staring at the 1.6 million Soviet troops at the Manchurian border after the United States dropped two atomic bombs on my homeland. I can create the persona of a soldier fighting for Free France; fighting alongside my British, American, and Canadian brethren in an attempt to extinguish the world of the absolute evil which was Nazi Germany. I could create the persona of a helpless Jewish Pole in Auschwitz; despair, death, torture, pain, and sorrow; always pondering escape, the war, the evil who were Goebbels and Himmler, amongst hordes of others. I could portray myself as Eddie Rickenbacker- soaring through the skies of Europe in hopes of finding the next Luftwaffe-designated fighter down which to shoot. It is knowledge that enables us to create a persona; not experience.

Connection and Disconnection

Books are never one hundred percent factual. Period. I do not care who the author is; some of their information has to be made up. That being said, Lauren is depicting her life perfectly. Who lives their life understanding everything around them? Lauren clearly had a broken relationship with her mother while struggling mental health issues. Whether or not her epilepsy is true it illustrates the mother daughter bond brilliantly. Part one the seizures are the way Lauren connects with her mom. She is consistently nervous about her mother at one point she repeats to her self “please, God please, God let her like this” (12). Her mother’s emotions with Lauren are sporadic and inconsistent just like seizure attacks. Though her mother acts as if Lauren is beneath her, she is jealous of the ability Lauren has to become everything her mother is not.

However at age thirteen Lauren’s seizures change rapidly, and become the main disconnect between the two. During this age Lauren no longer seems to care what her mother thinks and instead begins looking to fill the hole she has been left with, by having nurses and doctors cater to her the way her mother should be caring for her. Her mother, the woman who once denied the allowance of Lauren to consume medication, agrees to a brain surgery. After the surgery Lauren no longer has seizures but she still longs for her mother and acts out with lying and stealing. The note from Patricia Robinson, P.T on page 98 suggests that Lauren will continue to struggle with her mental illness the rest of her life, which foreshadows that she will also struggle with the relationship with her mother as well.

The idea of lying

In class, we referenced the novel Running with Scissors. Last semester, I watched the movie and read the book. Lauren's mother reminds alot of Augusten's mother, especially when she begins her writing. She is filled with a desire to write and a fantasy to be published, but when she is rejected, she sips a drink of watery depression and lies "in a darkened room for hours" (64).

This novel seems to be filled with images of lying, both the communication and position form. For instance, in this novel, you never know which part of Lauren's tale is true. She makes up people and references them in her writing, like Hayward Krieger. She also tells of memories of lying, like to Sarah Kushner, to whom she told that she had cancer. She learns how to lie from her mother, who goes on an errand to see Suki Israel and comes back hours later only to say that "it's been minutes" (68). Lauren seems to lie to communicate. However, her epilepsy is a form of communication with her mother. The idea of physically lying down or falling to lie down is mentioned in the novel. When her mother lies down, the reader sees who she really is. For instance, earlier in the novel, Lauren comes into her parents' room on vacation and sees her mother lying down. In that scene, the mother is conveying the truth of her real life to her daughter. When the mother is standing or sitting, she pretends to be happy, pleasant, perfect. However, when she lies down, her true life shows through, like when she was rejected and she lied down for a long period of time.

When Lauren is standing up, she is worried about having seizures, etc. However, when she is lying down, she is fine. For example, when she was going through the first operation with Dr. Deu, he was stimulating her visual cortex and she began to feel different, pleasurable sensations. It seems that when she in lying down in the hospital, she doesn't want to leave and is happy. She makes friends with the nurses. She seems relaxed. After a seizure, the doctors tell her to "stay still. Lie down. Rest" to show the symobolism of "lying" (66). The quote, "the Saltonstall, the Peter Bent Brigham, the Lying-In, all wonderful, rhythmic names, all old brick buildings with twinkling views of the city," have pleasant sounding connatations that make the reader feel that Lauren is happy in the hospital setting (66).

Apparently, epilepsy has four chapters, like the book. The last stage is called the recovery stage. Maybe this too, is symbolic. Maybe Lauren is recovering from a childhood of lies and attempts to please her mother, and moving onto a stage of relaxation and growth.

Persona?

Chris's interesting and thoughtful comments suggest that we should spend some time talking about some aspects of the literary persona. A persona is the voice through which the author speaks (narrator, speaker, or other storyteller); it is a mask created by the real, actual author, but it is not the author him/herself. However, as Chris rightly points out, much of the actual author is evident in the persona. But how much? Some critics argue that a written text can never accurately represent a person because it is constructed and is therefore artifice; others argue that a text can never be wholly separate from the person writing it because authors ultimately draw upon life experience in order to create. (This seems in line with the O'Brien quotation that Chris mentions, from the "Spin" chapter: "You take your material where you find it, which is in your life, at the intersection of past and present." But remember that O'Brien also makes the opposing argument, that nothing, not even a memoir, can ever really be factually accurate; in that sense, "happening truth" is an impossibility, at least for the writer.)


So this is where Lying gets really interesting. A memoir isn't supposed to have a persona. It is supposed to be naked and mask-less. It is supposed to be written in the author's voice. But by calling her book a "metaphorical memoir," Slater ducks that responsibility a little. She wouldn't put it that way. In fact, she would likely argue that the metaphor represents her actual self better than any literal story could. She is therefore defining memoir not as the relating of literal experience but the relating of the essential self. In other words, there is a distinction being made between events, which may or may not be factual, and identity, which is best expressed metaphorically. This calls the very nature and purpose of memoir into question. This is from a review in the New York Times:  


"Slater's hopscotch between veracity and deception concerning her supposed epilepsy is intended to convey the subjective truth about what it feels like to be her. 'My whole life has been a seizure,' she writes, and this self-diagnosis makes literary, if not literal, sense. But she also has ambitions of delivering a critique of the memoir genre. She habitually interrupts herself in order to throw what she has just written into question. One chapter consists of a memorandum to the Random House marketing department and her editor, Kate Medina, about whether the book should be marketed as fiction or nonfiction, and there Slater writes of her intention 'to ponder the blurry line between novels and memoirs. Everyone knows that a lot of memoirs have made-up scenes; it's obvious. And everyone knows that half the time at least fictions contain literal autobiographical truths. So how do we decide what's what, and does it even matter?' 


These sound like the very questions Chris is raising. It's worth talking about. I'll let you guys write about whatever you want for tomorrow, but I like that you are wrestling with these concepts. Ultimately, the answers that you come up with are important, not just to the final paper you are going to write for this class, but to the way you will read for the rest of your lives. 

Is there a difference between writer and story?

My dad stole "The Things They Carried" from me and so I can't quote word for word the quote I want to use. My favorite line in the book goes something like this: You get your material where you find it. My understanding of that line is that writers can only write about what they understand or know. They can only write about the way they see things or at least the way they think they see things. I was handed my test this week and Dr. Westover (sorry if this is too formal, but I use this out of respect) had written a comment that I keep going back too. On the test I wrote a paragraph about how "The Dumb Man" and "Story" where similar in that they talk about the struggles that the authors have in saying what they want to say. I referred to the speaker and narrator of the poems as is they were the same as the author. Dr. Westover made the comment that they are not the same, and that they actually did say what they wanted to say. I'm not disagreeing with him at all! I am pointing out that I am struggling to separate the author from his or her writings because I know that they can only write about what they know and understand. When I write, I can only write something good when I know what I am writing about. Maybe in a research paper I might be able to distinguish between the author and what is written, but even then wouldn't the writer of a research paper be convinced through research of what he is writing about to the point of believing what he writes? In the type of books we have been reading I believe there are very few differences between writers and the characters they are writing about. The characters are so detailed that they are very believable and very real to me. I can't help but feel like the writers are not just trying to write in an awesome writing style but also putting some of themselves into the characters. I am really having a hard time writing out what I am trying to say. One thing I have learned in this class is that whether I talk or write, someone is not hearing or understanding me the way I want them to. This reminds me of two poems we read and ironially they are "The Dumb Man" and "Story".

The Strength and Weakness of the Relationship

In the novel, Lauren and her mother have a differernt sort of relationship. When reading this first part of the book, I thought the relationship was rather unhealthy. The mother seems to feed of of the daughter's sickness, telling her friends about epilepsy and telling them that Van Gogh also had it, glorifying the illness. The mother, who seems so invested in Lauren's health, wasn't even present when her first episode came about. She reads book like The New Cure for Epilepsy but when Lauren comes back for the falling school, the mother "started smoking Kent cigarettes and drinking red wine, and she had less of an interest" in Lauren (Slater 55). In the beginning of the book, the mother is described as being "too big, and occasionally, when the jasmine came on, I would also feel a lightheadedness that made my mother seem even bigger...she higher than a house, all her hair flying" (Slater 5). The mother seems unstable, thus helping to make the relationship unstable. The moment Lauren stops being "a marionette, and even hundreds of miles away it was her huge hand that held me up," the mother loses power (Slater 50). Maybe the relationship is a power struggle between mother and daughter. When Lauren has her episodes at home, she is ten years old and fragile. The mother makes her want to skate. The mother in a way makes her lie. Lauren learns "from my mother I learned that truth is bendable, that what you wish is every bit as real as what you are" (Slater 5). The mother clearly has much impact in the daughter's life and she constantly wants her approval. However, when Lauren comes back from the school, she is stronger. She talks with the salesman about eyebolts and snag hooks and she knows how to fix "the dripping kitchen sink" (Slater 54). She is now stronger then what she was prior to the trip to the school. She no longer has the bruises that symbolizes the fragility of the relationship and the bloody lips that represented power struggle between the mother and the daughter. This relationship is intense in the beginning and it is intense in the end of the section. The scale tips toward the mother in the beginning and then it goes to the daughter. The daughter wants the mother's attention and affection, however she betrays her at the first chance, an initial sign of rebellion. Then, she comes back from the school, and she doen't put as much investment into pleasing her mother. The mother ignores this change in her daughter superficially, but underneath, I believe, she really is hurt and at a loss because the new change of the relationship. The quote, "Her whole life she had fought to stay on the surface of things-to not argue with my father in public, to cover her emotions with a flashy smile-and it showed in her face, where lines of deep fatigue were grooved beneath her makeup" sums up the mother's actions toward her "new" daughter (Slater 56).

Yearning For Another World

A world between dream and reality, a distortable realm that abides and defies logic all at once. That is how I think about this memoir. Slater takes us into this tale of her life that forces the reader to question its plausibility, but also empathize with Lauren herself. She starts off describing her epilepsy and the episodes that she has, but she describes these episodes as worlds that she enters. The Jasmine World, the world where she fell into the water and saw the boy, and I even consider where she imagined falling into the grave one of the worlds. I feel a bit disturbed by the fact that she is turning something negative into this euphoric sensation. However, I believe that she is justified in this conversion. Her mother and her have this strange relationship that I cannot fully understand. It has respect, resentment, love, and other elements that escape me. Yet, the two most prominent underlying elements are love and hate. Lauren seems to want to escape from her mother, but in a metaphorical sense. For example, when the policeman asked Lauren if she had epilepsy, in an attempt to determine if the mother was abusive or not, Lauren was silent. Inside her mind she wanted to give an answer, but she was stricken with ineffability. That hesitation to decide what she wanted, and the overall silence hints at the idea that Lauren wants to be away. This goes for the same with her other epileptic trips, where she experiences a new sensation. Also, I believe she wants to escape from more than just her mother. I believe she wants to escape from her life itself, and the special school she went to proves that. It was a new experience, a happy time in her life. Even in her falling into the grave world, she reminisced about the sisters and nuns greeting her happily as she fell. She saw outstretched arms with hands reaching out to her, but could not find her mother's hand or face. In this instance, I felt that her mother represented her life, her physical one. I am thinking that Lauren wants to escape into her mind, maybe she even wants to escape into her epilepsy. Overall, though, I am starting to think that these epileptic episodes are the physical representation of her wanting to escape.

Memoirs are books and books CAN get away with anything

I don't really take issue with Lauren Slater over the possibility that she's inventing the epilepsy in her "memoir" any more than I took issue with Tim O'Brien or Yann Martel. True, they didn't call their books memoirs, but the principle is the same. Why would an author want to bend the truth in a memoir? For the same reason any author does--to better convey the truth of what they really want to say. Maybe Slater felt like her childhood was similar to being stricken with a disease that both debilitated her and took her to new heights, but just saying 'My childhood could be compared to having a disease' wouldn't exactly get the point across to readers. But claiming she actually has the disease makes the reader see what she's getting at. It's like Dr. Westover says about writing, "Show us, don't tell us." I think it's perfectly acceptable to use that tactic in writing, whether it's a memoir or a novel or whatever. Getting the reader to buy into the story and therefore draw the point out of it more than justifies the need to embellish or even invent the facts and call them "true."

Dysfunctionality

The author, Lauren Slater, of the memoir, Lying, seems to focus her story around her mother and their relationship. Some might argue that her illness takes priority as far as importance goes, but she even says that the illness may or may not even exist. She says it might just be a metaphor, a tool to help her express her tale. I feel like, if you are willing to accept it as a metaphoric tool, her epilepsy is just her way of explaining her relationship with her mother. For example, when her illness leads her to the school in Topeka, Kansas for epilepsy and she is taught how to fall properly, she says that falling the first time felt like it was a betrayal to her mother. Falling doesn't make her feel entirely wrought with guilt though. She becomes addicted to it, because it makes her feel free from her over-controlling mother.

Lauren Slater often hints like this that early on she felt like her mother was the only one who could offer her the affections and comforts that are typically lumped with the idea of a motherly figure. When her father tells her the story about the egg, for instance, she comes to realize that her mother isn't the only one who can console her and give her a sense of comfort. As a whole, I feel like she and her mother share a very dysfunctional relationship, but that she loves her mother and desperately wants to feel more connected to her. She just doesn't know how to go about forging the kind of closeness she craves with the flamboyant woman.

For Thursday

For Thursday, I'll give you a few topics that you can discuss in any way you please. As always, please reference specific passages in your response.

1. Form. One of the questions on your midterm was about literary form and structure. I'm interested in your initial thoughts about the structure of Lying. Some (not all) of the things I notice in this opening section are an introduction by a Professor of Philosophy named Hayward Krieger, a quoted excerpt from a textbook on childhood seizures, a book that appears to be divided into four sections that correspond with the four stages of a grand mal seizure, an opening chapter that consists of only two words, and titled chapters.

2. Mother/Daughter Relationship. Much of the text thus far focuses on the relationship between Lauren and her mother. I am very interested in hearing what you think about this relationship. Among other things, you might (but are not required to) discuss how it relates to what we are learning about Lauren's illness. 

3. Memoir. A memoir is "an autobiography or other historical account based on personal experience and observation, written by a person having intimate knowledge of events." It is classified as nonfiction. We have discussed "truth" in many different ways, but we have discussed it primarily in the context of fiction. What about nonfiction? Read this short article from the British newspaper The Guardian about the controversy surrounding the memoir Running with Scissors, by Augusten Burroughs. In the article, the author argues that "Memoirs will get away with whatever they can." But if you read the first several comments by readers of the article, you will see that many of them take issue with the fact that a memoir can "get away" with anything. And I suppose an important question is this: why would an author want to bend truth in a memoir anyway?

See you on Thursday. 

Library Training

Just in case anyone needs a reminder, today we are in room 309 in the library. We are having research training. See you there!

Talk about issues!

I went into the book "Lying" looking for the lies. The question I keep asking myself is, "If the Epilepsy is not real than what does it represent?" At this point I have no idea how to answer that question. In fact, I am almost convinced that she really does have the illness. So far, I think the Lying is what she tells herself throughout her experience with growing up, dealing with her mom, dad and the illness. I base all this on the last few pages of chapter 3 where she tells us what happened at the grave sight, than tells us it didn't really happen but rather it is what she wanted to happen. She learned how to fall from the illness, so she wanted to fall so that she could be free. Lauren says, "The falling skill was widely generalizable, that I would be able to use it for years to come, use it in love, use it in fear, use it in hope". (55) she has learned a lesson, not about falling, but that she could trust herself to get up again, and do things on her own. She gained confidence. This skill she learned she can now apply to the rest of her life. she can now trust that if she breaks away from her need for her mom's approval she will be OK. Once she was able to do so, she was free.

The Mind Sings True

"Impossible not to change things, move the words from here to there", is just a summary of a memory. You cannot change what happened, but you can distort what you create. By experiencing an occurrence you reluctantly create a memory out of it. When you "remember" what happened, there is no guarantee that the full memory is absolute truth. "Words", in this case, would be metaphorical to memories. We create words, we create memories, and both are based on empiricism. However, "the mind sings true". In other words, the metaphysical nature of the mind directly relates to truth, rather than factual distortions. Therefore, memory is a fallible truth, it is true, but not consistent. Whereas, the mind is a direct originator of truth, since the mind can base truth on facts or abstractions. The mind is ultimately metaphysical however, since the mind perceives. Furthermore, Creech writes "...a sound the resonant air repeats but cannot mend." He is obviously referring to memories here, since memories are just resonating actual events. However, you cannot mend or distort reality. This is where I feel his since of truth to be revealing, because truth should be mend-able, and it is. Story-telling truth, as we have been told before, is sometimes truer than happening-truth. In the poem it says, "Which version of the world should I believe?" Which memory should he believe, which memory of the world should he rely in? This is what he is asking, and this is why story-truth is more reliable than memory. Story-truth is absolute, in a sense, because it fully conveys what needs to be known. A memory cannot fully justify this concept, and is fallible anyway. The moral of the poem, I believe, is that storytelling is more true than happening-truth.

Engine Work

In this poem, the author talks about the difficulties of memory, how it's hard to remember exactly the way things were in the moment he wants to capture. He says it's difficult not to move the words around, to rearrange the way things happened. But he also says that sometimes language seems inadequate to describe the enormity of what one wants to convey. He was trying to describe his grandfather teaching him about engines, but he feels like he is not doing it properly. The author is trying to figure out which variation of the story works the best, but seems to conclude that none of them are exactly right. He wants the reader to really see what he remembers of his grandfather and helping him and the sour fruit and just the whole scope of his feeling and memory of that time, but there's just no way he can do that with words. But actually, I think the author does a pretty good job in conveying that, because the reader can understand the problem he faces, and the very act of telling us what he does sort of enlightens us to how he feels.

Comments on "The Bridge"

I read this poem twice. I skimmed the lines quickly the first time. Then a few minutes later, I reread it and thought more about it. The poem has metaphorical moments and is a metaphor in itself. I think that the title of the poem, "The Bridge" is a metaphor for storytelling. To connect with a listener, the storyteller must be able to "walk across a bridge" of eventful happenings, engaging words, etc. However, sometimes the story reaches its climax slowly or is not very eventful and thus the storyteller has to "dive into" the story more deeply to save it. I feel like Author Peavahouse symbolizes the attempt to save a story. The mother and the two children he saves symbolize the rescue of a drowning story. The child he fails to save symbolizes a story that loses the interest of the audience even after the storyteller attempts to save it.
On a different note, Clyde Maples may also be a metaphor for storytelling. Clyde Maples may be the one listener who doesn't accept the story and refuses to accept the "story-truth," so that he goes down to the core of the story to search for the real meaning. However, he could also symbolize just a listener who thirsts for the theme of the story or how it applies to his life personally.
This poem is a metaphor for storytelling. It tells the importance of a connection or "bridge" between the storyteller and the listener and it tells of the tragedy if the storyteller fails to connect with the reader; the story will drown. However, if the story is overly detailed and does not get to the action, the listener will "drown" in the language of the story and will not receive the message the storyteller is endeavoring to convey.

"The Bridge" and "Engine Work: Variations"

For Thursday, please read the two poems from D2L. If there are words you do not know, please look them up; this is something you should always do. After you have read the poems, please respond to one of the following prompts:

1. In "The Bridge," Rodney Jones tells a story about a man who rescued a mother and two children from a submerged car. However, Jones also focuses on the listener, the hearer. He focuses on the way we make sense of truth and determine reality. In this sense, the story of Arthur Peavahouse (which, we are told, is not his real name) is a metaphor. Discuss this. What is this poem ultimately about?

2. Morri Creech's "Engine Work: Variations" is about both memory and storytelling. What does it teach us about these subjects?

Thanks. See you on THursday.

For Tuesday

Please read "The Red Convertible" and "Lesson" for Monday, and come prepared to discuss them. I am trying to get grading done, so I am going to give you a day off on the blog, but please don't take a day off on the reading. You will need to know these pieces for the midterm.

Thanks, and I'll see you on Tuesday.

The Collective Religion

In the Author's Note that begins the novel, Mr. Adirubasamy tells Yann Martel, "I have a story that will make you believe in God." The book helps us to further believe why some people believe in God, but it doesn't make one believe in God. The purpose of the book is to show that people who disregard the religions of the world because they don't believe in resurrections, heavenly ascensions, talking bushes, and parting seas, are missing the point of religion: to act as a guide for people who want to live a good life, according to society and popular thought. This could be easily countered by saying religion, throughout the ages, has killed more people than any despotic tyrant; it has stunted the advancement of science and technology; it has served as a means to manipulate, accrue, and maintain power; it has served as a proxy for political vendettas. That, however, is the adherence to a religion of which I am not aware. Most religions teach tolerance, magnanimity, forgiveness, common courtesy, etc. That is the great point which Pi asserts most people miss. They are too caught up in the handling of snakes and the avoidance of beer and beef to understand and abide by the true meaning of religion.

Taming Richard Parker

When he reaches the island, Pi decides that he will tame Richard Parker. He says, "I had to tame him. It was at that moment that I realized this necessity. It was not a question of him or me, but of him and me. We were, literally and figuratively, in the same boat. We would live-or we would die-together" (164). After hearing both the "story-truth" and the "happening-truth," I have two inquiries. First, does Pi simply invent Richard Parker, as Tom Hanks does with "Wilson" in Cast Away? Does Pi find some inanimate object like a turtle shell that he names Richard Parker? Does he just invent this wild story, aiming his invention at no inanimate or animate object in particular? If this is the case, then he has reason to live without insanity, or the survivor's definition of insanity. He uses all this energy to make some kind of energy to focus and pull from. He survives because he is not insane, but determined to save the life of a loved friend.

However, Pi could be Richard Parker. Richard Parker could be Pi. Just like the Japanese men decided, Richard Parker could be the alias of Piscine Molitor Patel. In Freudian psychology, some believe that a person has an id, ego, and superego. An id is the impulsive side of a personality, the superego is the conscience, and the ego is the tug of war between the two. Because he was deprived of human connection and was forced into a situation of pure isolation, maybe his caveman sense of impulse gave way. Maybe the Richard Parker side is his impulsive, dangerous side and the quiet, pious side is his conscience. On page 164, he talks about "taming Richard Parker." Maybe at this point, he has realized what he has done in the past and tries to be more balanced, i.e. using the ego side. Maybe the carnivorous tree is his realization of what he has done and his idea to tame Richard Parker is his decision to tame himself.

The quote, "A part of me did not want Richard Parker to die at all, because if he died I would be left alone with despair, a foe even more formidable than a tiger. If I still had the will to live, it was thanks to Richard Parker. He kept me from thinking too much about my family and my tragic circumstances," maybe symbolizes Pi's realization of this part of him (164). He realizes what he has seen and how he has acted and maybe wants to change. However, maybe he also realizes that this invention of Richard Parker has kept him from thinking melancholy thoughts. He has made Pi focused on survival and life. Therefore, I believe that both the invention of Richard Parker and Pi's alias both make sense when put together.

A Story that makes you Believe

I think this post may actually address two different prompts with the same answer, so it's like a double post! In "The Things They Carried" Tim O'Brien makes the statement, "It comes down to gut instinct. A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe" (Pg 74). I think this could be used to analyze "Life of Pi' as well, which could be seen as a war story--a personal war against death and insanity and extreme human suffering. The story of Pi is outrageous and fantastic; is it true? There's no way to know. But does the story move us? Does it get into our guts and make us feel it and hope it really is true? For me, yes definitely. This is a story to make one feel hope and pride in the power of the human spirit and what is possible in all of us. This story makes me want to believe it because it inspires me and elevates me, and if I didn't believe it I wouldn't have that feeling. I think that's also the point of the statement "And so it goes with God." We could choose to not believe in God because there's no proof, or we could choose to believe in something higher than ourselves, something that can be magical and fantastic and awe-inspiring, because it enriches our lives to believe so. If we have the choice to believe or not believe--in Pi and in God--I think this book is saying Believe!! And I do.

Um, yeah... I loved the book -- maybe. What happened?

The end of this book was awful or great and both but maybe not. The first thing that bothered me is that Richard Parker left! He just ran off. I could feel how upsetting that was for Pi. But then as I read part three of the book and start laughing at the interview process and shortly after find out that the whole story is bullshit (I use this word because it expresses the emotion best). Then I was greatly disgusted and mortified at the true story and did not even want to hear it. I wished I had not. As I finish up the book I feel very puzzled trying to figure out what did happen, what does matter and doesn't matter and why do I care so much? I really don't like my emotions pulled around in so many different ways but at the same time I admire the ability of a writer to do it.

I think Richard Parker is not all of Pi, only a part of him, a part that Pi was having to tame while going through this horrible experience. I have not fully figured out what part yet. It might be a vilent angery part that wanted to kill the cook, or fearfull part of Pi that would only kill him if he let it control him. I am still in the thinking process on this.

Overall I am not sure I could recomened this book without warning labels all over it! But I think I liked it -- sometimes or not -- maybe.

Life of Pi - Final Set of Prompts

I'm going to give you a lot of options for Thursday. Please pick whichever one interests you the most, but also come prepared to discuss all of them.


1. In class today I asked you to be thinking about Pi's "heroic" journey and the journey we undertake as we read. What does Martel want us to get from this journey? What new knowledge or treasure do we bring back with us?

2. What does the carnivorous island represent? Is it a symbol? A metaphor? A clue to interpreting the rest of the story? Why is it in the book?

3. In the Author's Note that begins the novel, Mr. Adirubasamy tell Yann Martel (and the rest of us as we read), "I have a story that will make you believe in God." Does Life of Pi live up to this promise? Why or why not?

4. From the very beginning, Life of Pi is set up as a story. Martel never says otherwise. But at the end of the novel, Pi gives another version of his story, one in which the animals on the lifeboat are replaced by humans. In this version, the zebra represents the Chinese sailor, the hyena represents the cook, Orange Juice represents Pi’s own mother, and Richard Parker is actually Pi himself. If this version is true--and Pi never definitively tells us which version is true--then Pi has invented the version of the story with animals in order to cope with devastating tragedy. So now that you have both versions, I want to ask you the same thing he asks the men from the Japanese Ministry of Transport: "which story do you prefer? Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals?" Why?

5. Apart from the alternate version of events, what else do we learn from Pi's conversation with the men from the Japanese Ministry of Transport that helps us understand the novel better?

6. There is an paragraph in Chapter 57 that reads as follows: "But there's more to it. I will come clean. I will tell you a secret: a part of me was glad about Richard Parker. A part of me did not want Richard Parker to die at all, because if he did I would be left alone with despair, a foe even more formidable than a tiger. If I still had the will to live, it was thanks to Richard Parker. He kept me from thinking too much about my family and my tragic circumstances. He pushed me to go on living. I hated him for it, yet at the same time I was grateful. I am grateful. It's the plain truth: without Richard Parker, I wouldn't be alive today to tell you my story." If the story without animals is the true story (in terms of "happening truth"), and if Richard Parker is really Pi, then what does this paragraph mean?

7. When the Japanese men respond by saying that the story with animals is, in their opinion, the better story, Pi responds by saying, "Thank you. And so it goes with God." Interpret this.

8. Like Pi, we tell stories. Some of them are true. Some of them are lies. Some of them are exaggerations. But we all tell them. We tell them so that other people can have a way into our lives, so that they can understand us. We tell them to make sense of our own experience, to understand ourselves. What has Life of Pi taught you about why we tell stories?

9. Quote an excerpt from The Things They Carried and then use that excerpt as a lens through which you analyze an aspect of Life of Pi. (Note: this is the kind of question you might expect to find on a midterm exam.)


Thank you. See you on Thursday.

Alone

Pi makes the comment that even though he is afraid of Richard Parker he does not want to be alone. Do you think if Richard Parker dies Pi's faith will be enough for him to cope with his recent losses? And if Richard Parker dies will that give Pi more time to focus on his anger and eventually turn his back on religion all together?

A Growing Relationship with Richard Parker

One thing I've noticed happening as I read this book more is that I have a growing interest and concern for Richard Parker. I think the same thing is happening to Pi in the story, that he's actually developing a relationship with the tiger beyond the initial fear and need for survival. In a way, Richard Parker helps keep Pi alive just as much as Pi is helping keep Richard Parker alive. My question is: has anyone else felt this happening to themselves as they're reading the story, and do you think the author designed it so the reader would feel the same way Pi felt about the tiger and their situation?

How Or Why Is Pi Justifiying Omnism?

Pi seems to have this wonderful relationship with God, so it seems. However, he defines God as these different deities, which in turn defies the concepts each religion has set. My question, therefore, is what makes Pi believe himself to be justified or moral in God's eyes? In other words, why does Pi think he is a servant of God, when he defies the boundaries of religion?

Prusten

My question isn't quite as philosophical as the others thus far, but I'd really like to know everyone's opinion concerning it. On page 163 Pi describes Richard Parker making a peculiar noise called Prusten. This noise is kind of like waving a white flag. It proclaims that the tiger means you no harm. Why do you think he made this noise to Pi? This was before Pi started taking care of the tiger in an attempt at taming him. Is it maybe because Pi did something to assert himself as alpha male unintentionally? Was it that the tiger was use to humans taking on this role since it had grown up in a zoo? Or was it that the tiger recognized the danger of their situation and didn't want to be left all alone?

The Better Story

This question is sort of lengthy, but I have been continually asking myself this question throughout the book: Is Pi "training" us to see the better story in his factual descriptions? In other words, is Pi challenging us as readers to have faith in ourselves in order to find deeper meaning in his seemingly emotionless journey?

Why?

I'm still lost in the, "why?". Why write this book other than to entertain? I am having a hard time seeing what the other is trying to tell me. I am seeing a great story to entertain but I don't see any messages from the auther. I am reading and hoping that a lightbulb will go off at some time.

Faith based Question

To answer the blog, my question is, "How would Pi's experience on the boat with Richard Parker have been different if Pi had accepted only one religion or if he had remained agnostic? Would he have survived?"

For Monday...

I want to try to do something a little different for Tuesday's discussion. After you finish the reading assignment, I'd like for you to come up with a question for the rest of the class. Ideally this will be a question that you would genuinely like the answer to, something that you are wondering about. Then I would like for you to post this question to the blog. I would like for everyone to do this, and I would like for you to post a little earlier. Normally the cut-off time is 9:00 Tuesday morning, but I would like for us to post these by the end of the day on Monday. That way we can have a little time to think about the questions before class starts.

Don't answer the questions (yours or those of others) on the blog, but come to class prepared to answer all of them. I would like for you to actually bring the questions with you. Please bring written answers if that is helpful to you. My hope is that doing this will allow our discussion to be driven primarily by your ideas.

Thoughts On Pi

The manner in which Martel writes the book prepares us for the oddity of Pi. For instance, Pi practices three distinct religions at once. I think Martel is trying to depict Pi as unsure, accepting, and gullible. At least, that's how I'd describe Pi. He has endured some hardships, and I'd say those are byproducts. Thus, he can easily practice three religions. It also prepares us for the anthropomorphism. It enables us to believe that Pi actually believes Richard Parker is no different than he- which is technically true. Animals and humans live on the same earth, reproduce, eat, sleep, and die, right?

Empathy vs. Sympathy

I sit here, reading this novel, captivated, with a distinct sense of interest. In other words, the more I read, the more I want to know about the story, of course, but prominently Pi himself. The title obviously says, "Life of Pi", yet, there is more to it. It is not just his life, or his predicaments, or any of that. I feel that he is more than just a character in a book, as if you could almost visit him casually. That is what I felt the first part of the book was setting up; an individual that has individuality. In most books, the author creates a character that has a personality, objectives, likes, dislikes, etc. However, it feels as if there is this barrier between character and reader. The author being the only interconnection between the two. Yet, in the first part of this book, it is as if you are being gradually accepted and pulled into his life, his mind, his individuality. Therefore, meaning, there is this mutual agreement to break the barrier. In another sense, the barrier was non-existent. Whether it was from me cherishing his Mamaji, or my empathy for his conflict between Hinduism and Christianity, I was still completely on his level. By his level, I mean I was there, I felt what he felt, yearned what he yearned. I felt total empathy for Pi, which is the ultimate goal the first part achieved. If the book began with the shipwreck, there would only be sympathy for him. I believe that is just common morality and human nature. Furthermore, he would be a silhouette of the Pi we know now. Throughout the book the reader would have to piece Pi together, sculpt the innocent putty that he would be. This is how most books are, at least in my opinion. Since Martel places us into this empathetic disposition towards Pi, we as readers reluctantly just experience his ever evolving life. It is truly not a book about ideas or truth, but rather a dynamic unknown. Granted, there is truth and ideologies, but overall there is this sense of ignorance. An ignorance that gradually fades, as you progress with Pi.

Read Between the Lines

I started reading this book with the utmost skepticism, thanks to O'Brien. However, I am grateful for learning how to be a tentative reader, because this book has a more significant meaning than just the words written on the page. I also love how we discussed religion in class, because I recently found religion myself and I find it to be very rewarding. I believe that Pi's understanding of the interconnection of all living things, human and animal, Hindu and Christian, is essential to his survival on this boat.
If the shipwreck happened first, and we were introduced to Pi's life afterward, the book would not be as rewarding because in Part One, Pi's character prepares us as readers to view his later predicament with a more understanding, accepting eye. He is, in a sense, training us to think like him in order to process his story in a more thorough manner.
Don't get me wrong, I would still read this book even if we weren't prompted to do so in class. However, I do not believe that I would see the better story that is hidden between the lines; about how religion is present in every aspect of life if one decides to search for it, and how zoo animals and humans are more instinctually alike than different (and I'm sure I'll find more not-so-obvious messages as I continue to read). Although this book is considered to be fiction, it states very relevant, everyday-life messages to readers. At this point, I do not care about Pi or Martel's credibility; I am accepting this book as fiction and simply goin' with the flow.

Life of Pi Prompts II

In class on Tuesday we had a nice discussion about the world Martel creates and the way that this world helps to shape Pi's character. We talked about narrative framework and how details, images, and incidents are shaped by that framework (a caged animal is more than a caged animal, etc.). We talked about intriguants and point of view and Martel's narrative techniques (the italicized sections, for example). We talked about how Martel "trains" us as readers, teaching us how to read the novel even without us knowing he is doing so. And much of our time was spent talking about the way that descriptions of zoology and spirituality inform each other. So...

Now that you have gotten to what might be called the "inciting incident" of the plot, or that initial event that kicks the rising action into gear (in this case a shipwreck that leaves Pi stranded on a lifeboat with Richard Parker), I want you to pay attention to all of the things that Martel was preparing you for even without your knowing it. How was he teaching you to read this story? Or, asked in another way, how do you read the story differently than you would if the book started with the shipwreck? How does the earlier material inform what is now happening? Point to specific things in the book that are more meaningful because of what you have already read. What is this experience teaching you about fiction?


Thanks. Happy reading.

Cautious Apprehension

After reading The Things They Carried, I certainly did approach The Life of Pi differently than I typically would have approached most books. Not to say that Tim O'Brien has left me with a sense of paranoia about literature as a hole. If The Life of Pi had just been a random book that I picked out in a library of my own accord, I don't think I would have looked for signs of deceit in it. Although, because it was a book assigned for this course in particular, I did find myself questioning parts and pieces of the novel. I know our entire class is meant to cover the idea of truth and lies in literature. I feel like it would have been foolish not to go into the book with a bit of skepticism. However, this skepticism did not distract me from the story itself. It did not make me so preoccupied in trying to decided which parts may have been fiction and which might have been fact. My main focus while reading was still figuring out the story that was being told itself, and depicting truth from possible lies was more of just an afterthought for me.

Huh?

I'm not sure I get it yet. Maybe this book will come together for me later on. I find the book very hard to read and quiet honestly it took way too long to get started and I am not sure it has started yet. I understand that there is some importants to the religion and zoo but I have made no real connections yet. I find myself very frustrated with the interruptions of the story when the writer switches to his meetings with Pi. I didn't even know what was going on until the last interruption when we meet his wife. That is when I realized who he was meeting and why it might be important later. Overall it took me too long to read and I am worried I will not be able to get the next bunch of chapters read in the course of one day.

Even though I do not like the book so far I will say that I have hope that it gets better and I will get something out of it. I Look forward to class tomorrow so that the more intelligent students can help me out!

Don't Overlook 3.14

When reading Chapter 30, I really liked meeting Mrs. Patel and being introduced to Pi’s home. The quote “This house is more than a box full of icons. I start noticing small signs of conjugal existence” is interesting to me (80). For one reason, Pi is introduced as a heavily spiritual and worldly person, but he is easily passed over for something or someone that is superficially more exciting or materialistically enticing. On the outside of Pi’s home and Pi himself, the reader views him as an ordinary man. However, when the reader dives deeper to find out more about him, he or she is in for a surprise due to his unique interests and ideas. I like Mrs. Patel, because on the outside she is a mother, a pharmacist, a wife, etc. However, like Pi, when she is more deeply analyzed, Mrs. Patel symbolizes the rich culture and experiences that are often surpassed by materialistic and superficial items. The sentence, “They were there all along, but I hadn’t seen them because I wasn’t looking for them,” clearly illustrates this point (80). Also, this powerful quote is rather thematic; it shows that when you are looking for something, you may overlook important vitalities that will make you live and thrive as a person. I feel like this quote works well in life. Sometimes, you meet people or you participate in studies, exercises, experiments, activities, games, etc that you initially did for fun or just because and you find that that one person or activity made you look at life differently or in a new perspective. I believe that is precisely what is happening to the narrator. He met Pi and has discovered what a rich and well-rounded individual the former zookeeper’s son is. However, if he had never met Pi, he would have truly missed out on interesting stories and ideas.

The Dry, Yeastless factuality--a true story that misses the point

The two chapters 21 and 22 I think are touching on the same things we talked about in regards to 'The Things They Carried.' In chapter 21 the author is saying that Pi had made a statement about the "dry, yeastless factuality" and he mentions "a quickening of the moral sense, which strikes one as more important than an intellectual understanding of things." This seems to be dealing with the notion that a story doesn't have to be absolutely 100% factually true, but rather it needs to move one, to stir something inside a person and affect them on a moral, emotional level--that's the more important factor. And in chapter 22 when he talks about the athiest and the agnostic on their deathbeds, and how the athiest might recognize god then but an agnostic would not, he says the agnostic might "stay beholden to the dry, yeastless factuality, lack imagination, and miss the better story." Again, he means that the agnostic will cling only to what's actually true in their eyes, they'll have no imagination and no faith, and they will miss out on the real point, the real truth, the "better story." Sometimes, believing in something that isn't true can still enrich one's life and lead to a better understanding of oneself and the world; it can affect a person in a way that is very true and very real and very worthwhile.

Pi's Impending Tragedy as the Narrative Engine

Although the beginning of this book is filled with the details of Pi's youth, it is made known from the very beginning that some sort of tragedy happens and changes his whole life. In the very first chapter he talks about how much he has suffered, how he could barely walk or eat, as well as the emotional trauma he has. The reader knows something terrible is coming; it just has to be set up. Of course, if one reads the back of the book it gives away what happens, but even still, the reader doesn't know how that circumstance comes to be or how Pi survives it. Just enough allusion is given to keep the reader interested. I find myself thinking of how everything he loves and talks about will be gone before too long, he just doesn't know it at the time of the beginning of the story, and it makes those little details bittersweet. I also find myself impatient to get to the part about the ship sinking, to find out what happens. I want to find out why this is a story 'to make you believe in God." Is it only because Pi survives a seemingly-impossible situation? Or is there more to it? I suspect there is, since Pi seems so interested and all-believing in religion. I'm anxious to find out what this story is all about, so the narrative engine is definitely working.

Life of Pi, First Set of Prompts

I want to thank all for the thoughtful responses on the blog and the rewarding discussions in class. I believe in letting your ideas drive class discussion and dictate the direction of our class, but in order for this to work, you have to be invested and engaged in your own learning. I can see that you are, and I appreciate that. It makes my job much easier. 

As we begin to discuss Life of Pi, please feel free to venture away from these prompts and write about other things that are important to you. I am under no illusions that what I want to talk about is necessarily important to you, so if what I ask is interesting to you, I'm glad. If it isn't, please write about something that is, and we'll talk about that. I only ask that we try to limit our comments to what we are reading that day, or have read before.

1. In the Author's Note, Martel tells a story about how he came to write Life of Pi. According to Martel, he first heard the story while in India, from a man named Francis Adirubasamy, and then later, in Canada, from Pi himself. Also, throughout the novel we are given italicized chapters from time to time. These take place years in the future and are in the voice of Yann Martel. Does having just finished The Things They Carried make you read these chapters, and the description of the book's origin, with skepticism, or are you willing to confront the new book on its own ground and believe Martel's story about how the book came about?

2. One thing that Martel is doing in this first section of the novel is setting you up for things that will happen later. You can't know this, of course. The details just seem like details. Lives of zoo creatures, descriptions of swimming pools, details about Pi's undergraduate thesis, the story of training his peers to call him Pi, a tiger ripping a goat apart--these things can seem random and even pointless. And yet, every book has to have what we might call a narrative engine, something that makes you want to keep turning pages. What does Martel do in this first part of the novel to keep you interested even when you are unsure where the book is going?

3. Much of this first part of the book yokes zoology and religion. In what ways is religion like a zoo? In what way is zoo life like religion? For example, look at the way zoos are described (and defended) in Chapter 4. How might these descriptions relate to an individual's religous beliefs? Or, alternatively, how might the strange and even violent acts of the animals in this section of the novel relate to elements of religion? 

4. Interpret Chapter 21, Chapter 22, or both. Your interpretation(s) will probably change as you read further, but what do you make of these chapters now? Martel has said that despite their brevity, these are some of the most important chapters in the novel. Pay particular attention to the phrases “dry, yeastless factuality” and “the better story.” 

5. At the end of Chapter 30, Martel meets Pi's wife. He had never seen signs of her before, but now he sees them all over the house and wonders how he could have missed them. "They were there all along, but I hadn't seen them because I wasn't looking for them," he says. Can this sentence extend beyond its context and be considered thematic? 

6. At the end of Chapter 36, Martel writes, "The story has a happy ending." Why tell the reader this so early in the book? Is this going to spoil your reading experience? Do you even believe it? Isn't it a bad idea to tell the reader about the ending? What do you think about this strategy? 

That's probably enough for now. Happy reading.