Sunday, February 27, 2011

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.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

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.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

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.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

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.

Monday, February 21, 2011

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.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

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?"

Thursday, February 17, 2011

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?

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

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.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

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.

Monday, February 14, 2011

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.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

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.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Hold On Loosely, Before You Lose Control

In "The Story", the narrator is struggling with the reality that his son is growing up and will soon leave the proverbial nest. His inability to interest his son with his stories, which he has used with great efficacy for his son's entire life, makes him feel powerless, timid, and obtuse. He doesn't want his son to mature and experience the things which the world has to offer due to his natural cupidity. It is his innate desire to hold on to his son, to protect him, and to provide him with food and shelter that blinds him. He likely has good intentions and wants the best for his son, which would be to experience the world and leave his childhood home and stories. He is not dumb nor does he have an inability to communicate. He is simply a loving parent whose judgement is clouded, and he is frustrated because of it.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words.

~These poems were very hard for me to comprehend. I understood them alright, but there are so many things circling in my head about the poem; maybe when we meet for class, I will get a better understanding of what it all means.
I believe that the stories/ poems both use silence but to me silence is not really present in the stories at all.
In the poem, A Story, the son wants to be told a completely new story. The father hesitates and is so confused with what he should do with his sons request. His thoughts are loud and screaming to me; he is thinking about how he likes to tell the same stories to his son because of his reaction to them and the young spirit he has. The father is worried about him leaving, he doesn't ever want him to leave, he wants to keep his boy and the tradition of his many stories. I believe the man also might be scared that if he makes up a new one, the boy won't remember it, or it won't amuse him. I believe there is some-what of a silence happening in this story because of the inner conflict the father has and the outer conflict the son and the father have. These emotions and actions are very loud, so to me it's not silence.
In the poem The Dumb Man, the speaker exclaims that he can not remember a story but sometimes he can, and he is dumb and etc. I think that the poem was constructed to seem almost spontaneous. I think the speaker sort-of came up with the story on the spot, or had just thought about it. Because he exclaims he can't remember it, he probably makes a new story up each time. I don't completely understand this story, but I'm guessing this woman is having to choose between the three men downstairs? When the white man comes upstairs to greet her she instantly is attracted to him. Maybe because he was the only one who cared enough to come up stairs? Maybe he can't tell the story because he is missing a piece of it, ( why the dandified man was laughing throughout his story?, who is the woman?, what does she represent?, who is the white one?, what does he represent?). Maybe the man said he can not tell it because only you can tell yourself the story; maybe the piece missing is you. Maybe the white one and the three men are silent because all of their actions speak louder than words.
Overall, I do not think the speaker is dumb, I just think he is confused, like everyone else who reads this poem! haha Anyways, I can't make up my mind on what this one means. Hopefully the rest of the class will explain it to me/ we will discuss it!

Monday, February 7, 2011

Searching for the Right Words

I think both pieces use the silence motif in the same way, though at first the stories seem very different. "A Story" is addressing the situation of a young boy asking his father to tell him a story, a new story, and his father's inability to produce one. The father knows the pressure is on to come up with a story that the boy will like, but he can't make his mind come up with one. The father loves the boy so much, and he doesn't want to disappoint him; he thinks ahead, of when the boy is all grown up and the father will so want to return to this time and tell his son a story and make him happy, but it will be too late. The father cannot think of the right things to say now, and so because he doesn't want to disappoint the boy, he just remains silent. "The Dumb Man" I think is essentially about the same thing--wanting to tell just exactly the right story, not wanting to disappoint the other person, but being unable to come up with the right words and thus remaining silent. The narrator seems to feel that if only he could understand the characters in the story better, then he would find the right words and his tongue would be torn loose and the words would flow and flow and flow and he would have a fantastic story that people would love to hear. But he can't figure out the story, he can't tell it right, so to speak, and so he stays apparently silent. Both stories deal with the desire to tell a good story, to convey all the emotion and love and knowledge the people have in their heads, but feeling inadequate when it comes to expressing it.

The Silence of Lee's Story

In the poem entitled, "A Story," silence is used quite a bit. However, silence, I believe is meant to mean something. Silence possibly could symbolize the relationship between the son and the father. The son and father initially had so many things to discuss and talk about but as they both grew older, they may have drifted apart and lost the once ignited spark of conversation. The father, possibly endeavoring to keep his old relationship with his son alive, may have attempted to use old topics and repeat old conversations. However, the son, grows tires and moves farther away from his father. I think the quote, "In a room full of books in a world of stories, he can recall not one, and soon, he thinks, the boy will give up on his father" (line 6-9) shows the distance growing between the son and father. The father may also be trying to stop his son from growing up and moving away; he may want to keep him as his little boy forever, shown with the quote, "Don't go! Hear the alligator story! The angel story once more..." (11-12). From the father's perspective, the son is leaving and will never return as his once little boy. However, the son's perspective is quite different. The son desperately wants the father to rekindle their old relationship, symbolized by desire for a new story. Maybe the son wants one last story before he heads off on his own and leaves his father. I believe the son is asking the father to continue with him, though he knows he must journey towards life on his own. The father knows this, but wants to keep his little child with him as long as possible. The inability to tell a story and the unfulfilled wish for a story both show that the father and son are not showing their true emotions. Outwardly, the son is leaving, but inwardly, he wants to stay with his father. He appears to not be listening to his father as his father screams silently, "Are you a god...that I sit mute before you?" (16-17). Outwardly, the son is not listening to his son's silent plea for a story; inwardly, he desires for his son to stay with him a little while longer. However, the father loves the boy and knows that he must let him go off into the real world to become his own person. The son also knows that he must leave and have his "supplications" unanswered because he must leave. Apparently, silence speaks loudly in this poem and tells a great deal about both the father and the son.

Dumb Man Leaves Me Dumbfounded

The way that Anderson constructs this story is ingenious. He gives every detail of every character in the story, down to their facial appearances. He also gives a setting, "a house in a street". He describes the fourth man, a silent figure, entering the house and approaching the woman of the story. I agree that the fourth man is a symbol of death; however, I am unsure of the woman's role. I also believe that perhaps the three men downstairs are people whose lives have reached an end, whether they know/accept it or not. The wicked man ran back and forth anxiously, maybe knowing that death was in his midst. The grey man died peacefully in his sleep after growing tired of chasing the wicked man. The cackling man is the most mysterious of all, even more so than the fourth man. Why was he continually laughing? Assuming that the fourth man was Death, did the cackling man think he could cheat his fate? The answer to this question is the reason why Anderson is at a loss for words. He stated every detail of the story EXCEPT for the most important thing -- why did these people experience insanity, death, and anxiety because of the fourth man? What role does the woman play in all of this? Anderson cannot explain what happened, whether it be because he simply does not know, or he cannot find the words. One thing is for sure, however -- this story thoroughly puzzled me.

There Is No Silence, Only An Ineffability

"I have a wonderful story to tell but no way to tell it", is something I can relate to incontrovertibly. I am always thinking, processing, analyzing, etc., all of these ideas, stories, words in general; yet, I think of no way to share them in a coherent manner with others. I know what I want to express, to say, but to logically connect them in such a way is sometimes just baffling. This is what the "dumb" man was undergoing, yet he still told us a story. The inability to express what you want to say, doesn't restrict you from saying something. In fact, when you can't express what you want to say, you tell us why you cannot, always. If I said I saw three kids playing a game in the street, but was unaware or ignorant of what game, I have told you something vital nonetheless. I have told you that there were three kids, the subjects. I have told you that there was a game being played, the action. I have told you that the three kids, and presumably I, was in the street, which is the setting or place. I have reluctantly told you a story, but it was something I obviously didn't mean to express. This ineffability to express what I truly want to tell you, is only, really, ineffable in my mind. The listener just takes it for what it is, accepts it. Yet, in the poem, "A Story", there is a need for dynamism in the stories from the son. He accepts the others stories, but he wants more, more knowledge. The father, however, cannot appease his son's wish. He inevitably refers back to stories his child is well aware of, which is something I find interesting about stories. Stories are based on empiricism, because they come from experience, whether it be physical or metaphysical. In other words, stories are an imitation or expression of experience, whether it is factual or distorted. Consequently, the father dwells on this idea. He does not create, or presumably distort, any stories. This is where the ineffability plays its role, because the father cannot express something dynamic. He stays static in what he knows, which is something the "dumb" man also does. They are not dumb, they are in fact not even ignorant, they are just bounded by what they know. They only express what they know, they are not analyzing anything any further. The father does not analyze new stories, or distorted ones. The "dumb" man does not further analyze what he witnessed. He did, however, give us some of his insight about what he thought the man and woman symbolized. From there, though, he resides on his ineffable thoughts. Ultimately, there is no silence, only an ineffability.

Cash a lier too!

I don't like poetry much because I seldem understand them. So I was a bit frustrated reading them and not having anything to say. Saturday night I was watching the movie Walk the Line and it hit me! Johnny Cash wrote the song "Fulson Prison Blues" to express his feelings about the airforce. Many people thought that he had been in prison because of how well the song expressed the feelings he had. Cash had never been in prison in reality but the best way he could express his feelings about the airforce was to use the analagy of prsion.

So this study of truth and lies we are having exteneds not only to stories and poetry but to songs as well. When humankind communicates emotions and memories in nay way it can be looked at in the way that we are exploring this semester.

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Inability to be Inarticulate

I believe that these two authors use lines like '' or '' to instill a sense of desperation into their works. I think that the authors were trying to express a need to communication with others, and to make their readers feel it. To make them really feel it, they needed to translate the overwhelming need to speak out with an accompained frustration at not being able to do so satisfactorily. By saying things like 'I have no words' or 'I have no words to tell what happened in my story. I cannot tell the story, ' they are trying to make you feel like words alone could never express their feelings sufficiently. The effect, at least for me, is that their dissatisfaction rings loud and clear.

I feel like the man in The Story by Li-Young Lee is worried about the what the future will inevitably bring for him and his son. Sherwood Anderson, author of The Dumb Man, doesn't seem to even know what the story he is trying to tell means, but he needs to tell it nonetheless, and that's something that I can understand as a fellow writer. The decisions to let their doubts about communication shine through their words makes you feel their emotions in a way that the stories stick with you even after you've finished them. It makes you ponder over the 'what if's. Like 'what if the author hadn't struggled with translating their message?'. I do not think the stories would have been nearly as dynamic without the struggle.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Prompts for "The Dumb Man" and "A Story"

Both "The Dumb Man" and "A Story" deal with a topic we have been discussing in class, namely the inability to communicate. One thing I find interesting, however, is that the narrator in Anderson's story and the speaker in Lee's poem both do communicate something even as they insist that they cannot. Lee's poem ends by saying "a boy's supplications / and a father's love add up to silence," but the poem itself has not been silent. The last line of "The Dumb Man" is "I have a wonderful story to tell but no way to tell it," but hasn't the narrator, in fact, just old us a story?

Why do you think these writers use silence as a motif and as a way of framing a story? You can talk about either one of the pieces or both.

Once you've read both pieces a few times (but not before), go here and watch the short film. I'll be interested to hear how it affected your ideas and feelings about Anderson's story.

The Fine Line Between Allegory And Truth

Truth is an event which actually occurred. It is subjective but invariable. O'Brien asserts that he could truthfully tell his daughter that he did kill someone, or that he didn't kill anyone. He is not stretching the "allegorical" truth. He can rationalize what he did/didn't do in any fashion he desires. The "allegorical" truth is subjective, and therefore infallible. He could tell his daughter the allegorical version of his time in Vietnam until he thinks she's ready to handle and understand it. When the daughter is of the right age, he should tell her the actual truth and explain the allegorical version. Recognizing the dichotomy between allegory and truth is essential to understanding the overall message which O'Brian is attempting to proffer.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Abnormal

Growing up I loved to read. It was a way for me to escape reality and become someone else for as long as I wanted. I would spend hours at time reading about people who made me thankful for the life that I had. That being said, Kiowa’s death affected me more than Rat Kiley loosing his mind. The mind is an easy thing to loose. It is almost expected during war. Everyone looses parts of themselves when faced in traumatic situations, such as Vietnam. I always hear post-war stories of grown men who wake up one day reliving battles and running around trying to protect themselves from things and people who aren’t there. Just like Rat scratching away bugs that were not crawling on him. Don’t get me wrong, the story of Rat is powerful but it’s generic compared to the death of Kiowa. Kiowa died in a field of feces he was literally sucked into the ground by bowel movements and rain. I think that I took to this story more than Rat’s because I enjoy reading about the abnormal. Things that make you feel uncomfortable almost to the point you want to stop reading. O’Brian talks about this in his interview when he says storytelling is “how we deal with conflict and with struggle and tensions in our lives”. Only for me I would rather hear or read of others struggles instead of tell mine. That is why I prefer “In The Field” instead of “Night Life”.

Down With The Rain

Let me start by saying that this part of the book, Kiowa's death and all the parts that related back to it, have been the most difficult to swallow. Previously, I was never much bothered by O'Brien's thin web of lies and truths. I found myself taking his stories as fact without much hesitation, and accepting them as fiction when he shed light on their false nature just as easily. However, there was something that kept me from going with the punches this time around. I think it was partly because he tells you this same story over and over again in all sorts of different ways for forty-eight pages straight.

First, it was Norman Bowker who couldn't pull Kiowa's body out of the mud fast enough to save his life, and so he gave up and let the man sink into the muck. Then O'Brien adds another layer to the story by telling you why he felt he had to write that story into this book. Bowker's tragic tale about needing to speak out to alleviate the guilt he felt about being unable to save his friend's life makes the story seem even more 'real', despite the fact that you know these character's aren't actually 'real' themselves. O'Brien goes on to further your emotional attachment to this particular tale by retelling it. Only this time, he decides to tell you that it was a nameless solider who failed to pry that boot from the mud pit. I had to go back and reread that part three times. I just could swallow it. I had no problem with O'Brien coming right out and saying that several parts of the story were not factual. I understood where he was coming from. I understood why the story needed to be told in this sort of deceptive way, and could therefore accept it. I couldn't understand why he would write the same story, completely change major details, and then not even space it out at all. Had he slide a few sections in between them, I probably wouldn't have even questioned it. I wouldn't have seen a need to. But him putting the stories practically back to back makes me think there had to be a reason he wanted you to see the differences. Maybe to further your distrust in him? I'm not really sure. It became even more frustrating for me in Good Form when he comes right out and reminds you that almost none of the previous tales were factually true. I think even that could have been forgivable, if he hadn't written Field Trip immediately after Good Form. I found myself wondering more about why he was becoming so untactful in his lies more so than concentrating on the story. It was a complete 360 to how I had been approaching the book, and I found it difficult to concentrate on the plot-line of Kiowa's death. It wasn't until after O'Brien had moved on to talk about gun wounds that I could fully immerse myself back into the story. I'm still completely baffled by why O'Brien chose to do this.

The Boy Who Lost Everything

"He was alone. He'd lost everything. He'd lost Kiowa and his weapon and his flashlight and his girlfriend's picture. He remembered this. He remembered wondering if he could lose himself." Those were the words that struck me with thought , the words that made him nameless. In this chapter, I felt that O'Brien was using the boy as analogy for the ignorance, innocence, and fragility that some of the now more experienced soldiers used to have. What they have now is the future, what they carry, and a reluctance. They seem to not hang on to the past as much as the book continues, although they do think about brutal events excessively from time to time. Even though that happens, they still continue forward. Lieutenant Cross seems to do this in the chapter, by just sitting there thinking about what he is going to do with the letter to Kiowa's father. While the nameless boy sits there looking for his girlfriend's picture. The metaphor here I believe, is that the novice soldiers are still hanging on to the past, whereas the adept are reluctantly looking forward. And, the reason the boy is nameless, mainly, is because he is still innocent. He is still one of the "identical copies of a single soldier". Even though he witnessed Kiowa's death, and lost his false sense of love from his ex's picture, he still wants to cling on to the past. When one of the soldiers that we can actually identify react to a situation, it is unique, and it always has been. Whether it was from killing the baby buffalo, or when Cross burned the letters from Martha, they all adaptively and uniquely coped with their situations. However, the nameless boy predictably looked for something he lost, especially predictable since it was his ex's picture. This predictability I believe shows innocence, and his frantic approach to find it showed fragility, and ignorance is just the sheer comparison of lieutenant to grunt. Despite his ignorance, though, I think the nameless boy was trying to convince himself that he needed to move forward, by doing the senseless act of searching for the picture. Because he needed to prove to himself that he lost it, that it was gone. He needed something to tell him he could go on, that he had no more burdens to bear. And I feel that correlates with the point that O'Brien made in his interview, to "convince the reader of the stuff that is happening in the now"; which is much like the nameless boy convincing himself of his current situation. O'Brien convinces us of the now to convince us of his truths, which inevitably entangle us in this complex web of truths, lies, and facts. Yet, he convinces us that this is true, whether it is lie or fact, and the nameless boy is convincing himself of the truth that he lost his picture, whether he accepts it or not. He is still innocent of the truths of war, the sins, the rights and wrongs, the fact that there are apparently none, and his name. I conclusively feel that O'Brien didn't name the boy, because he wasn't a part of the war, a part of the overall truth or truths we are being convinced of. He is still one of those identical soldiers, who is is still reluctantly holding on to the past.

Linda: The Introduction and Ending of Death

The story of a young O'Brien and his love interest, Linda, really brought the entire book together for me. Timmy was in love with Linda at such a young age, and her unexpected death was both heartbreaking and puzzling for young Timmy. I believe O'Brien included this story at the end of the book in order to explain his need for telling stories, for escaping. He even said it himself: he invented his own dreams and included Linda in them, who is very much alive in his fictional world. He slept in broad daylight in hopes of spending time with his love. Even in the years of writing "The Things They Carried", O'Brien admits he still thinks about Linda as he creates stories. In a way, Linda's death is an impetus for the start of O'Brien's writing career.
Timmy may not have necessarily understood death when he was exposed to Linda's corpse in her coffin. He could barely even recognize her in her post-mortem state. As far as the reader is concerned, this incident is the first time that O'Brien had ever seen a dead person face-to-face. His reason for including this story may have been to let his readers know that although he had been introduced to death pre-Vietnam, the entire concept was still new to him as far as comprehending and coping with the entire grieving process.
On the last page of the book, O'Brien says he is "Tim trying to save Timmy's life with a story". In other words, does Linda's death still haunt O'Brien to this day, and is his need to write stories an attempt to save himself from his own destruction?

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

The Things They Carried - Final Set of Prompts

I am going to make this blog post a little trickier for you (and a little more fun, hopefully). As before, you should choose one of these prompts and respond to it. However, your response will be a little different this time in that regardless of which prompt you choose, you should include, as part of your response, something from the O’Brien interview I posted on D2L. You might quote a line, or lines, from the interview, or you might paraphrase some part of it, or you might use it in some other way. Please remember, though, that your response should primarily be an expression of original thought.

1. In “In the Field,” there is a young boy that is not named. Why not give this character a name? Any ideas? Does the chapter give you any clues?

2. On 178-79, O’Brien writes, “Twenty years. A lot like yesterday, a lot like never. In a way, maybe, I’d gone under with Kiowa, and now after two decades I’d finally worked my way out. [. . .] I felt something go shut in my heart while something else swung open.” Interpret these lines.

3. What happens to O’Brien as he is enacting his revenge on Bobby Jorgenson? What do we learn about him in those chapters? How would you describe his emotional state?

5. O’Brien writes about the difference between “happening-truth” and “story-truth.” He writes that he could tell his daughter that he did, or did not, kill anyone, and that either one would be true. Is this stretching his definition of "truth" too far?
6. Which affected you more, Kiowa going under, or Rat Kiley beginning to lose his mind? Why? What does this teach you about yourself as a reader?

7. The story of Timmy and Linda is probably symbolic of many things. What does it symbolize to you? What is its significance? And why does O’Brien include it, even conclude with it, when it seems to be outside Vietnam, outside the framework of the book?

8. The last chapter, “The Lives of the Dead,” begins with the sentence, “But this, too, is true: stories can save us.” Why the word “too”? What other “truth” is he referring back to? And, perhaps more importantly, what do you think O’Brien means? After all you have read, respond to the idea that a story can save us.


Thank you!

Critical Response Prompts

I have written the prompts for your Critical Response and will bring a handout to class today. But I want to post them here as well:


Critical Response Paper Prompts

  1. This prompt asks you to respond to the question of truth as it relates to storytelling.
In “Good Form,” Tim O’Brien makes a distinction between “happening-truth” and “story-truth” (171). How is truth conveyed in a story? Is it the same or different than the way truth is experienced “off the page”? Does “story-truth” follow rules, exhibit characteristics, or inhabit a moral universe separate from “happening-truth”?   
  1. This prompt asks you to respond to the benefits of telling and/or hearing stories.
At the end of The Things They Carried, O’Brien realizes that “Tim [is] trying to save Timmy’s life with a story.” Write a paper that responds to the idea that stories can save. Can they save us? If so, how? If not, what is it that they do for us?
  1. This prompt asks you to discuss the dynamic relationship between author and reader.
Louise Rosenblatt, a literary critic and theorist, formulated an idea called “transactional reader response theory.” According to Rosenblatt, a text has both determinate and indeterminate meaning. Determinate meaning refers to events, details, physical descriptions, and other “facts” of the text. Indeterminate meaning refers to “gaps” that the author intentionally leaves in the text. These might include actions that are not fully explained, incidents or facts that are in dispute or that allow for multiple interpretations, or any other element of a text that requires a heavy degree of reader participation. Based on what we have read so far this semester, discuss the relationship between the author and the reader. How much of a responsibility does an author have to supply “meaning”? How much of this is the reader’s responsibility? [Note: You certainly do not have to refer to Rosenblatt or her theory in your paper, but if you are interested in learning more about Reader-Response theories, please ask me, and I can supply you with some reading material.]
  1. This prompt asks you to discuss the relationship between memory and literary form.
The topic of memory has surfaced several times during our class discussions. Mark Twain once wrote,
When I was younger, I could remember anything, whether it had happened or not; but my faculties are decaying now and soon I shall be so I cannot remember any but the things that never happened. It is sad to go to pieces like this but we all have to do it.
Storytellers, perhaps especially modern (or postmodern) storytellers, often write in a way that attempts to capture the complex and fallible way(s) that memory works, and this is particularly true in their formal choices. How can the form of a work of literature—that is, the way in which it is written as opposed to merely what it says—reflect or embody the workings of memory, and why is this important?