Drafts of Paper 2 due

Hope you all had a pleasant, enjoyable Spring break!

Just a reminder that your drafts for Paper 2 are due tomorrow, Wednesday, the 03/31/10.

Paper 2 Thesis Topics

Paper Assignment #2
English 106W Mega section
Dr. Pruss
Characterization & Theme
Due Date: Wednesday, March 31st

Please select one topic from the ones listed below. Turn in all your rough work, and put your final draft on top; make sure your final draft is stapled on the top left side. Your paper must include citations (at least 2) from the LiterActive document library and the short stories you use, and you must provide a Works Cited List using the MLA documentation style provided on your LiterActive Disk. You may also use any of the YouTube videos I’ve shown during class or any of the articles on the syllabus instead of one of the LiterActive documents as a source. Failure to cite your sources correctly, and place commas and periods where they belong, will cost you points on your paper grade (since it just takes patience and time; not taking that time shows that you do not care about your work). Please remember to explain the word choice in the quotations you use and demonstrate the connections you see between the passages you choose and the idea you are proving. Write simply and straightforwardly.

1. Using one of the following stories to prove that the character who appears most normal and follows mainstream cultural constructs is the one in greatest need of human compassion and transformation. Make sure you provide sufficient evidence for your viewpoint and that you explain your evidence clearly. This essay topic asks you to construct a convincing and persuasive argument that proves something. You may choose to write this on either “Sonny’s Blues” or “Everyday Use.”
2. What do you believe Jean Toomer is trying to teach you through her story “Blood-Burning Moon”? What do you make of Tom Burwell and his choice of action? What do you make of Louisa? Is she really oblivious to what is happening at the end of the story?
3. Discuss the use of music in Baldwin and Toomer. How are jazz and vocal music used in these stories. Please note the different time periods in which these stories were written. The contexts are different, so make sure you differentiate the historical background’s impact upon the use of music in the story.
4. Discuss the similarities between Mrs. Dutta and Sonny’s brother. Why are these similarities significant thematically?
5. What is Walker’s commentary on the value of education in the story “Everyday Use”? What is your evidence. Why would she want to convey that message?
6. Discuss the first sentence of “Mrs. Dutta Writes a Letter” and the amount of information it carries. Show how this one sentence foreshadows so much. Think carefully about the simile. Discuss the importance of the title, particularly the verb. What is so amazing about the result of the writing that it appears in the title? What does this teach you about writing-to-learn as opposed to having your thesis statement before you begin to write?

For this week.

1. Discuss the significance of the letter in "Mrs. Dutta Writes a Letter"?

Dr. Pruss's question regarding Alice Walker's "Everyday Use":

2. How does Dee's mother's dream of the television show reveal Dee's character? How
about the way Dee read to her family while she was growing up? What does that tell us about Dee?

Some thoughts on "Mrs Dutta Writes a Letter"

Here are some of my thoughts as well as my colleagues’ on the story to help you in interpreting the story.

Some info on Mrs. Dutta's cultural background:

Mrs. Dutta belongs to the traditional school of thought which believes that the wife/mother/daughter –in-law is the one who keeps the family in order. She is the one who ensures harmony in a household. Mrs. Dutta belongs to the joint family system, mostly prevalent in northern India, where the new bride lives with her husband, his parents and his siblings along with their spouses. Even though I come from a nuclear family set up, I personally know families that are very traditional in set up, with a highly educated attitude and respectful of each other’s space, unlike Mrs. Dutta’s situation where she had not known what privacy meant. But there are of course families with many problems in this type of set up. The probability of conflict is high when there are so many individuals under one roof whose opinions clash constantly and "individuality" suffers in pursuit of the collective good. Only, Mrs. Dutta never really realized her individuality since her environment has fostered the belief that the purpose of her existence is solely based on the needs of not only her immediate family members, but her extended family as well.

The part where Mrs. Dutta says that it was a relatively good day in a country where you could stare out for hours and not see a soul was hilarious for me because it is exactly what my aunt and mother say though in a lighthearted manner, when they visit me here occasionally. For instance, the city and especially the residential area where my parents live in India is peaceful as well, but the social scene is drastically different. There’s always someone who drops by, be it the housemaid who comes everyday at 6:30 a.m., the familiar vendor who brings fresh greens every day, or the milkman, or the dry cleaning boy who picks up and drops off clothes, or the errand boy from the provision store who drives by with groceries ordered by my mother over the phone. There is a constant hum of sounds which I find soothing whether it is the cook chopping veggies or the maid mopping the floors. The point with all these details is that it is a totally different lifestyle in India (especially for the slightly privileged). It is a huge change for any Indian immigrant no matter how educated or modern he or she is when they move to America. My folks belong to a traditional educated Indian society and they appreciate a whole lot of things about America and its culture but they cannot imagine living here. For Mrs. Dutta, it is about realizing that she belongs with her own circle of friends in India and not with her family. I think some aspects of American culture which she sees through her daughter in law helps her in this realization. Her selflessness is no good to her or to her own family.

In short, Mrs. Dutta is enslaved to an archaic mode of thinking – that the woman takes the responsibility of ensuring harmony in a household by suppressing her own voice for the supposed good of the family. Her reluctance to understand her daughter-in-law is annoying which shows how out of touch she is with her true “self”. On the other hand, I find it unacceptable that Mrs. Dutta’s son, his wife and kids have alienated themselves from their own rich heritage, manners and respect of elders(which I didn't elaborate upon since it will be too lengthy) instead of finding a balance between the two worlds.It is a relief to find that Mrs. Dutta becomes her own champion in the end. The letter she writes is her courage to finally face the truth.
-Sunita


Ms. Botelho said:
This story is not all that different than many stories written by a foreigner trying to establish a place in America. The repulsion at American children, television, and the "loose" woman smoking a cigarette is expected in a story like this. However, it was the last paragraph that brought this story to an unexpected (and pleasantly surprising) level. We see the narrator, Mrs. Dutta, actually learning something about people through her experience in America, as opposed to shunning the culture she finds herself in. In the letter to her close friend in Calcutta, because there is no repercussion to writing the truth, she is finally able to do so. There are a few moments in the story Mrs. Dutta reflects on the unbridled emotion Americans showcase, and how this never occurred in her homeland. After these judgments, she is struck by a view that perhaps this isn't a bad thing, as she reflected on the feelings of repression she experienced in her own life. She does not shed tears as she writes and admits these truths, because she was actually shedding tears when she denied them to herself.

Daniel M said:
My first impression of the story is that it prominently concerns the production of texts and the circumstances or contexts that inform writing. It builds on the many tensions Mrs. Dutta faces in America: conflicts between Mrs. Dutta and a combination of her son’s family and American culture. Yet, through many of these conflicts, she is silent—owing to the selflessness that defines the “mother” role in her culture. I apologize for not being able to accurately point to the source of the quote, but someone said in the afternoon class last Monday that “without a voice there isn’t a self,” or something similar. Mrs. Dutta represses every outwardly selfish thought, barring those that concern a more traditional way to go about doing things for her family. Thus, the final production of the letter is a triumph for Mrs. Dutta’s selfhood. She informs her friend that she will be returning to India and seeking happiness on her own terms rather than those of culturally-mandated obligation and tradition. Not sending the letter would negate the purpose of the story, so I’m certain that the letter gets mailed and that Mrs. Dutta eventually returns to her native land.

Mr. Bolster said:
Mrs. Dutta was crying because of the truths within herself that she repressed.
Whatever is in her heart that she cannot name exists in opposition to her family loyalties. Divakaruni uses the word "battles" to illustrate this quality of opposition and conflict. First of all, whatever it is that Mrs. Dutta feels, she identifies as incommensurable with family loyalty--an important value for her throughout the story and a value that she identifies with her homeland and its traditions.

Her insidious feelings may include the feeling that Sagar and his wife have made horrible mistakes in the way they choose to live their lives. The rebelliousness of the children and the idea of a woman smoking a cigarette are aspects of the "modern American world" with which Mrs. Dutta takes issue, but it is also the strange washing machine, the strange way that neighbors don't talk to one another, and the strange way a wife addresses a husband by his first name. Mrs. Dutta experiences a generalized feeling of cultural and social alientation in the "new world." The cultural alienation Mrs. Dutta could have expected, coming to America, but the sense of alienation from her family, her own flesh and blood, probably took her by surprise. "And blood is blood after all" (363), Mrs. Dutta says to Mrs. Basu, explaining why she can't possibly dislike moving to America. Disappointment is another feeling that she cannot immediately put into words, although she eventually acknowledges that feeling to herself. She is disappointed with "so much in this country" (359), which is a generalized disappointment, but she is specifically disappointed with her grandchildren. How difficult for any grandparent to admit that! Eventually, her disappointment and alienation build into, presumably, regret that she moved, or at the very least, a resolution to return to India.

On another note altogether, I love how Divakaruni completely underemphasized Mrs. Dutta's decision to return to her homeland. In fact, I didn't even notice it the first time I read the story. It's in the middle of the letter on the last page: "for I do hope you will rent [your downstairs flat] to me on my return" (369).

Mr. Farell said:
The feelings she refuses to name are: loneliness, sadness, and depression. Although she loves her family and is loyal to them, her problem is filling the days and having a true sense of companionship. "It's been a good day, as good as it can be in a country where you might stare out the window for hours and not see one living soul" (363). She feels loss for the friendship of her dearest, closest companion, Roma, who is also who she is writing the letter to. "Calcutta pushes itself on her mind again...and her heart fills with a sense of loss she knows to be illogical" (364). She is heartbroken from the home and culture she has known all of her life. She constantly drifts into moments of nostalgia that she deems "illogical" for a reason. This is what she discovers in her letter at the end that her happiness is where she left her heart--India. This is why she feels no need to weep because she has made the decision that will make her happiest. She feels that she is losing nothing by going home.


Skylar Hammel said:
The feelings that Mrs. Dutta cannot name are her knowledge of her own unhappiness and the lack of acceptance in her new life. It is obvious that Mrs. Dutta is trying to adapt to the situation she is in, but cannot succeed. When she cannot sleep in, she does not get out of bed early in order to keep from waking the family. However, she suffers for her attempt by being forced to remain on a mattress she finds uncomfortable until other people in the household begin their day. They begin their day exactly when they want to; she is not given that luxury. As a young bride she had kept the hours needed to run the house. As an live-in, aged parent she keeps the hours necesary for the smooth operation of the house according to American standards. In both places, she was denied the right to keep her own schedule as she pleased.
The word insidious appears more than once in the text. As Mrs. Dutta muses on Shyamoli's way of life and her refusal to bend to other people's rules, she uses the same adjective. "Mrs. Dutta lowers herself heavily on to her bed, trying to erase such an insidious idea from her mind" (366). The insidious idea is, at least in part, longing for the freedom lost by attempting to fit the mold of the aging Indian mother.

For Wednesday class

Please make sure you read the following stories for our Wednesday class.

"Mrs. Dutta Writes a Letter" by Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni (page 355)

and Alice Walker's "Everyday Use" (page 1306).

For Monday class "Mrs. Dutta Writes a Letter"

For Monday, the 15th, please read "Mrs.Dutta Writes a Letter", page 355.

Make sure you collect your graded papers before or after class on Monday. You have until the 17th to revise it if you're not satisfied with your grades.

Thanks.

In favor of Sonny's brother!

How would you play the devil's advocate for Sonny's brother in proving that he is not enslaved in any way? How can you argue in his favor from any aspect? Please feel free to go berserk with the idea and comment without any reservations?

Clarifications regarding the article we used in class today.

I’d like to clarify that I showed this article in class today not to prove that historians are the final word on everything, but simply as an instance of how freedom of expression loses meaning sometimes when people like Thompson in this article simply refuse to consider even a credible source as “The Arlington National Cemetery”. Also, to contrast that with Sonny’s need to express himself as an artist through his music, which to him is a necessity. It is a necessity because his music is what allows him to cope with the rest of the bleakness that surrounds him and gives him a sense of control. It is not an idle escape to kill time. Thompson seems to exhibit some random urge to disagree without a convincing reason. My purpose was not at all to go into the political aspect of what this article entails. I am personally skeptical about some facts history claims as accurate since the telling and re-telling of history can be somewhat compared to Dr. Pruss’s discussion of story and plot. It is quite possible that historians lose the actual facts in their re-telling, but that it not what I was discussing in class today. I was mainly pointing to how we are prone to expressing our opinions without much critical thinking which ties in with our discussion about the thin line between freedom of expression and random opinions not grounded in any sort of logic or facts. For instance, the time period in which the action of Baldwin’s story is set is one of segregation and discrimination for the African Americans. Now, this information is de-facto. If someone comes along and says, “I don’t believe any of it”, what can you say? Yes, that person has the right and is entitled to his opinion, but would you consider it a valid opinion? It is also a relevant discussion even in proving our thesis statements for our papers. Of course, all these stories we’re discussing are open to interpretation and there’s no right or wrong way, but there is a rational manner to go about it. That was the main point I was trying to get across since I felt that in discussing Sonny’s need for freedom of expression, this aspect would add to our awareness of another dimension pertaining to the subject matter. Perhaps, it was not the best article to choose.

The article follows below if you wish to read it.

Don't confuse them with facts

To listen to talk radio, to watch TV pundits, to read a newspaper's online message board, is to realize that increasingly, we are a people estranged from critical thinking, divorced from logic, alienated from even objective truth.
Syndicated columnist

I got an e-mail the other day that depressed me.

It concerned a piece I recently did that mentioned Henry Johnson, who was awarded the French Croix de Guerre in World War I for single-handedly fighting off a company of Germans (some accounts say there were 14, some say almost 30, the ones I find most authoritative say there were about two dozen) who threatened to overrun his post.
Johnson managed this despite the fact that he was only 5-foot-4 and 130 pounds, despite the fact that his gun had jammed, despite the fact that he was wounded 21 times.

My mention of Johnson's heroics drew a rebuke from a fellow named Ken Thompson, which I quote verbatim and in its entirety:

"Hate to tell you that blacks were not allowed into combat intell (sic) 1947, that fact. World War II ended in 1945. So all that feel good, one black man killing two dozen Nazi, is just that, PC bull."
In response, my assistant, Judi Smith, sent Mr. Thompson proof of Johnson's heroics: a link to his page on the Web site of Arlington National Cemetery. She thought this settled the matter.

Thompson's reply? "There is no race on headstones and they didn't come up with the story in tell (sic) 2002."

Judi: "I guess you can choose to believe Arlington National Cemetery or not."
Thompson: "It is what it is, you don't believe either ... "
At this point, Judi forwarded me their correspondence, along with a despairing note. She is probably somewhere drinking right now.

You see, like me, she can remember a time when facts settled arguments. This is back before everything became a partisan shouting match, back before it was permissible to ignore or deride as "biased" anything that didn't support your worldview.
If you and I had an argument and I produced facts from an authoritative source to back me up, you couldn't just blow that off. You might try to undermine my facts, might counter with facts of your own, but you couldn't just pretend my facts had no weight or meaning.

But that's the intellectual state of the union these days, as evidenced by all the people who still don't believe the president was born in Hawaii or that the planet is warming. And by Mr. Thompson, who doesn't believe Henry Johnson did what he did.
I could send him more proof, I suppose. Johnson is lauded in history books ("Before the Mayflower" by Lerone Bennett Jr., "The Dictionary of American Negro Biography" by Rayford Logan and Michael Winston) and in contemporaneous accounts (The Saturday Evening Post, The New York Times). I could also point out that blacks have fought in every war in American history, though before Harry Truman desegregated the military in 1948, they did so in Jim Crow units. Also, there were no Nazis in World War I.
But those are "facts," and the whole point here is that facts no longer mean what they once did. I suppose I could also ignore him. But you see, Ken Thompson is not just some isolated eccentric. No, he is the Zeitgeist personified.

To listen to talk radio, to watch TV pundits, to read a newspaper's online message board, is to realize that increasingly, we are a people estranged from critical thinking, divorced from logic, alienated from even objective truth. We admit no ideas that do not confirm us, hear no voices that do not echo us, sift out all information that does not validate what we wish to believe.

I submit that any people thus handicapped sow the seeds of their own decline; they respond to the world as they wish it were rather to the world as it is. That's the story of the Iraq war.

But objective reality does not change because you refuse to accept it. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge a wall does not change the fact that it's a wall.
And you shouldn't have to hit it to find that out.

Your response required by Tuesday, the 9th.

Write about any aspect of the short story "Sonny's Blues" that piques your interest? Is there anything about the story that troubles you and intrigues you? Discuss it without reservation. This blog is here to facilitate free flow of thoughts and opinions. What have you to say about what you see and observe in this story? Please feel free to question and respond to each other's comments as well.

IMPORTANT, March 5th.

Everyone, please make sure to turn in your "revised" and improved final drafts of Paper 1, without fail on Monday. Unstapled papers will not be accepted.

For those who missed class today (Wednesday, the 5th), please see me on Monday morning before class begins to collect your papers for revision. All the absent folks missed Quiz 1.

Attendance is imperative for the rest of the classes for this semester, especially those who have missed a few classes already.

For MONDAY, read James Baldwin's "Sonny's Blues", page 47. We will have a group discussion on this short story on Wednesday, the 10th.

Some thoughts on "A Rose for Emily"

Here are some of my thoughts on Emily. Feel free to ask any questions, to disagree or comment on this post.

Emily is a victim and a murderer. Emily is a pathetic victim who fails to do anything positive with her life. Even though she was victimized, she did have options and could’ve shown some gumption towards bettering her life even under limited circumstances. She had an option to make her life relatively tolerable instead of her almost deliberate attempt at self sabotage. The evil manner in which she plots Homer’s murder is sufficient evidence to suppose that she’s demented and cannot seem to help it because she is decidedly stubborn. Her upbringing and her general stifled existence has snapped something vital in her and has triggered some sort of a destructive mechanism within her.

On the one hand she seems to have run amuck with her murderous intentions and on the other she seems to have her faculties intact, although only for the wrong purpose (the manner in which she plots Homer’s murder definitely requires some acumen).I couldn’t help wondering – if only she had put her formidable faculties to better use, the title would be befitting her. The title evokes a completely different sensation in comparison to the story itself.

I think Emily’s perception of herself is terribly distorted and is not ground in reality. Emily’s confused, abused and shaken mental world is in dangerous conflict with the reality of her situation. It is a sorry state of affairs and she sadly doesn't have any solid example of a figure she could emulate for the better. Still it's no justification for her callous irreverence for human life including her own.

Emily as a victim: The American society celebrates the individual but the individual is still part of a whole – society, a web that’s connected. The individual and society are interdependent since the individual is to a certain extent a product of that society, and society reflects the collective psyche of those individuals. I think that even though the father is directly responsible for Emily’s stifled existence to begin with, it is sanctioned by society. In this story, society seems to take interest in Emily’s plight and also seems to somewhat care for her well-being. But then, it is also unwittingly judgmental of her. She is portrayed as one who neither belongs nor is a total outcast. Instead she’s somewhere in between and her own sense of herself or lack of it rather gets in the way of a harmonious interdependence between the individual and society. She persists in being a separate entity and alienates society for she’s not skilled to be a part of it.

As for loss, Emily never truly found much to lose. Her world is rendered empty by her unfortunate circumstances and by her own defiance and inability to rectify that situation. She does not even try to acquire anything positive and when she does find a glimmer of hope in Homer, she kills it. I’m not sure but I think Faulkner is portraying the repercussions and dire consequences of the lack of a positive structure in an individual’s life. Perhaps even that Emily is aware of her blighted existence but does not seek the sympathy of society in defiance for she holds it responsible for her having had no real chance at a decent life to begin with. She feels justified in revolting against society.

Comments from other instructors:

Skylar says, “Emily is a murderer, but I think there is still room to pity her. Although her personal tragedy does not excuse murder, she is still a victim of the others in her life. Her father caged her, turning away the suitors who may have rescued her from her solitude. Her other family members had to be persuaded to come to her aid, and when they arrived, they proved more harmful than helpful. Homer, whether gay or not, openly courted Emily. He doomed her to the status of a fallen woman (though she, too, could've given in to the rules of her culture and avoided that title). The women of the town, along with its men, allowed her to fall into complete isolation.

Like the "girls" of Banks' and Hemingway's stories, Emily has only a limited control over her own life. Many of her important decisions are made by others. In Bank's story, the girl allows her mother to make the life-altering decisions, while in Hemingway's story, the girl allows the views of her American lover to control her life. Emily has to deal with societal judgement and her father's influence. The biggest difference with "A Rose for Emily" is Emily ability to make choices that are her own. Unfortunately, those choices include the murder of the man who was going to leave her. Emily didn't need her mother to make an appointment or pick up the arsenic. She didn't need a man to choose her poison or even tell her what would be a good drink. In a disturbing way, Emily proved capable of making big decisions for herself and living with the consequences (quite literally).

Michelle says, “The purpose of the story exists to show the ability of both a person and a culture's ability to enslave. Faulkner stated in the interview that the story comments on human nature and not much more, yet it does do more.

The reader sees the enslavement of Emily by her father and ultimately,by herself. Even though she 'craves' companionship, love and a family; she enslaves herself by not allowing herself to evolve with the times.

The final image of the single hair on the pillow, is as Faulkner says in his interview, the most concrete image in the entire story. I liked the pity and emotion that it envokes. Emily, as enslaved to her longing for a family and husband, felt the only way to have one was to kill and Keep Homer. The image of her sleeping next to a decaying corpse was sad, yet capsulated the entire purpose of the story.

Chris said, “Emily is enslaved by her own ideals of what society expects of her. She is unable to accept social change and progression. By being unable to fulfill the requirements that she believes is expected of her, she secludes herself. Homer was her last chance and when she couldn't mold him into her husband, she killed him. It's as though she becomes enslaved to her own psychosis. She made Homer her family, even in death. Judging by the hair on the pillow, she slept with him, with his corpse.

Robin said, "She enslaved herself by refusing to accept progress, social change, personal hygiene. She was spoiled and overindulged, but as an adult it was her responsibility to break out of that. Emily represents the South with her traditional values; she is unwilling to accept change and that's why she lives such a pathetic life. Take her servant, for example, he hightailed it out of there as soon as he could. And poor Homer never saw what was coming. He was a Northerner with a more progressive approach to life and the unyielding Emily, used to getting her own way, probably didn't like that he didn't want to settle down with antiquated values, morals and way of life.
I've always questioned the title "A Rose for Emily." What does that mean? Apparently Faulkner meant a rose for her, like you would present any lady. In other words, we can't fault her for the way she was raised, so we honor who she was. I don't buy that and I've always tried, unsuccessfully, to find a better meaning for that title.

As for whether society is to blame for her situation, it doesn't appear that the townspeople are to blame for Emily's demise. The father is more to blame for oppressing Emily and alienating her from society. She never developed any social skills, so it was difficult for her to be involved in the community. She created a world within her home and created her own rules, hence her not paying taxes.
The townspeople, on the contrary to the question, tried to reason with her about her taxes but eventually let it go -- out of compassion. If they had been against her or had not understood her, they gotten the money by throwing her out of her home. After her father's death, the townspeople pitied her and said "she had become humanized" (393). People called on her during the funeral. Then they were excited about her relationship with Homer and they were shocked at the discovery at the end of the story. If Emily had reached out to the townspeople, she could have reintroduced herself to society; it was her responsibility to overcome her past and step into the future. She choose not to do that.

Discussing Faulkner's A Rose for Emily

For this week, let's re-read Faulkner's A Rose for Emily and focus on the following questions for our Wednesday class.

Is Emily a victim in any way? If yes, how so?

What are the examples of control you see in this short story?

Do you sympathize with Emily in any way?

Those of you who haven't commented on the blog, please make sure you read and post your comments on the older posts. You are all welcome to put your thoughts here on this particular post as well but it's not required for this week.