An Evening With Andrew Seraichick

Ford vs Forest: The Confrontation of Nature and Technology

2009-04-26T21:38:00.000-07:00

In William Stafford’s “Traveling Through the Dark” we see a major juxtaposition of nature and technology. The speaker comes upon a dead doe on the side of a road in the night and, thinking of the other drivers on the road, decides to roll it off the road into the canyon. This decision is part of a much larger dilemma between humans and nature. The speaker hesitates when he learns that the doe is pregnant and that her baby is still alive inside of her. His deliberations over whether to roll the still living fawn into the ravine with its dead mother reflect the greater conflict between nature and technology. As a race we often think of ourselves before we think of nature and in most cases we destroy nature for our own convenience. Stafford uses this simple situation to show the greater decisions we make regarding nature and through the speaker’s decision shows the usual outcome. In reference to his earlier line “to swerve might make more dead,” the speaker refers to his indecision over the fate of the unborn child as “swerving” and his swerving did make more dead, namely the fawn.

Throughout the poem technology, more specifically cars, is personified as a predator that kills off nature, the doe. The doe that the speaker finds on the road has been presumably killed by another car, the car has become the predator. While the speaker is dealing with the doe he describes his car in a manner that implies that it is a living beast. “The car aimed ahead its lowered parking lights,” as if in deep thought over this recent kill as “under the hood purred the steady engine.” These images give the sense of a powerful predator, and by placing a car in the space that ought to be filled by a living creature Stafford shows how technology has become a predator of nature. The cars prey on the does and leave behind the carcasses to rot, which ironically poses a threat to other cars, “to swerve might make more dead.” The doe represents nature and the car represents technology, and in this recurring confrontation nature is losing. The car a, hulking metallic beast, takes on the doe, a small undefended creature, and crushes it instantly. But even though it kills the doe it leaves hope of new life in the doe’s unborn fawn and the speaker’s decision regarding it. Unfortunately the speaker decides to kill the unborn deer and with it the chance for new life.

The title of “Traveling Through the Dark” conveys the path that the speaker takes during the course of the poem. The darkness is representative of the indecision and moral ambiguity that the speaker must battle in his decision between nature and technology. He must decide over the life and death of the unborn deer and in doing so serves as a greater allegory for man’s choices between nature and technology. At first when the speaker assumes that it is just a dead doe he speaks in very matter of fact tones about how it is better to roll the carcass into the canyon but when he realizes that there is still a living baby inside her he realizes his dilemma and finds himself in the darkness. As he “stood in the glare of the warm exhaust turning red,” he comes to his realization. The light is the symbol of his decision and since it comes from the car itself it is no surprise at his decision comes as it did. In the end we are left with the image of the doe being pushed into the river and the man driving on to forget about what has occurred. Nature loses another battle to technology and man stands by and watches it happen. (633)

Willy Loman: Complete Failure?

2009-03-08T20:02:00.000-07:00

In “Death of a Salesman” discussion this week in class we predominantly talked about the success, or lack thereof, of Willy. While we did come to the conclusion that Willy was indeed unsuccessful in life I think that there may be more to his success than we give him credit for. We all came to the agreement that Willy is in no way successful in his own mind. He constantly compares himself to his rich older brother Ben and is always stretching the truth about his salary and his sales. Willy believes that his clients and fellow salesmen laugh at him behind his back and he attributes that to his failure in life. He always thinks about the opportunities that he has lost and how he could just be rich if he had been like other people. Willy as a self measured success is indeed a failure in almost every aspect of his life. In his eyes he has failed as a businessman, father, and husband. His delusions and attempts at suicide also portray him as a mentally unstable man who is a danger to himself and his family. Over all Willy is a very unsound character that we as readers do not trust or for the most part sympathize for over the course of the play. Even with his shortcomings in life Willy is not a complete failure and in fact could be called a success by several measures.

Indeed Willy is more than adequately successful in both his role as a parent and a salesman. He makes at least seventy dollars a week which at the time was not a paltry sum. On his salary he could support his wife nicely and live a comfortable life. We are informed after his death that Willy’s house has been completely paid for, a feat which even today is rarely achieved. His two sons worship him, even if Biff doesn’t admit it until the end, and they only want to make him proud and live up to his expectations. If Willy was not suicidal and possibly insane his life would be an example of the American dream. He is a proud father, he has little to no debt, and he gets a very respectable salary. He is even a capable carpenter which is a rare skill. Willy is a very successful man if he is viewed from a different perspective and although he does think that he is a failure, with some degree of merit, he is not completely correct. Willy could have had a happy life if he hadn’t had such high expectations to live up to, if he had thought about his life as something other than a measure of how many diamond mines he found in a jungle he would have been pleasantly surprised at how successful he really was. (472)

A Doll No More

2009-02-23T04:48:00.000-08:00

In “A Doll’s House” we see Nora in the first scene portrayed as a frivolous spender and a sickeningly sweet wife. This first impression of her sticks with her through the play until the very end. Even when confronted with Krogstad’s blackmail she remains on the whole the same character. Through the play she dances and flirts and acts as childish as her never seen children all in an attempt to get what she wants. She even flirts with a man to whom she is not married in an attempt to procure a large sum of money to pay off her debts. Nora, although the focus of the play, becomes in the reader’s eyes an almost despicable character whose antics grate on our very nerves. Nora is the “typical” woman as described by Ibsen’s play and in the time period the typical woman was dependent on her husband for everything and had endless time to practice dancing or shop. From the beginning we see Nora as a very silly thoughtless woman who does not take the time to think about the consequences of her actions, and would not know about those consequences if she were to actually think about them.

In the third act of the play we see Nora break out of her role as the doll and become an independent woman who must rely on her own abilities to survive. She quickly finds out that, because she could not save his job, Krogstad intends to reveal her illegal money borrowing to her husband and she knows that she can not pay off her debt in time to save herself. Her naiveté leads her to believe that getting the money back will solve all her problems but she fails to realize that Krogstad, who has been accused of fraud, has lost his job and is in very little position to acquire a new one. When she learns that even had she paid him back he would have kept the IOU she begins her change from the “little squirrel” to the independent woman she becomes. Once Torvald finds out about the whole affair Nora is catalyzed into her change and she realizes that the reason for all this trouble was her attitude in general. She was so used to being the “little spendthrift” that she had assumed all aspects of that role, but she realizes that there is more to life than being your husband’s “kitten.” In the end we find Nora leaving Torvald because of the mess she has made and not the other way around. Nora stands up for herself and makes the biggest decision of her life to not be an unthinking shopaholic but to be a woman who makes her own way in the world. Nora evolves, though slowly, over the course of the play into a woman who can bravely leave her husband and children and start anew. (483)

The Devil Went Down to Denmark

2009-02-08T19:41:00.000-08:00

The argument has been made that the ghost in Hamlet is actually the Devil come to trick Hamlet into killing everyone connected to him. I personally believe that there is a good chance that this argument is valid because of the outcome of Hamlet’s revenge and the significant absence of the ghost at said outcome. Posing as Hamlet’s father the Devil convinces him that Claudius killed Hamlet the elder and took his wife as his own. Hamlet’s fragile mental state and his position as the “emo prince” as well as subsequently mourning for his late father makes for a perfect opportunity for the Devil to plant the seed of revenge. Once the seed is sown he needed only to sit back and watch the body count go up.

One of the points brought up as a counterargument is that the ghost argues for Gertrude’s innocence and that she should not be hurt. I feel that this only strengthens the fact that he is not Hamlet’s father, if he was truly the late king he would be a bit more upset about his wife sleeping with his brother so soon after his death. By arguing for Hamlet’s sympathy he gives away the fact that he is an imposter, after all, the greatest trick the Devil ever played was to convince us that he didn’t exist.

In some of his more sane moments, or arguably his more insane moments, Hamlet questions whether the ghost is truly his father or the devil come to snare him. Hamlet plants the idea that the ghost is the devil in the audience’s mind and once he has done so the earlier scenes with the ghost take on a whole new light. The ghost’s every word takes on a dubious meaning and every motive becomes suspect.

Hamlet’s revenge kills more people than he had anticipated, approximately seven more, and I don’t believe that there was any other way that it could have ended. The ghost gets him so incensed to kill Claudius again in Gertrude’s chambers that he mistakenly kills Polonius. Polonius’s death leads to Ophelia going insane and drowning herself, which leads Leartes to seek revenge for both his father and his sister. Claudius takes advantage of Leartes’ anger and plots to kill the now threatening Hamlet, which leads to the deaths of the Leartes and the entire Danish royal family. And in the course of events Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are killed in Hamlet’s place in England.

Not only does Hamlet’s revenge take away everyone who ever mattered to him but it also robs Denmark of its entire royal lineage. After the turbulent events of the “bloodbath” the king is replaced by a Norwegian. The outcome of Hamlet’s plot with the ghost only further convinced me that the ghost had a nefarious intent for the whole scheme because if he were truly Hamlet’s father he would have tried to stop the carnage of his young son’s vengeance. If the ghost is the Devil he profited nicely from the entire deal, he gained at least three souls for Hell in Hamlet, Ophelia and Claudius. The ghost was the only character to make it through the play unharmed, or as unharmed as a ghost can be, and in the end he got what he wanted no matter if he were the devil or not.

The Immortal Laws of the Gods

2009-01-25T19:49:00.000-08:00

In Antigone we learn one basic truth about life. Never question the gods. Sophocles stresses this point in both Antigone and Oedipus Rex. Oedipus focuses on the prophecies of the gods and their infallibility. Antigone however focuses on the laws of the gods and their precedence over the laws of man. Creon as the king who has newly come to power passes the law that Polyneices may not be given the burial rites because of his supposed treachery to his country. Antigone poses the fact that the laws of the gods supersede any mortal given law and therefore can not be ignored. Her burial of her brother causes Creon to demand her death but his rash reaction was due to hubris and not logic.

As a new king, not of the main royal line, he must stake his claim as king by quickly showing his authority. He also angers easily at the breaking of his law, one that is not only rash but conflicts with the gods’ will, much as Oedipus reacts with anger before reason. This impulsive anger by Creon, much out of character from the Creon of Oedipus Rex, may be due only to the fact that Antigone preceded Oedipus Rex or may be the direct cause of the stresses of a new kingship and cleaning up the remnants of a civil war for power. Whatever the reason he sentences Antigone to death, to which she goes willingly. It seems that everyone in Thebes except for Creon himself agrees with Antigone’s belief that the gods will forgive her for breaking the law as voiced by his son Haimon. Antigone brings forth an age old question of whether the laws of men are more important than the higher intrinsic laws.

In both plays, but especially Antigone, Sophocles notes that the will of the gods does not bend no matter what the circumstances may be. His plays no doubt were meant at the time to remind the Grecians that they ought to respect their gods and to remind them that they did indeed owe their fealty to them. But these thoughts are not that uncommon even today, the laws of the church sometimes come into conflict with the laws of man and there are very heated debates on which laws should be adhered to. Such as with abortion, contraception, and gay marriage the laws of God and the laws of man come head to head in a battle for supremacy. In these matters I generally take the side that agrees with my sensibility, usually not the church, and it seems that on the whole the world has deviated from Sophocles’s unyielding gods. Antigone still poses the questions about whether the laws of gods or man should be held onto but where the play provides an answer for Sophocles’s Athens it has no simple solution in the modern world. Now the line between what is right and what God says is blurring more and more. People decide for themselves where for centuries they followed blindly what they were told. In the modern world people can choose for themselves where they were once told what to think, we no longer live in the out dated world of Sophocles. (536)

Caius and the problem with Mortality

2009-01-11T17:03:00.000-08:00

I was struck by one paragraph in particular in Tolstoy’s story, the one pertaining to the humanity of Caius. I was especially drawn to the fact that I could identify in his assessment of life and humanity and that I was of the same mind set. “Caius is a man, men are mortal, therefore Caius is mortal.” This logic is inherent in all of us as humans but so is the following logic as referenced by Ivan; while Caius is a man and mortal, Caius is not Ivan so therefore the same logic does not apply to Ivan. Ivan is horrified to find that these principles of mortality apply not only to the generic Caius but also to little Vanya, to Ivan Ilych, to Jean, to his entire being. The fact that after death the person he has been and the person he is known as will cease to exist horrifies him just as it horrifies anyone who thinks about their own mortality a little too closely.

The Russian society of the time was of this mindset of immortality, or at least non-mortality. We see in Ivan’s “friends” the same disregard for his illness and death as something that happened to someone else. Even his childhood friend Peter Ivanovich brushes off the feeling of horror with thoughts “that this had happened to Ivan Ilych and not him.” It was not just the Russian society, society as a whole has this same mindset on human mortality. Even today no one thinks of their own mortality unless forced to stare it straight in the face. People do not like to think of their own mortality, as far as anyone is concerned there is no such thing as death until they are dead.

I empathize with Ivan in his thinking, and so do most people I know. Death, pain, hardship, these are all things that occur to other people. I personally think about my own mortality more often than most people but I still hold to the same hope that maybe death does not apply to me. That is the way we live as a society, anything that challenges our normal life is wrong. We block out these thoughts about death or being robbed or losing everything because it is easier to deny that they happen than it is to face them and realize that they are real and very well may happen, or in some cases will indeed happen. Mankind is afraid of facing their mortality because once you admit it it becomes truth. We are not comfortable facing our own mortality as a species and we hide our fear of death under a façade of bravado and confidence. Our mortality is a part of our culture no matter where we live humans have adapted their customs around death and our mortality. Some embrace it such as the Dia De Los Muertos in Hispanic culture and some try to hide that it exists by ignoring it completely like in Western culture. No matter who you are or how you like to think you deal with your own mortality the same holds true for everyone, every human hides from their own mortality in some way and until we are faced with the inevitable end we like to think we are exempt. (548)

Summary of 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica "European Reaction to Leopold's Abuses" and Leopold II's letter "The Sacred Mission of Civilization"

2008-11-17T05:33:00.000-08:00

-- In the late 19^th Century the Belgian parliament had passed controversial decrees. These decrees made all vacant land in the Congo the domain of the state and created a state monopoly on ivory and rubber. This monopoly was amended to allow for private companies to trade in the Congo but those companies were either influenced by the state as a major shareholder or gave a percentage of their profits to the state.

-- Several major powers brought many charges against the state, the major player being Great Britain. These countries accused The Congo government of monopolizing and treating the natives harshly. A British official made a trip through the Congo in 1903 and wrote a report about the conditions there, greatly strengthening the British accusations. Leopold was forced to create a commission of inquiry to go to the Congo and “investigate the condition of the natives, and if necessary recommend reforms.

-- The commission of inquiry published a report on its findings in 1905. They found that while the condition of the natives was less than satisfactory, forced labor was the only possible way to reap the benefits of the natural resources. They did acknowledge as well that there was no trade between the natives themselves and that a law be passed limiting the amount of labor per native be kept to 40 hours a month. As this report was published a commission to “study the recommendations contained in the report and formulate detailed proposals” was formed.

-- King Leopold passed several decrees to rectify the problems which fell far short of serious reforms. The Belgians however viewed the decrees as restriction of Belgium’s liberty of action in the Congo. Britain on the other hand was not happy with the reforms and threatened that they would have to reconsider their treaties in the Congo if things did not change.

-- Britain and America became increasingly hostile to Belgian reforms after this and demanded that something be done to improve the Congo system. In 1907 Belgium signed a treaty announcing the cession of the Congo to Belgium. This move aggravated even the most loyal Belgian politicians.

-- Leopold gave up the Foundation in the Congo but he got a very generous compensation package. He retained most of his personal land in the Congo and was to be paid by the conony two million pounds in debt. Belgium also respected the concessions granted to the companies that held large amounts of land.

-- Leopold states in his letter that, “When our directing will is implanted among [the natives] its aim is to triumph over all obstacles.” He believed that philanthropic influence could achieve the results that he wanted.

-- He also states that action is a necessary option. To him war does not mean destruction it only serves as a means to implant that directing will. His agents “feel profoundly reluctant to use force” on the natives.

-- The soldiers who are recruited from the natives are of the belief that an enemy is only defeated when he is destroyed. They must follow the influence of the White Officer to find the true way. These natives must find their civilization through their European leaders.

-- The officers, volunteers from the Belgian army, all have a strong sense of honor and patriotism. They will spare the natives and teach them the benevolent ways of civilization.

The Collapse of the Comptons

2008-11-16T20:58:00.001-08:00

In the last chapter of The Sound and the Fury we see the end of the Compson family. This depiction of the end of the family provides a clean ending to the story as a whole. By this time in the story: Father is dead from his alcoholism, Quentin the elder is dead by his own hand, Caddy is banished, Mother is to feeble to run the household, and Quentin the younger has run away. The family is collapsing in on itself; every member is either dead, gone, or unable to support the rest. Jason actively steals from his mother and sister, mother is stuck in her room all day, and Benjy is Benjy. The last chapter presents the end of their way of life. Quentin escapes the family she never belonged to with all of Jason’s ill-begotten money. Jason loses his stolen assets that keep him financed in his various shady dealings. They all lose that which kept them tied to the family and in doing so the family dies. The only one who is not adversely affected by this downfall, at least within the scope of the story, is Benjy. We are left with the image of him serenely sitting in a carriage bound for home holding a broken flower, much as we found him. (217)

Folklore in The Sound and the Fury

2008-11-16T20:14:00.000-08:00

Peavy, Charles D. “Faulkner's Use of Folklore in The Sound and the Fury” The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 79, No. 313 (Jul. - Sep., 1966), pp. 437-447

In his article Peavy talks about the use of folklore by Faulkner in The Sound and the Fury and his focus is mainly on Benjy and plants. Benjy is usually depicted with some kind of “security blanket” in the novel and more often than not it is a flower of some sort. Peavy talks about the significance of these flowers in relation to folklore and superstitions. His comfort flower is usually a jimson weed, which conveys a sinister meaning to the reader.

“One of the most recurrent uses of folk belief in the book is the identification of Benjy with the jimson weed: on the fourth page of the novel Benjy is given a jimson weed to prevent his crying and he continues to play with jimson weeds throughout the book. The jimson weed . . . has a multiplicity of meanings in the folklore of the region. A coarse, ill-scented annual plant, the jimson weed is a member of the nightshade family and is, of course, quite poisonous. . . . Indeed that Benjy, an idiot, is allowed by his negro keepers to play with such a dangerous plant is surprising.”

Indeed the fact that Benjy is almost constantly holding his jimson weed is in fact symbolic of the poison that flows through the Compson family. Benjy himself, being simple and unassuming, seems unaffected by the jimson weed, much as he is unaffected by the bickering of the family. He bears the weight of the poison on the family as he bears the flower but he feels no worse for it. He is the focus of most of the family’s pain, with his constant need for attention and even events as drastic as his castration. The family all have their arguments dripping with venomous words which generally involve Benjy in some way. He carries their problems unknowingly and he carries the flower oblivious to its deadly secret.

In his article Peavy also points out the part of the novel when Benjy’s jimson bottle is empty. “The poisonous aspect of the plant is perhaps used symbolically by Faulkner: in the last chapter the bottle holding Benjy’s jimson weed flowers is an empty poison bottle.”

The symbol of the empty bottle of poison is a grim commentary on the Compson family. The fact that the family has been in a downward spiral throughout the book leads the reader to expect their downfall. The empty bottle could symbolize that there is just no poison left and that the family has simply dried out and gone. Over the years they have all taken their dose of the poison they produced until every last drop was gone and they were no more. In the end the Compson family is dying if not already dead; and the image we are left with is just the idiot, Benjy, serenely holding a flower. (504)

Shiloh: The Battlefield of Marriage

2008-09-28T17:49:00.001-07:00

In “Shiloh” an injured truck driver sees his incapacity as a chance to start anew with his wife after twenty years of barely seeing each other and the death of their son. His attempts at this renewal of their love and the reinforcement of their marriage are feeble at best and have little to no positive affect on their relationship. Shiloh, as the sight of their inevitable breakup, is ironic because in the sight of a long-ago battle the war that was their marriage. As Pat Benatar once said “Love is a Battlefield,” and this theme is very prevalent in the progression of Leroy’s relationship with Norma Jean. His meager attempts to reintroduce himself into normal life are failures, his fixation on crafts leads to strange Popsicle stick houses and a Star Trek pillowcase. It is obvious from Leroy’s observations as well as Norma Jean’s behavior that she enjoyed her life when he was on the road and rarely home. After the death of their son they lose their connection and stop communicating their problems to each other.

Norma Jean is stuck in her life when she was nineteen and her son died. She is constantly relying on her mother and seems as though she is a teenage girl when she is actually almost forty. When her mother catches her smoking she reacts like a teenager instead of a responsible adult. The fact that she was hiding it is evidence enough that she was not acting as an adult; no adult need hide their smoking from their parents. When Mabel mentions the baby who was killed by “datsun” and mentions neglect Norma reacts with the angry response that is characteristic in teenagers. She dwells on her mother’s word as if it were law, the way in which a teenager takes their parents literally and as the final word in everything. Her insecurities mixed with the time she is forced to spend with her husband opens her eyes to the fact that maybe she and Leroy got married hastily after he got her pregnant. They, like the Dases, married almost immediately out of highschool and for all the wrong reasons.

Leroy is a very simple man who does not notice the plight of his wife and blindly strives for a rebirth of their marriage. He does not realize that Norma Jean is unhappy and even though he seems to notice that she does not seem to be happy that he is at home again he does not see a problem presenting itself. He keeps telling her that he is going to build her a log cabin, where he gets this idea is never certain and Norma Jean never gives it to him. She seems only to be against the idea of the cabin but Leroy still keeps plugging his idea even after he remarks to his drug dealer that he does not think Norma Jean likes the idea. His ignorance mixed with her teenage restlessness creates a battlefield, on one side is her growing distance and rejection and on the other his blind determination to fix a relationship that broke past repair long ago. In the end Norma Jean finally moves on her intentions and Leroy is left to ponder his failings. The final moment of him on a bench still cogitating the fact that they are no longer going to work and her walking away into the mists of the battlefield leaves us with a bittersweet image of accomplishment and remorse. (581)

Acceptance in Cathedral

2008-09-28T17:49:00.000-07:00

In Cathedral I was particularly struck by the way in which the narrator would brush away such irksome items as his wife’s past with relative ease. His casual brush-off method of dismissing his wife’s previous friends and lovers is a sure sign of insecurity and more than likely a feeling of inadequacy. When the issue of her previous marriage arises he mentions it quickly because of its relevance to the story but goes no further into the details than is necessary. He also ridicules or belittles anything that he can not understand and does not care to. When he talks about the blind man he makes a point to stereotype blind people saying that “the blind moved slowly and never laughed.” (1) The narrator has obvious problems accepting things in his life and living with the past. He makes no mention of his own life before his marriage and only mentions his wife’s past out of expository need. His blatant disregard of the things with which he is not comfortable is just his way of not dealing with them.

His wife’s last marriage seems to be a point of particular chagrin for him. When he is forced to mention her soldier fiancé his words even read with a sense of rush and ire. He even breaks off the thought with a simple etc which conveys his particular dislike of the subject. He also makes a large inclusion of the fact that his wife became disillusioned with their marriage and eventually tried to kill herself. The fact that he dwells more on his wife’s dissolving marriage and attempted suicide than he can on the marriage itself seems to convey a strange sort of satisfaction to the reader; as if he is happy that his wife was so unhappy that she resorted to suicide. His immature approach to his wife’s first marriage and their own marriage is just his way of shielding himself from the rest of the world, a world that he is forced to acknowledge with the introduction of Robert into his life.

When the blind man arrives he spends a large amount of his time ridiculing Robert mentally and doing things that strike his wife as disrespectful or unnecessary. When the narrator informs us of the conditions of Robert’s wife’s death instead of maintaining a respectful air he goes on about how she could wear whatever she wants and Robert wouldn’t even care. His disrespect over the issue of the death of a man’s wife from cancer is a sort of last straw from the reader’s point of view. After that little insight into the narrator’s mind I personally lost all faith in his ability to be civil to anyone and felt a sort of pity that he could not appreciate life without cynicism. In the end he seems to start truly understanding and accepting things. When he moves to cover his wife’s exposed leg it shows that he at least considers the feelings of his wife and Robert, of course he then thinks better because of Robert’s handicap. This moment showed a small but noticeable shift in his character and he seems as though he can recover from his own handicap of cynicism. In the end we see the narrator accepting the blind man and his ways. When they are drawing the cathedral together we see his disposition go from skepticism to tolerance to acceptance. That last moment when he refuses to open his eyes is his last hurdle to accepting the blind man and the rest of life’s little quirks. He is accepting the blind man’s handicap, if only for a moment, and releasing his own.

The Cult of Cal

2008-09-14T18:05:00.000-07:00

In “Teenage Wasteland” I was struck by the power that Cal had at his fingertips over both the children he was tutoring and their parents. His influence over the kids and his manipulation of the parents brings back vague memories of the descriptions of those cult leaders who claimed to be the Messiah. Short of the mass suicides his tutoring business fits the bill to a T. Cal is described as having a handlebar mustache, hair “as long and stringy as Donny’s,” faded jeans, and not old enough to be a family man. This description brings to my mind a man in his late twenties or early thirties who never really grew out of his college years. He is also learned in psychology and is probably well versed in psychoanalysis. His ability to relate to the teenagers with his attitude and at the same time to psychoanalyze them and their parents is what makes him so influential on everyone he tutors. He is seemingly able to perceive a weakness or insecurity in a person and exploit it, especially with Daisy.

When he first meets Donny and Daisy he gets into Donny’s good graces by being markedly less of an adult and more of a “cool” older guy. He makes Donny call him by his nickname and not his full name, like a teacher or other authority figure would, as well as making a point to sound as though Donny’s problems were the school’s fault. He also makes a big deal out of the fact that he may call of the tutoring sessions of his own volition. To a rebellious teenage kid like Donny this approach would be very appealing after the strict teachers he encounters at his school everyday. It is our first time meeting Cal as the reader and yet we can’t help but feel that there is something a little off about him from the start. In retrospect he seems more like one of those older parents or teachers who tries to be “hip” and “with it” while falling flat on their faces after making a fool of themselves. However Cal succeeds in his attempts and gains Donny’s trust and eventually becomes more of a parental influence to Donny than his own parents.

With the parents he takes a different tact by slowly breaking down their control on their child and breaks down their confidence. In Daisy’s case he hones in on the fact that she is extremely self-conscious and takes a huge stake in Donny’s education because of her former position as a teacher. From the first meeting we see Cal systematically breaking down her control over Donny. He tells her to let him make decisions on his own and eventually Cal even takes over talking to Donny’s teachers for her. Daisy takes this as a tutoring technique but personally I feel that it is just a tactic to get her out of the picture. She has absolutely no way of knowing if he has work or if he is getting bad grades. Cal affectively becomes Donny’s father, but in doing so he dooms Donny to expulsion and his later disappearance and most likely an untimely death.

Not until it is too late does Daisy realize what he is doing and by the time she figures it all out she can’t do anything to fix it. Donny is a devout follower of Cal and he even goes to him first when he gets expelled from school, leaving a worried Daisy believing the worst. I can not figure what Cal’s intent was in his control of Donny and the other kids and it is never really clear if he has anything to do with Donny’s expulsion or disappearance. Only in the end do we find out that Cal has had as many failed students as successful ones and that many upset parents have withdrawn their children from his care. After Donny is removed from Cal’s care we stop hearing about him. But at the end when Daisy sees the bone-white stripes of sunlight in Cal’s yard she seems so be insinuating that she thinks he is to blame in some way or another. As a reader I have to agree that Cal is almost completely to blame and that he may be more involved in the disappearance than we know. (722)

Interpreting the Malady: Misconceptions and Connections

2008-09-11T18:32:00.000-07:00

In “Interpreter of Maladies” Jhumpa Lahiri reveals to us the lives of two unsatisfied people stuck in loveless marriages, Mrs. Das and Mr Kapasi. Both characters have such different backgrounds yet they share the same difficulties in their empty marriages. Her choice of the narration from Mr. Kapasi’s point of view intensifies the misunderstanding between the two that drives the story to its ending. Both parties misunderstand the other and in their assumptions they reveal the difficulties of connecting to another person.

Mr. Kapasi, as the narrator, controls the way we see the story and so his misinterpretations about Mrs. Das make our surprise at the outcome all the more great. As the reader we are meant to take his observations as the truth so that the conclusion is even more powerful. Although he is an “interpreter of maladies” he fails to interpret the Dases because of his “intoxication” with Mrs. Das. He is unable to read her intentions correctly because of her interest in him and especially his job, which she mistakes to be the interpretation and curing of maladies, which his own wife never even mentions.(79) His own intoxication and her use of the word “romantic” leads him to perceive feelings of longing and even lust from Mrs. Das. Early in the story he notices the signs of her strained marriage to Mr. Das and takes a special note of the fact that, “[Bobby] was slightly paler than the other children.” (39) He entertains thoughts of their increasing friendship and possible involvement based on her attention to his occupation.

Their need to connect to each other, while based on misconceptions, is a universal need. This need is so great that they each pursue it blindly and incorrectly from both sides, she believes he can help her with her problem and he believes she can help him escape his unfulfilling life. This error is especially striking from Mr. Kapasi’s side because of his dreams to be a diplomatic translator. He had wanted to settle national disputes yet he misread the thoughts and intentions of a twenty-eight year old woman. They both take the other to be what they want them to be out of their intense desire to feel a connection with someone again. Mr. Kapasi notes that Mrs. Das “had already fallen out of love with life.” (161) He describes his own life in terms that show a detachment from his wife and family, and has “long been resigned” to his wife’s silence and unhappiness. This new found interest from a woman makes him throw caution to the wind and expect to finally have someone to connect with. Mrs. Das mistakes his job to be the interpreting and curing of illnesses and so she wishes for him to cure her of her family problems, she barely talks to the boys at all and practically ignores Tina during their trip. Out of an equal need to connect with someone and at the same time escape their own lives they seek each other out and in doing so they reveal their own fallacy.

When they finally confront each other with their need they both find that they have erred in their views of the other and that there is no real connection to be had. To her cathartic release of her history and feelings he can only respond with silence and resentment at her shallow expectations of a solution. Eventually he asks her the simple question “Is it real pain you feel, Mrs. Das, or is it guilt,” and shows her the truth of her own feelings. (161) Her response to the realization that he is not what she supposed is simply anger and ultimately a kind of acceptance of her life. Mr. Kapasi also accepts this and his affection for her disappears with the loss of his address. The maladies that they both feel are loneliness and emotional pain, and in the end they learn to deal with their maladies on their own. In the end we are left with an image of acceptance and of the difficulties of connecting to other people.

2008-08-25T18:12:00.001-07:00

This summer I read eight books which were all very interesting and fun to read. The majority of my selections were written by Terry Pratchett, one of my favorite authors, whose British humor makes for an engaging read. Of my eight books five belonged to Mr. Pratchett; The Fifth Elephant,Tthe Truth, Thud!, Feet of Clay and Going Postal. The last three books were Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons, Mark Haddon’s The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, and Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.

Of these eight books the one that I really enjoyed the most was The Truth. Pratchett’s novels take place in the imaginary world of Discworld, a flat disc carried by four elephants on the back of a giant turtle swimming through space, where live a wide variety of strange characters ranging from an Assasin Patrician ruling the capital city to the destined King of the city living as a humble cop. The Truth focuses on Mr William de Worde and his quest to start the first newspaper in Discworld. This story was particularly captivating in that it was based in a world that had never seen a newspaper, or any of the other modern amenities that we take for granted now, and so the other characters have a hard time adjusting to the idea of one. Pratchett’s satirical approach also pokes fun at the journalistic process; many times throughout the book the journalist comically takes things out of context and writes down absolutely everything that it said. De Worde is actively trying to prove the innocence of the Patrician in a crime that everyone knows he has commited, for no better reason than that it is convenient to them.

I think I particularly enjoyed the book because of its particular relevance to the media. Even though the setting was admittedly nothing like our lives the book tackles issues that are at the forefront of the media at all times. Crime and the police as well as celebrity scandals are the big headlines while the would-be journalist also has to deal with silly personal ads about strangely shaped fruit and missing wallets. He spends most of his time trying to find information on the Patrician but everyone is either hiding something or not cooperating with him. I enjoy the radical extent to which Pratchett makes these reluctant interviews so defensive and untrusting of the media. His hyperbole about the journalistic process really brings to light many realizations about our media and the fact that it does distort and even change facts.

At first the exaggerated look at journalism and newspapers was funny but as the story progressed I saw the tangents to modern media and its crooked look at the news. The people were more interested in the tabloid than the newspaper and more cautious around a newspaper reporter than the tabloid ones. I was reminded about how the majority of Americans pay more attention to the distorted stories about celebrity marriage and pregnancies than to the stories about Darfur or the Russian attacks on Georgia. Pratchett’s satire brought into perspective the way people look at the media and how many times the stories that will take precedence in the media are the insignificant ones about celebrity relationships. While we gawk at the personal lives of the rich and famous the important stories that actually have an affect on our lives pass us by and we don’t even realize it.