Extra Credit

On Thursday, I attended a forum on the subject of the reading habits of teenagers. It took place on the 7th floor of the Student Union. I was not much of a reader when I was in high school. I read the Harry Potter series, and a couple of other books for pleasure, but that's about it. I always hated being assigned reading in high school to be honest. In the forum, the importance of reading at a young age was discussed. Teenagers who read for fun are more likely to do better in school than teenagers who don't read for fun. I also learned that teenagers are into reading books that come in a series (like my experience with Harry Potter.) We also discussed the current popularity of vampire books, like Twilight. Several other authors have hopped on the vampire train, and it's earning them quite a bit of money. The topic of teenagers reading with their friends also came up. As I said, I never read much in high school, but my friends were also into the Harry Potter books, so we would buy them as soon as they came out, read them individually (which only took a couple days) and discuss them to no end. Several of the other students in the forum had similar experiences. Most of what was discussed was not surprising to me, because of my own experiences, and because of what I see in the media (ex. the popularity of Twilight), but the talk was interesting nonetheless.

"Better Half" by Sana Krasikov

After reading this short story, I was filled with a sense of confusion and disappointment. Perhaps I am missing some essential underlying themes, but this story seemed completely empty and pointless to me. Just a boring story filled with shallow, stereotypical characters. The hard-working, personality-lacking, single female lawyer; the pissed-off, moderately-abusive/moderately-respectful-based-on-his-mood, swears-he's-gonna-be-a-better-man-tomorrow husband; the pitiful, young, somewhat-helpless, trying-to-improve-her-life, unhappy girl.... Girl's stuck in a necessary, though, for the most part, unhappy marriage. Husband isn't very nice to her. They separate. They briefly un-separate. They separate permanently. Girl sort of misses him, but has a better life now. The end. I can only assume from the fact that it was assigned in my college level literature class that this story receives at least some level of recognition and critical praise. This is baffling, though not surprising; I have seen this before many times over my career as a student of language arts. I wish I had my 45 minutes back.

Such are my opinions on this work.

"The Lazarus Project" by Aleksandar Hemon

The last part of this novel is intensely violent. Hemon doesn't skimp on the graphic, gory details of this violence either, and I believe this helps to create a more emotional response within the reader. At least, it did for me. The scene in which Lazarus' family is beaten nearly to death while their house is ransacked and raided filled me with disgust and anger. It is disturbing how sick these people are. They are like animals. Olga even refers to one of them as "the swine," a fitting, if not too complimentary, name.

There are similarities and differences between the raw violence in this scene, and the raw violence in the scene in which Brick and Rora assault the driver, Seryozha, in the bathroom of the train station. This similarity is in the graphic violence that is illustrated. The following is a quote from Brick after breaking his hand breaking Seryozha's jaw.

"My hand was throbbing with beastly, thrilling pain."

The word "swine" from the first scene and the word "beastly" from the second scene give rise to thoughts concerning the animalistic nature of violence. During their moments of violence, these people are, in a way, subhuman.

The difference between these two scenes is that, while reading the first scene, I was filled with anger and disgust. But while reading the second scene, I was filled with different emotions. The violence of Brick and Rora was righteous violence. Seryozha deserved what he got, both for what he had done in the past, and for what he would have done to Elena had they not acted.

I'm not trying to say that violence is sometimes the answer, but I'm not saying the opposite either. All I am saying is that, sometimes, it certainly feels right. Though often, it certainly feels very, very wrong.

"The Bridegroom" by Ha Jin

The biggest thing that stuck out to me when I was reading this passage was the ignorance of the people in the society in which the story took place. Their ignorance is childlike even. Some of the things they say sound extremely childish to me:

"It's a social disease, like gambling, or prostitution, or syphilis."
"Homosexuality originated in Western capitalism and bourgeois lifestyle."
"Some believed [Baowen] was a hermaphrodite, otherwise his wife would've been pregnant long ago."

I would like to know the year during which this story takes place. It can't be too recent, can it? The ignorance of what I can only assume to be an accurate cross-section of China's population at the time says a lot about the government that prevented it from understanding the true nature of homosexuality. I find it hard to believe that the highest ranking members of China's government actually believed that homosexuality is a disease, curable by electroshock treatment. But maybe I'm wrong. I don't know.

From the perspective of a 21st century American, the ignorance of these people is astounding. We are made to feel so much more advanced in our understanding of sexuality, culture, acceptance, diversity, and the world in general. And perhaps we are. But who's to say that 100 years down the road, people won't look back on our society and marvel at its ignorance and barbarism? It is naive to believe that we, as a society of Americans in 2011, have "figured it all out."

Have we progressed relative to the society described in Ha Jin's "The Bridegroom"? I would argue that we have, and I'm sure ~99% of Americans would agree. But would that same majority of Americans agree that our society will one day appear to have been just as ignorant as the one in the story? I doubt it. And why is it that we are, well, ignorant of the ignorance that runs rampant through our minds as individuals and through our policies and attitudes as a society? It takes an idealogical revolution to change the mindset a society. One person must see the wrongs that exist in our world, then edify others, in order for us to advance. But this is a slow and grey process. People resist change. And it's hard to tell whether any particular change is for the better or for the worse while it's happening.

"Glengarry Glen Ross" by David Mamet

I believe one of the major themes in this play is the fact that so much of the world around us has no value or meaning except that which we as human beings assign to it extrinsically. The title itself, "Glengarry Glen Ross" is a juxtaposition of two properties whose perceived values are on opposite ends of the spectrum, yet are both intrinsically worthless. The play explores the phrase "perception is reality".

In Act One, Scene Two, Moss talks to Aaronow about what starts out as a presumably hypothetical plan to steal the promising leads from their company and sell them to Jerry Graff's rival company. Aaronow attempts to determine the nature of this talk:

Aaronow: Yes. I mean are you actually talking about this, or are we just.

Moss: No, we're just.

Aaronow: We're just "talking" about it.

Moss: We're just speaking about it. (Pause.) As an idea.

Aaronow: As an idea.

Moss: Yes.

Aaronow: We're not actually talking about it.

Moss: No.

To Moss, and especially to Aaronow, there is a fundamental and substantial difference between "talking" hypothetically and "talking" with the sincere intent to act. This difference exists only in the minds of the two men. Extrinsically. The act of "talking" in and of itself bears no intrinsic meaning.

Levene makes a similar distinction between "talk" and meaningful "talk" in Act One, Scene One:


Levene: That's 'talk,' my friend, that's 'talk.' Our job is to sell.


He insists to Williamson that there is a difference between "talking" and "selling". That one is meaningful while the other is not. But the only real difference between the two is in the way people perceive them. Intrinsically, neither carries more meaning or value than the other. They are the same action.

In Act 1, Scene 3, Roma goes on a rambling philosophical tangent that questions whether anything has meaning at all. This is ironic, because we know that he is just bullshitting Lingk in order to trick him into buying property, but one of the major themes of the play appears to mirror some of his sentiments.

This play, on a deeper level, is highly philosophical. It questions the nature of reality. One could argue that it is, in fact, existential.

"River of Names" by Dorothy Allison

This was a pretty tough short story to read... It's hard to believe so many awful things and awful people are connected to this one girl. The environment in which you grow up really makes you who you are. The narrator has been emotionally scarred time and time again, and it's causing her relationship with her lover to fail. Her lover has never experienced anything close to the horror that the narrator has experienced. She doesn't understand just how awful the narrator's early life was. And it's ongoing. She can't forget what she's seen, though she wishes she could.

The story made me reflect on how fortunate I am to come from a loving family. It also made me reflect on the hatred I feel for people who treat their children the way the narrator's relatives treated theirs.

The narrator's sister was transformed into what she hated by what she hated. It's a sad cycle that's been perpetuating down the generations of the narrator's family. And it's sickening. This family is almost sub-human.

"Emergency" by Denis Johnson

This whole story has a strange feel to it. It feels like you can't believe everything you read, everything the narrator tells you. It's like he's describing a trip he's having. He probably is! Some of the events he relates are pretty extraordinary. Like how Georgie was able to successfully remove the knife from Terrence Weber's eye, or even the story of how he was injured in the first place. His wife stabbed him in his one good eye for ogling their neighbor, at 3 in the morning... This seems like an extremely odd and, frankly, effed up circumstance. Then the narrator and Georgie run over a rabbit and Georgie tries to save the baby rabbits, and the narrator accidentally kills them, then they pick up a hitchhiker who is AWOL and Georgie promises to take him to Canada. Doesn't this account resemble that of someone describing a dream they had last night?

I think it sounds like someone recounting a drug trip. It's not a stretch.

The Crying of Lot 49 (Ch. 5) by Thomas Pynchon

The central theme of this chapter seems to be the difference between reality and fantasy. As I read this chapter, I was constantly questioning whether or not I believed what was happening to Oedipa was real. Not just during her dream-like nighttime wandering in Part II, but throughout the chapter. The whole thing seems absurd to me. The whole novel does.

There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. No one in their right mind (though it seems very few characters in this novel are in their right minds) would believe in or invest in Maxwell's Demon. I don't believe it. Doesn't feel real.

The existance of a secret organization whose members communicate by delivering letters to a trash can under a bridge seems rather fantastic. I don't believe it. Doesn't feel real.

Randomly, out-of-the-blue, dancing with a group of deaf-mutes in perfect harmony for a full 30 minutes doesn't seem like something that happens in real life. I don't believe it. Doesn't feel real.

Arriving at a psychiatrist's house to find him firing a rifle at you is not something that most people experience. I don't believe it. Doesn't feel real.

The life of Oedipa feels like some kind of dream. Meaningless and disjointed yet, simultaneously, seemingly, and misleadingly, connected. It's unsettling.

The Crying of Lot 49 (Ch. 1) by Thomas Pynchon

The first thing that stuck out to me when I started reading The Crying of Lot 49 was the name of the the protagonist: Oedipa Maas. I was reminded (as I presume I ought to have been) of the Greek tragedy of Oedipus, who unknowingly killed his father and married his mother. I've only read one chapter so far, so I'm not yet exactly sure why Pynchon decided to link his protagonist to this classical tragic hero, but I do believe that Oedipa will turn out to be a tragic character. She seems to have a negative outlook on things. When she thinks back to her relationship with Pierce, she imagines that she was like Rapunzel trapped in a tower, and when Pierce attempted to rescue her by climbing her hair, that it was only a wig and he fell. This leads me to believe that she places a lot of blame on herself for things. She is pessimistic about her influence on the lives of the people around her.

"Howl" by Allen Ginsberg

This was an extremely pessimistic poem about life, the United States, New York City, humanity, and existence. There is a clear hatred for the world around him, including the masses of people who co-inhabit New York City. The poem is dedicated to Carl Solomon, who Ginsberg met in a mental institution where they became friends. They seem to share a common loathing for the human condition, especially their own personal conditions, including incarceration. Throughout the poem, there is graphic, even pornographic, imagery.

"who sang out of their windows in despair, fell out of the subway window, jumped in the filthy Passaic, leaped on negroes, cried all over the street, danced on broken wineglasses barefoot smashed phonograph records of nostalgic European 1930s German jazz finished the whiskey and threw up groaning into the bloody toilet, moans in their ears and the blast of colossal steamwhistles,"

This poem is not for those of weak constitutions. Some of Ginsberg's rhetoric suggests a hatred or disgust for male homosexuality.

"Cocksucker in Moloch!"

Most of part II of the poem suggests that he despises his own religion, or perhaps religion in general, or perhaps the idea of god, or perhaps God himself. Ginsberg is certainly angry. At least he has a friend who he can confide in; and so to him he dedicated this poem.

"The Glass Menagerie" by Tennessee Williams

(Scenes 1-5)

None of the characters in this play seem to be happy. Tom, Amanda, and Laura each have their own flaws and issues. There is an interesting interaction between the members of the dysfunctional Wingfield family.

Tom hates his job. He is always butting heads with his domineering mother. He feels caged within his own life. He feels unfulfilled and longs for adventure, longs for escape from the appartment and his family and his routine. His description about the magician's trick of escaping a sealed coffin is very relevant to his own life. He doesn't know how to escape his coffin without hurting Laura, who he cares for deeply.

Laura is physically and socially handicapped. She lacks self-esteem. She does not believe she will have any gentleman callers, and she doesn't let on that she even wants to. She lives in a fantasy world, and doesn't mind staying there. She does however care about her brother Tom. She understands his unhappiness and sympathizes greatly. She is constantly under pressure from her mother Amanda to be more like she was.

Amanda is a single mother who wants the best for her children. But she doesn't understand that what they want is not what she wants for them. She worries that Tom will become like his drunkard father and leave the family. She worries that Laura will never become self-reliant, and worse, will never find someone to rely on. She does what she can for Laura, but doesn't understand that they are completely different people.

Tom and Amanda are reconciled by their mutual love for Laura. She depends on them. While she needs him, Tom cannot leave the family.

At the end of scene 5, the family is preparing to host one of Tom's co-workers so that he can meet Laura. Call me crazy, but I do not believe things are finally about to work out for the Wingfields...

"Girl" by Jamaica Kincaid

I interpreted this piece as a mother talking to her young daughter. The style helps show the relationship between the mother and daughter. The mother's instructions dominate the piece, while the daughter's responses are few and far between. There are no paragraph breaks, and the entire piece is one long sentence. This illustrates how the daughter perceives the constant instruction; it's impossible to remember everything from the seemingly non-stop bombardment upon her ears. She doesn't have time to ask questions. And when she does, they do not receive helpful responses. In fact, it doesn't seem like the mother even listens. The mother doesn't seem to WANT a relationship with the daughter. However, that's not to say that she doesn't love her. She tries to equip her daughter with the lessons she will need to have what she herself considers a decent life. It makes you wonder about the relationship the mother had with her own mother. Did she treat her the same way? Did she call her a slut? Did she teach her to be content with a mundane and loveless life?

"...if they don't work don't feel to bad about giving up"

This to me was the most powerful line in the piece. It gives us a depressing glimpse of the life the mother has, the life she is preparing her daughter to have. This is the only life she knows. She doesn't know how to help her daughter have a better life. All she feels she can do is teach lessons at her daughter so that she will be prepared to follow in her shoes.

It makes you wonder whether the cycle will ever be broken. Will the daughter grow up to be just like her mother? It also makes you reflect upon how influential parents are on their children, and how many, many parents are themselves unequipped with the wisdom necessary to equip their offspring.