Discovering Societal Norms

            Room, although it is at the core a terrifying story that you wish on no one, naturally intrigues us as readers. As we talked about in class the other day, for some reason people have always been interested in these kinds of experiments, where a child is born into a totally different world with no exposure to society and undergoes various psychological effects. We can clearly see many of these effects in Jack. But contrary to what I expected, observing Jack has actually made me question the society that we live in. Why does our society run the way it does? Why do we have these unspoken rules that everyone knows about, and why do we follow them? Obviously we have laws for moral purposes, but there are many rules that society has created and accepted that don’t make sense to Jack, and that I have (kind of) started to question as well.

            One example where society’s rules are confusing to Jack is when Ma is trying to explain the sport of boxing to him (this is when they were still in Room, watching TV). Ma told Jack that hitting is not allowed, but it is if people have special gloves on. She described boxing as “nasty but it’s a game”. Now, even though I knew what she was talking about, I could understand why this might seem so weird to Jack. Hitting is only allowed if you have special gloves on. This may not be a perfect definition, but it is not an inaccurate definition. This is a sport that is accepted by society, yet seems a bit silly when you put it in this perspective. It also makes me question, why is it that parents tell kids that hitting others is bad, yet pay for people to do exactly that on TV for our entertainment?

            Another societal norm that Jack struggles to understand is the fact that people expect those with long hair to be girls. When Jack runs into the stranger walking the dog, right after he escaped room, the stranger asks Nick “I’m so sorry, is your little girl OK?” Jack at first doesn’t completely understand that the “little girl” being referred to is him. We as readers understand this to be just a societal norm, as people with long hair are most likely females (especially in the case of children). But to Jack, it was normal for him as a boy to have very long hair. This is uncommon for the rest of society, and made me wonder why women tend to have longer hair than males, and how this societal norm happened in the first place.

            There were also times when Ma was teaching Jack manners where it was hilarious and relatable at the same time. Jack learned that “when something tastes yucky we say it’s interesting.” We all know that this is part of having manners, as it is rude to say something tastes bad, especially if someone put in hard work trying to cook the food. This is not a rule that I am trying to question, but I just found it funny that Jack was learning this, and that he explained it in such a simple yet truthful way.

            Overall, Room was a very engaging book, and it was very interesting observing Jack as a character and watching him undergo this six week journey. I wish that I could continue to see Jack grow up, as there are so many interesting plots and stories that could develop. How would he adjust to school? What would he be like in 20 years? Maybe Donoghue could write a sequel…

Can Jack Survive in Air and Water?

First some thoughts about Room so far:

            Room has been very captivating, to say the least. I enjoyed (in a scary kind of way) discovering the situation of Jack and Ma throughout these past few readings. At the beginning, the book seemed very happy, as we see everything through Jack’s eyes. However, as Jack mentions things here and there, things start to click and we slowly understand things for what they really are. There were several instances where Jack’s description made something seem completely innocent and even fun at first, but when I caught on to what was really going on, the situation went from fun to frightening. One example of this is when Jack describes the game Scream that he plays with Ma. Jack thinks that they are simply screaming for fun, and as a five year old Jack understandably thinks nothing more of the game. But we as readers realize that Ma is actually screaming for help, and has been doing so every day for at least five years, hoping that someone will hear her cry. Another example is the way Ma flicks the lights on and off, which Jack understands as something that she just does, but is in fact another way Ma is signaling for someone to rescue her and her son. Even finding out about a simple fact like Room being 11x11 was an unnerving experience for me, as I had first assumed Jack and Ma were living in a house or an apartment. As I learned more, the setting became eerie as the scenery slowly changed within my mind. The way that Donoghue reveals the frightening circumstances of this story has a much more powerful impact because nothing is stated directly, and the reader figures things out from the things we perceive through the eyes of an innocent five-year old who doesn’t understand the situation.

Now a question: Can Jack survive in Air and Water?

            The mermaid story that Ma told Jack in the first section of Unlying brought an intriguing question to mind: how would Jack adjust to the real world if he ever manages to escape? Jack asks whether JackerJack (the character in the mermaid story that represents Jack) will drown when he goes underwater into the sea with his mother the mermaid. Ma replies by saying that JackerJack is half merman, and that he is able to survive in both air and water. Ma clearly implies that she believes that Jack can survive both in the Room (although probably not for much longer) and in the outside world. We see that Jack is pretty content with his life in the Room, even though he has several traumatizing experiences with Nick. Room is literally his entire world, and he is able to enjoy his time there despite the horrifying situation that is his reality because of the way Ma raised him and shielded him from the truth as he grew up.

So we know that Jack can survive in the “air”, as he has spent his entire life in the Room. But can Jack survive in the outside world, when he lived the first five years of his life in a totally different universe? The difference between living in the Room and the real world is far larger than between air and water. One can only imagine how bewildering and huge and foreign the real world will be to Jack. Going from an 11x11 room where he, Ma, and Nick are the only living humans to a world with 7 billion other people would be overwhelming. As we discussed in class on Thursday, the psychological impact on Jack would be incalculable, which makes the question of whether he can survive if he escapes an even harder one. Also, I found myself assuming that Jack would definitely be happier living in the outside world, but is this really true? The Room is Jack’s home, and was his world the moment he was born. Although the Room is a horrifying situation for us as readers who actually understand the circumstances, Jack is a little kid and he doesn't understand what the real situation. On top of that, the outside world isn’t exactly a perfect place either. Although I, just as everyone else, am rooting for Ma and Jack to make and escape, the truth is that the outside world is a very dark and scary place as well. What do you guys think? Would Jack be able to adjust to a totally different universe, and would he be able to be happy in this new world if he ever escapes the Room?

Is Jefferson a Christ-figure?

One question pertaining to A Lesson Before Dying that I found particularly intriguing was brought up in one of the student-led discussions: Is Jefferson a Christ-figure? The comparison seemed absurd at first, comparing an unknown fictional character named Jefferson to Jesus, who Christians believe to be the son of God. However, as I reflected on the question, I realized that although there are obviously major differences, Jefferson has some similarities to a Christ-figure in the context of his small community.

            The definition of a Christ-figure that I will use is the following: an innocent person who lays down his or her life as a sacrifice to save a people group from something. Although this in no way completely sums up what Christians believe Jesus accomplished through His life, I believe that this is the definition that is best for comparison with Jefferson. Keep in mind that because the definition of a Christ-figure is dependent on the beliefs of Christians, a discussion based on this topic necessitates a Christian worldview. The definition of a Christ-figure comes from Jesus’ life. Jesus was completely innocent of all crimes, but was wrongly accused and unjustly sentenced to death by crucifixion. However He chose to lay down His life, because Christians believe that He came to earth for the purpose of dying, resurrecting, and thus redeeming His people. Jesus sacrificed His life to break the cycle and power of sin that enslaved His people.  

The first criterion for being a Christ-figure is being an innocent person, someone who has done no wrong. Jefferson, as far as we know, is wrongly accused of planned theft and murder and was unjustly sentenced to execution. Although we are not sure what actually happened, I believe Jefferson’s testimony that he is innocent from what was charged against him because his testimony is more detailed and believable, and there is no reason presented as to why we should doubt Jefferson’s testimony. Jefferson is not completely without flaw, since even in his testimony he did try to steal money, but for the most part he does fit the definition of a Christ-figure as he is mostly considered innocent.

            The second criterion for being a Christ-figure is giving up your life as a sacrifice to save your people. Jefferson fits this part of the definition as he sacrifices his life for the black community. However, Jefferson was not always so willing to use his life as a sacrifice for others. Jefferson was sulking and bitter for the majority of his time in jail. This is understandable, since he was wrongly accused of crimes and had to die at a young age. Jefferson was constantly thinking about himself and didn’t care about others, even those that love him the most (Miss Emma). He lashed out and did things that hurt others, such as refusing to talk to Miss Emma and eating like a hog. On top of this, Jefferson only had two choices: die as a “hog” or die as a man. Jefferson did not really choose to sacrifice his life out of his own free will, because he was going to die anyway. Having been sentenced to execution, Jefferson’s death was inevitable, and he simply took the situation that he was in and made the best of it by dying as a man. Despite all of this, we all know that Jefferson eventually dies as a man, and thus sacrifices his life to help the black community.

The final criterion for being a Christ-figure is that you must sacrifice your life to save a people group from something. Jefferson sacrificed his life for the black community, to help break the cycle of racism and slavery in the South. This is the reason why he had to die as a man: to disprove the racist white ideology of the South and to empower fellow black people. Although Jefferson’s “journey” throughout this book was partly involuntary and flawed, in the end he does fit with the definition of a Christ-figure as he died to help break the cycle of racism that his community suffered from.

Jefferson clearly has many flaws of his own, but I think that in general he does fit with the Christ-figure because of his situation and how he eventually handles it. Although there are several points you can use to argue against him being a Christ-figure, it is undeniable that there is some symbolism at work here. This is my conclusion, but what do you guys think?

Teachers are Important

           Teachers play a very important role in A Lesson Before Dying. This is because teaching is one of the only available professional jobs for black people in this time and place (according to Grant), and they are in a position to have a tremendous impact on the students in their community. Grant, the narrator of this story, is a teacher himself, and we see that he was both impacted by his past teachers and that he is playing a significant role in influencing others as a teacher. The teachers in this story are not the typical inspirational teachers that we are used to seeing in novels. They are completely the opposite: they have a grouchy and negative attitude, and they display little to no hope or expectation for their students. This attitude is understandable, because they are aware of the vicious cycle in the South and the reality of being a black student in the South. However, this cycle is the obstacle that Grant has to help overcome, and he shows some hope as he continues to teach despite the fact that he understands what he is going up against.

            We see the importance of teachers in Grant, but also in his past teacher: Matthew Antoine. Antoine was not a great teacher: he told his students that they should all run away, and he basically gave up on hope for breaking the cycle. He discouraged Grant from seeking an education, and he told Grant he will never be able to do anything significant. Despite this, Antoine obviously had an impact on Grant’s life as we see that Grant visited Antoine many years later after becoming a teacher. Grant also isn’t the greatest teacher, and he shares some of the attitude that Antoine had. However, one of the reasons why Miss Emma chooses Grant to undertake the mission of making Jefferson into a man is because he is a teacher. Teachers are figures of hope and change in this society and community, whether or not they are the traditional inspirational teachers or not.

            The main obstacle that both Grant and Antoine face in this story is the cycle of the South. Both of them know how difficult society makes it for black students to succeed, and that everything is put up against them. Grant understands the vicious cycle for black students both from his experience as a student and his experience as a teacher. The majority of Grant’s classmates from when he was younger is in jail or dead, proof of the effects of the cycle. Grant also sees the cycle as a teacher, one example being when the superintendent Dr. Joseph comes by to check up on the students and treats them in a disrespectful way. All of this explains why Grant is a grouch: it is hard to find hope in his community’s situation. However we can see that even though Grant has a negative attitude, he also has some qualities of a good teacher and a hero. He actually cares for his students, because he gets upset when they aren’t learning properly. We see this in the following quote:

"Exactly what I'm trying to do here with you now: to make you responsible young men and young ladies. But you, you prefer to play with bugs. You refuse to study your arithmetic, and you prefer writing slanted sentences instead of straight ones. Does that make any sense?" (5.47).

Grant shows that his motive is to make good citizens out of his students, people who can rise up and break the cycle that black people have been struggling with for generations. This is also what he is doing with Jefferson. Although Jefferson doesn’t have much time left, Grant is trying to pull out Jefferson’s potential with what is left and make him into an example for others.

            Although Grant often acts hopeless, he still perseveres as a teacher because he loves his people and his community. Grant sees some hope in Jefferson, since he continues to make him into a man. In recent chapters we have seen how Grant has made some breakthroughs with Jefferson. Jefferson has actually started to talk to Grant, and he agrees to write his thoughts down in a journal. Jefferson even shakes hands with Grant at one point. Grant is continuing to play his part in breaking the cycle through his interactions with Jefferson, and through this he is showing what an impact a teacher can have on others and his community. 

Works Cited

Gaines, Ernest J. A Lesson before Dying. New York, Vintage Books, 1993.

Observations on the Role of Women

            The role of women in As I Lay Dying is confusing. I had trouble understanding how women fit in Faulkner’s story, and I couldn’t exactly tell how much power a woman had in this society, because roles and power balances seemed to vary depending on the couple. In the end, I concluded that women have certain set roles in this society and that women have more power in marriage than one might assume.

            The main role of a woman in this society appears to be having babies for her husband. We see this clearly in the marriage of Anse and Addie. The way that Anse and Addie discuss having children is almost business-like, and this shows that there is really no intimacy in their relationship. Anse says the following to Addie: “you and me aint nigh done chapping yet, with just two”. We can see from this quote that the focus of having children is more on the number of children rather than the value of having children with someone you love. After Addie had Cash and Darl, she described her role of bearing children for Anse as a duty. Addie says that she gave the children to Anse, but she had not asked for them. This statement shows that Addie is not bearing children for Anse because she wants to, but rather because this is her role as a wife and she in a way owes Anse children. Due to the fact that Addie’s main role is to produce children for Anse, it is hard for Addie to have her own identity in the story.

            Cora Tull believes that a woman should stay committed to her husband and children. Cora thinks that it is a woman’s role to stay beside her family, whether she is dead or alive. Addie rejects this standard, as she asks Anse to take her back to Jefferson when she dies. Addie clearly does not want to be associated with Anse or his children. I am not sure whether the standard that Cora states is something that everyone in this society accepted, as Addie and Anse broke this standard without much of a public outrage. However, many people did think it weird that Anse was burying Addie in Jefferson instead of with his people, so perhaps the idea that women are expected to stay with their husbands even after death is a common expectation in this society.

            Addie does not have much power in her marriage with Anse. Although Anse is an incompetent, lazy, and weak husband, he still has the majority of the say in things regarding their marriage. Anse decides how many children he wants, and also Addie needed permission from Anse to be buried in Jefferson. The power balance may seem heavily in favor of the men when you look at Anse and Addie, but there are several cases throughout the book where women seem to have a good deal of power in their marriages. We see this most clearly in the scenes where two different women angrily rant at their husbands about the way that Anse is disrespecting Addie’s dead body. The two women did not hold back their anger, and they both fiercely stated their opinions to their husbands. The husbands in return seemed to cower a little, and they didn’t really say anything in return. This shows that, at least for these two marriages, the women had a lot of say. The fact that they spoke their opinions in this bold manner indicates that they have some power and say within the family.

            These are just some of my observations about the way that women are portrayed in As I Lay Dying, and the roles that they are expected to have. It is hard to tell what the norm is at times, because Addie, one of the main woman characters in the story, is not a normal woman, and her family definitely isn’t normal either. What do you guys think about the role of women in Faulkner’s story?  

No joke- Addie might actually be the fish

I’ll be honest: As I Lay Dying is really confusing. I had trouble understanding what was going on because of the way Faulkner just started the story without any explanation or set up. He doesn’t even attempt to make things easier for us to understand in the slightest. There were many ideas that were vague and difficult for me to catch on to (ex: Dewey Dell talking about cotton-picking while also referring to the fact that she is pregnant.) What adds to all of this confusion is that every chapter is written from a different character’s perspective, and the chapters aren’t even in perfect chronological order. I have always struggled with this stream of consciousness/multiple narrators style of writing, and personally, I usually find this to be less engaging and entertaining to read. But one thing I learned from my past experience with this style of writing is that it provides more room for interpretation, and this is definitely true for As I Lay Dying.

In As I Lay Dying, there is no objective truth. We are never given any concrete facts, since everything that happens is filtered through the minds and thoughts of the narrators. What we might consider “facts” are actually just the opinions of the narrators. At first, I found this to be frustrating because I was so used to books that just had one perspective and gave me a clear, objective storyline. But now I understand why this style of writing may be considered as more intriguing: several people can read this same book and come out with totally different opinions on what happened. This is because this type of book provides several versions of reality. Every narrator has his or her own version of reality, and it is up to the reader to decide which character he or she wants to believe. Let’s take for example Addie’s death. Although this seems like a very objective happening, the characters interpreted this in drastically different ways. Dewey Dell seems to react to her mother’s death “normally”, as she wept and threw her body onto Addie’s dead body out of sorrow. Dewey Dell obviously accepts the fact that her mother is dead, and she doesn’t seem to have any strange opinions about this. However, Vardaman has a very different idea on what happened. First off, Vardaman believes that Peabody is responsible for his mother’s death, since his mother was “fine” until the doctor showed up. Vardaman eventually believes that the corpse is actually not his mother, because he says that Addie had left before she had become confined to her bed. Vardaman also believes that his mother is the fish and comes to the conclusion that once everyone eats the fish, Addie will become alive in all of them. Darl on the other hand believes that he doesn’t have a mom now. He also says that he thinks Jewel’s mom is a horse. These are three totally different interpretations of Addie’s death, and it all leads to this question: who are we supposed to believe?

Although Vardman and Darl’s thoughts and interpretations may seem really weird, their perspectives are still a version of reality that is given and must be considered. No matter how absurd it may sound that Addie is a fish or a horse, this is still a possibility since the truth depends on who the reader decides is trustworthy. I’m not sure if this blogpost made sense to you guys, but basically what I’m trying to point out is that because there is no objective storyline, the reader is given the power to judge which point of view is trustworthy enough to believe. There is no “right” or “wrong” because everything in this book is just different characters’ opinions on events that took place. So let me ask you this: do you believe that Addie is in fact the fish?

Deception: Praiseworthy or Detestable?

            In our society, liars and deceivers are often seen in a bad light. Most of us are taught from a young age that lying is bad, and we even have stories teaching us that it is wrong to lie (e.g. The Boy Who Cried Wolf). But for some reason, The Odyssey seems to be encouraging these deceitful practices. We often consider lying as a character trait of “bad guys”, but it’s the exact opposite in The Odyssey, since all of the heroes and good guys seem to carry this trait.

Odysseus, the main hero of this epic poem, is known for being cunning and quick to deceive others. He tricks Polyphemus by saying that his name is Nobody. He tricks the suitors by posing as a beggar and testing them. He even makes up intricate stories in order to trick (or attempt to trick) Eumaeus, Penelope, and the goddess Athena. When Odysseus lied to Athena about his backstory, I thought that Athena would take offense to this and become unfavorable towards Odysseus. I assumed that Odysseus had made a mistake by trying to trick a goddess. But instead, Athena praises Odysseus and talks about how he is better than everyone else because he is quick to deceive, just like she is. Not only is Odysseus praised when he lies, but he is actually punished when he doesn’t! For example, after Odysseus escapes from Polyphemus, he taunts the Cyclops and reveals his real name. For once Odysseus was honest about his identity, but we all know what hardships he faced later as a consequence of revealing his name to Polyphemus.

Odysseus isn’t the only one who is known for being cunning. This trait seems to run in the family line, as both Penelope and Telemachus share these traits as well. Penelope tricks the suitors for three years by undoing the burial shroud every night. Telemachus tricks Penelope when he sneaks away from home to find out news about his father Odysseus. Even the gods and goddesses often deceive people by disguising themselves when visiting humans. All of this seems to point to the fact that craftiness and deceptiveness were considered as positive traits in ancient Greek culture. I looked this up to see if this was true, since my only evidence for this idea comes from The Odyssey. Apparently in The Iliad, an epic poem about the Trojan War, Achilles says the following about Odysseus: “For hateful as Hades’ gate is the man for me who conceals one thing in his heart but speaks another”. This statement seems to completely contradict the ideas presented in The Odyssey. Achilles obviously detests men like Odysseus who purposefully lie and deceive others. Perhaps researching the relationship between Achilles and Odysseus will reveal some background context that would clarify this statement. Or maybe Achilles’ views on this is different from the ancient Greek norm.

At this point, I really don’t know how ancient Greeks viewed deception. The Odyssey seems to strongly point to the idea that craftiness should be praised, and yet I am hesitant to come to this conclusion with such limited knowledge. Maybe lying was accepted as long as it was for a good purpose? Odysseus, Penelope, and Telemachus all lied out of a “good” motive, right? Odysseus lied to save his crew and to reunite with his family. Penelope lied to keep the suitors at bay and stay faithful to Odysseus. Telemachus lied in order to search for his lost father.  Still, there are a few counterexamples where these characters didn’t lie out of a clearly good motive. I obviously don't know the answer, what do you guys think?