At the end of the work, the family defiantly chooses to move into a predominantly white neighborhood.
It appears they have conquered their loneliness by ultimately banding together to face whatever comes. Although none of them has truly seen their dreams realized, although they are about to enter a world where they will face much adversity, and although, as Fanon might argue, they are only persisting in their struggle in the hopes of perhaps one day abandoning it by becomeing integrated by white society... the end of the work is oddly comforting. Why, beyond everything else in the work, beyond the struggles, the unfulfilled dreams, and although it should be unsatisfactory, is it so comforting that at least they have each other...?

A Raisin in the Sun

In the play A Raisin in the Sun written by Lorraine Hansberry we read about a family trying to live out their dreams. Each family member has their own idea of happiness and fights for the money they receive from the insurance check. While Ruth and Mama want to put a downpayment on a house, Walter wants to use the money to open up a liquor store, and Beneatha wants to use the money for her education. Each character acts somewhat selfish especially Walter. After finally given some of the money for his liquor store, he still isnt satisfied and ends up taking the money mama gave him for Beneatha's education as well.
Even though each character has their own problem, we see Walter struggle the most. After losing all the money, he finds himself more upset and depressed than he originally was. He eventually finds a solution and finds a way to make the Youngers happy again. Throughout this play, we see Walter affected by the money the most. Not only does it ruin him, but it makes him a better person as well.

A Raisin In The Sun

In the play A raisin in the sun, each character has a dream of their own. Mama recieves a large sum of money after the passing of her husband and mut decide how she is going to spend it. Walter wants the money to invest in a liquor store, Bennie wants the money for college, and Mama would like to buy a house for the family. Walter is constantly asking for the money, but his Mama does not believe in investing in a liquor store. She finally gives him some of the money and the other partner ends up running away with the money. I think they all are trying to obtain their American dream, but in that time period there are many strifes against an African American. Mama finally decides to buy the house in a nice neighborhood. The man tries to persuade them not to move into this white neighborhood. They have had so many hardships, but continue to fight. They move into the house anyway despite the negativity they will recieve from the neighbors. This play is a very interesting story of the struggle the members of the family face between eachother and the outside community.

Fanon in A Raisin in the Sun

The characters in this play all seem to be embodying different reactions a person can have towards their “Colonizers.” Beneatha, and her friend Asagai seem to embody the ideal that Frantz Fanon argues against, and on page 1496 her brother tells her that she is so wrapped up in the “New Negroes” mentality and that she is “the first person in the history of the entire human race to successfully brainwash yourself.” However, Beneatha’s conversation with Asagai is a perfect mirror of the argument of Frantz Fanon. Here is the colonized intellectual (Asagai) arguing that revolution and martyrdom may very well be a good thing, that one must push ahead no matter what happens. It’s not really very subtle.

So much so in fact that the story, the main plot of which revolves around the family’s plight with the check and the way Walter deals with it, which in the end, is in successful rebellion against the colonizing power, as it were, and the need to push ahead no matter the consequences.

Fanon in A Raisin in the Sun

The characters in this play all seem to be embodying different reactions a person can have towards their “Colonizers.” Beneatha, and her friend Asagai seem to embody the ideal that Frantz Fanon argues against, and on page 1496 her brother tells her that she is so wrapped up in the “New Negroes” mentality and that she is “the first person in the history of the entire human race to successfully brainwash yourself.” However, Beneatha’s conversation with Asagai is a perfect mirror of the argument of Frantz Fanon. Here is the colonized intellectual (Asagai) arguing that revolution and martyrdom may very well be a good thing, that one must push ahead no matter what happens. It’s not really very subtle.

So much so in fact that the story, the main plot of which revolves around the family’s plight with the check and the way Walter deals with it, which in the end, is in successful rebellion against the colonizing power, as it were, and the need to push ahead no matter the consequences.

A Raisin in the Sun

A Raisin in the Sun demonstrates a clear difference in the struggle against racism between blacks who lived in the United States and African American. As Fanon points out in The Wretched of the Earth, African Americans and black Americans face the same problem; they share a common denominator of how they define themselves in relation to the whites. But, after this initial comparison, their objective problems are fundamentally different. As we see in this play, Walter is not concerned with analyzing his ancestor’s history of oppression in order to overcome it. In contrast Asagai, whom Fanon would label as a colonized intellectual, concentrates on his native culture to demonstrate meaning and valid existence of African ethnicity in order to overcome oppression.

A RAISIN IN THE SUN

A Raisin in the Sun is a dramatic play that really grasps the harsh reality of a lower class minority family struggling to get ahead. Each individual family member wants to get ahead in their own way. The father thinks big and wants to leap into the race of power and authority. Even though the sister thinks things through intellectually she is, at the end, unsure in which direction she should go. The wife wants the baby but at the same time wants to be more realistic and not have the baby. The only adult in the family that seems to know what she wants is the grandmother and that she does for the sake of the family.

A Raisin In the Sun

Walter definitely disgust me in the remainings of the play. His idea of putting an investment into his anticipated co-own liquors store fails. He is a typical loser to me who breaks down because his dream are crushed. As an African American I would have like to seen Walter bounce back, keep his head up, and push even harder to accomplish his dreams of owning a liquor store. Especially within the time setting of the play. During the 1950s an African American would not be able to survive without having a strong foundation for his/herself. Sidney Poitier plays the role of Walter in the video version of A Raisin in the Sun. His acting really drives me to dislike Walters character, because he completely displays Walter as a give up. Walter in my opinion is like a child who throws a fit because he doesn't get his way.

Raisin in the Sun

So in the end who does Bennie end up with? Her love or the guy her family wants to marry?
Bennie seemed to go out with George just to get the pleasure of being out of the house away from the family. She seems more intimate with Asagai. Mama seems to be okay with the fact that Bennie thinks George is a fool and soon tells her not to waste time on any fool.
When Walter lashed out on his mother about crushing his dreams and felt the stab in the heart that Mama was probably feeling. Having your child say those words to you must be really hurtful and I understand why she stayed where she was and didn't say anything afterwards because she was at a lose of words.
Walter proves what a typical man would do when they don't get their way. Due to the fact that men always "get their way" they are not used to what it feels like so they throw a fit and do something crazy. In this case, Walter ditched work completely forgetting about his family and was constantly going to the bar and wasting his money on liquor. Not much sense for a guy who wants to save up money to open a liquor store. But due to the fact that he feels his family isnt supporting him he doesnt want to support his family

What strikes me about the characters in A Raisin in the Sun is how uttely alone each and every one of them seems. While they share each share the unifying element of having unfulfilled dreams, every one of them seems absolutely blind to the dreams of the others. It is as if each character can see only his own unrealized hopes, and is completely ignorant that the other members of their family might themselves have dreams too. No character receives encouragement or understanding from any of his or her family members. Walter is desperate to open his liquor store and become his own master, but everyone thinks his schemes are worthless. No one seems to understand Beneatha at all... her dreams of being a doctor and her sense of African identity are absolutely foreign and beyond comprehension to them. Ruth seems to struggle with her pregnancy by herself... and appears to disagree with her husband on how to best create a good life for their son. It is this loneliness perhaps, that imbibes the reader with a sense of claustrophobia when reading the play. Not only is there no outlet for expression for these characters, no opportunity for the fulfillment of their dreams, but they also seem so hopelessly alone, they have no one but themselves in which to confide their dreams.

A Raisin In The Sun

Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin In the Sun is an all time classic. This play shows how an African American family deals with financial issues while living in not the best of neighborhoods of Chicago in the 1950s. Various situations that occur in this play all revolve around money. With a family that lives in poverty, I guess the everyday worry is money. This play shows how Walter and his family deal with their financial status and later on in the play racism in order to live within a better lifestyle.

Raisin in the Sun

Although this novel takes place in the 1950's there are many families who still struggle with poverty as well as being pregnant at the same time. I feel for Ruth because if I was in her sitution of turmoil i wouldn't want to have a child either. I honestly dont think its right to have an abortion, only under certain circumstances such as rape etc. In Ruth's case, they knew there was a possibility that she could get pregnant and knew what kind of life style they were living in from before.
Beneatha is a typical teenager/ young adult- freeminded and spirited. She is in an arranged relationship in which she doesnt want to be do to the fact that she doesnt have mutual feelings for this guy. Her sister in law and mother want her to keep this relationship going being that the guy has money. There is hardly any way when a girls family forces her to be with someone she truly doesnt want to be with in todays American society
Mama is a very simple calming old woman who has the power in the household. Although she is a woman and the oldest she keeps everyone in check in the house.
Walter is a ambitious man of many dreams of owning a liquor store.
As Act 1 goes on, I, as a reader, wants to know what happens next because it relates to an everyday family of todays day and age.

A Raisin in the Sun

Women in this play are portrayed as full round characters; moreover they are more responsible than the men. The men, as typified by Walter, suffer from a shattered ego form the circumstances of their lives, and are in a sense reduced to a poignant caricature by their unrealistic dreams. It is also interesting to see how women, though living under worse circumstances than men, they deal more effectively with life. This shows that “effective” male patriarchy is an illusion. However, from simple observation, American lifestyle is very much influenced by male patriarchy. Yet, in this play matriarchy represents the strongest subversion of the structure, actually showing that it is more stable than the illusory male patriarchy.

A Raisin In the Sun Act 1

A Raisin in the Sun is one story I can honestly say interests me. Act I sets up the story of this family like many who occur different problems throughout their lives. Beneatha, one of the characters, who is very interested in learning about her African culture and Ruth who receives the news of her pregnancy in act I scene II. The first act is setting up the story which I found when I previously read it, opened my eyes to the way in which some families, unfortunately, are forced to live.

"A Raisin in the Sun" is a very intense play that captures the frustration between people when their problem is money and poverty day after day. The author does capture the reality of the situation. The characters are so real that the stubbornness of the son makes me even mad. The issue of Africa and colonialism is put very well in the play.

Frantz Fanon

Reading Fanon's point of view on colonialism and the problems with the colonized intellect really brought up some interesting points that many of us may not realize today. Fanon is basically saying that the reason some races are not "nationalized" is because of their failiure to reconnect to their past on a global level. Fanon seems to be saying that part of the reason some africans are not unified is becuase of their differences of location, wehreas they can unify and connect if they support and discover more of their past before they were colonized. They need to revive their pasts to help combat the fact that the colonists have told them they are barbaric. Part of what makes this so hard to the colonized intelllect to realize is that the colonist country"turns its attention to the past of the colonized people and distorts it, disfugures it, and destroy it" (149). the colonizing country makes the colonized intellect feel like they come from no where and make them ashamed of their past, when in reality it is this key factor that needs to be reached in order to combat the colonizing country.

Fanon seems to be advocating violence, if necessary for the establishment of nationhood for a heretofore persecuted and discriminated people. The African peoples, their cultures grouped into one overarching “Negro” culture need to break out of that, combatively. But, what if they do not want to? Mama, in A Raisin in the Sun, on page 1470, expresses her direct disinterest in Africa. Also, it seems that sometimes people may not hold this true. Nationalism is important! That is something that many say has caused wars and violence. Wait, Fanon, seems to like being militant. But what if two different peoples, both looking to establish a nation for themselves with national identity, clash?

"M. Butterfly" is an interesting play in that it covers many different topics such as imperialism, racism and sexism. Through Gallimard we see what westerners though of the Orient that they are inferior and they "will always submit to greater force". His ideas backfire when the Vietnamese resist greatly to the Americans and when he finds out the Song is a man. I like that there is humor in this play because it covers many serious topics so it lightens the story.

I would have to disagree by that which is proposed by Neal in his response to Ioannis' comments...
I don't think that Hwang's intention here is to make generalized statements about the 2 cultures represented in the play. Having been born and raised in the US, I doubt that Hwang was blind enough to make a sweeping statement such as suggested by Neal, that all Americans are inferior to the intelligence and cunning of the Chinese...
I do think however, that Hwang's play certainly acts to diametrically confront the traditional views touted by sexism and racism, and the way these two forces can act in unison. It does seem that Hwang seeks to confront certain stereotypes that he perceives to exist in the Western world. It is interesting to note that the original M. Butterfly opera figures very significantly in Hwang's play, even though it is set in Japan, while Hwang's action occurs in China. It is evident then, that Hwang is seeking to address the stereotype ascribed by the West to Asian cultures as a whole. That much then, I will agree to- Hwang tries to make clear the falsity of these American stereotypes. However, to say that he presents the Westerners in the play in such a way as to make them seem inferior to Asian cultures, does not resonate with my understanding of the play.

Hwang's Butterfly

In M. Butterfly Hwang shows how racist and sexist Western imperialist can be. It also shows how they feel to be inferior to the weaker nations, and their people. For example; on pg 1274 in our BIL text, describes Chinese woman as hungry Oriental girls who want to be treated bad. The Western men say that that "Oriental girls" are not like the American girls. Not only do these men not have respect for Chinese women, but they also do not respect for their own women by calling them girls. They are grown women. Throughout this play we can to the realization of how stereotypes of different cultures can help an individual view another individual by their nationality.

Hwang's Work

M. Butterfly is a play that involves different aspects of cultural and race related topics, which if analyzed in depth, carry a set of similar points as Said’s ideological thinking of “Orientalisim”. Hwang controls his play through Gallimard , an important character that revives the shocking true that engages the play. Furthermore is of greater interest to analyze this piece as racist, it restates Said’s set of ideas; in which stereotypical assumption are taken to demean a certain race. In M. Butterfly we are encounter with stereotypical ideas that portray Asian females as submissive, and essentially of lower cast in relation to the male society. We can even relate this work with “Heart Of Darkness”, a piece of literature that demonstrated a similar perspective and correlated in the use of racist and demeaning ideas shown by the African’s slavery movement in the Congo.

M Butterfly

M Butterfly had several conflicts within individual characters and characters within a general society. Women we always seen as inferior to men in many different societys. Despite the fact that they have different cultures around the world this is one thing every nation may have in common with each other.
Said stated orientalism as a western style for dominating, reconstructuring and having authority over the Orient. (Said 3)
In this case Song was the Orient and inferior to Gallimard and it made Gallimard look superior to her. There was a strong emphasis on whether the Westernized civilization was above the Chinese.
On page 1285 Gallimard and Song are alone and Song is rushing frantically to get tea for Gallimard even though he does not want. It gives the impression that Song must serve him even though he is not in need.
What i didnt understand was how someone can fall in love with someone else for 20 years and not know the sex of the person. The trial in Act 3 was interesting the way Song was answering the Judge's questions in that he was not straight forward but at the same time made sense in what he was saying.

M. Butterfly

Of the many things Ioannis said about the play, the one thing I agree the most on is that Hwang tries way too hard to bring his point across. Westerners are stupid, & the Orients know everything. Yea, we get the idea. Hwang's continuous points about how the Orient's fooled Gallimard is clearly stated. However, in context of we have been discussing in class, this text clearly hits the needle on the head as to what Orientalism is all about. The text discusses the dichotomous relationship between the two opposing sides of the world.

M Butterfly

In first reading this play i was completely confused with who was who and what was going on. But in reading through i realized what was going on. I was really shocked at some of the topics that were discussed in this play. The clear distinction made in this play between the "orient" and the "other" or the "west" really helped to solidify Seids definition of "orientalism". Especially when Seid defines the orient as "real" and not just imaginitatvie. this seems to parallel the play directly as if Hwang was writting this as he was reading Seids book. I was shocked at alot of things that went on in the play...inclding all the espionage, deceit and lies, including the multi partner relationships that Rene had. This was actually an enlightning and informative play to the real world out there that mnay of us may not know about!

Hwang’s self-consciousness may be self-defeating

M. Butterfly amply evinces David Henry Hwang’s command of theatrical history, his agility with dramatic architecture and staging, a rapier wit sharpened on an anvil of ironic intelligence, and a feeling for dialogue as fluent as birdsong. Plus, he’s queer-forward, compassionate and inclusive of spirit, and, one surmises, the kind of guy everyone’s mom would just adore. So what’s not to like? Without gainsaying any of these shining qualities, I’d only venture that the didactic, corrective impulse informing such passages as this early one from scene six, which permits little room for doubt or disagreement in the audience’s mind

Song: Consider it this way: what would you say if a blonde homecoming queen fell in love with a short Japanese businessman? He treats her cruelly, then goes home for three years, during which time she prays to his picture and turns down marriage from a young Kennedy. Then, when she learns he has remarried, she kills herself. Now, I believe you would consider this girl to be a deranged idiot, correct? But because it’s an Oriental who kills herself for a Westerner—ah!—you find it beautiful.

Gallimard: Yes . . . well . . . I see your point . . .
(p. 1280)

finally subsumes the dramatic experience, bending it toward preachment. Gallimard sees the point, but so could a blind man on a galloping horse. Ultimately Hwang tries too hard.

M. Butterfly

On page 1282, Song discusses European men's fascination with "Orientalized" women. When Gallimard mentions that Song herself would consider their infatuation imperialistic, Song replies, "sometimes... sometimes, it is also mutual." This line is particularly interesting as it seems to suggest that the "other," whether referring to the Orient, women, or any other group that has been socialized as inferior, actively participates in the creation of its position as inferior. However, Hwang seems ignore the idea that while at times oppressed parties participate in their own oppression, it is generally instigated by the "superior" group. Furthermore, the implication that the oppressed group has created its own reality thoroughly belittles the imperialist's or oppressor's role.

Orientalism and Westernism

The play was ok, but quite obviously on a mission; it was very passively didactic on two issues, the issue of feminism and of Orientalism, both of which were obviously critiqued in the play. There is much to say, if one wants to speak about either of these politico/social issues, but I do not. There was one line, however, that struck me, and I am not sure what it is doing. On page 1282 Song says “No, you wouldn’t. You’re a Westerner. How can you objectively judge your own values?” On the surface this seems like a critique of “Westerners” in that they try to justify their own actions and values in the face of others. However, looking at the statement a little deeper, there seems to be a bit of a warning here as well. David Hwang seems to be saying that the general grouping of peoples needs to be avoided. If a people cannot objectively understand their own values, another people, outside, are the only ones that can come close to understanding that people. Here Song claims that she can understand the “Western” values because she is not a “Westerner.” But does that imply then that a “Westerner” can understand an “Oriental.” I put “Westerner” in quotes, because that word does as much the same thing to “whites,” another word that generally groups together all British, French, Spanish, Swiss, German, Americans, Canadians, etc and can create a “Westernism.” Is Hwang saying that we need to be fair and not try to understand each other through arrogance because and outsider cannot understand someone else’s values? Is he saying that no people should be group under such a generalizing appellation? Or is there a double standard in terms of the message that Hwang is trying to teach?

JUNGLE FEVER

Denby's JUNGLE FEVER attack at "The Heart of Darkness", is pure ingenious. He discusses the novel on a collegiate level, which allows a lot student to discuss different view points about the British imperialism in Africa. The two students who have different viewpoint on the book are apparently from different ethnic backgrounds. This sort of makes the discussion very interesting. JUNGLE FEVER clearly distinguishes how "The Heart Of Darkness" and its author is racist. It does this by allowing the reader to envision the quotes from the book. Carefully selected quotes allow the reader to aknowledge the fact that Conrad describes the africans as primates.

JUNGLE FEVER

Denby's JUNGLE FEVER attack at "The Heart of Darkness", is pure ingenious. He discusses the novel on a collegiate level, which allows a lot student to discuss different view points about the British imperialism in Africa. The two students who have different viewpoint on the book are apparently from different ethnic backgrounds. This sort of makes the discussion very interesting. JUNGLE FEVER clearly distinguishes how "The Heart Of Darkness" and its author is racist. It does this by allowing the reader to envision the quotes from the book. Carefully selected quotes allow the reader to aknowledge the fact that Conrad describes the africans as primates.

Orientalism

The reading made obvious the negative depictions of the "orient" from a European, or even American standpoint. It made me think back to the history lessons where you'd learn of imperialistic nations attempting to "civilize" a new territory. As though people of the orient were barbaric animals that needed guidance from superior peoples. Said even goes as far to say that there's a "systematic discipline by which European culture was able to manage - and even produce - the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively during the post-Enlightenment period." What it all comes down to essentially is exploitation of an "inferior" peoples for money, land, and resources. Orientalism simply represents the perspective of the bully.

Orientalism and Jungle Fever

In Said's Orientalism and Denby's Jungle Fever they both talk about how European culture has influence on Orientalism and on Conrads heart of Darkness. The European Missionaried left there mark in that book. And European cultures had major influence in the Orient because it had its original, oldest and richest colonies.

Jungle Fever

I liked Denby's approach at the "Heart of Darkness" he led us into a classroom that gave their opinions about the book. He shows us the different approaches to talking about the book and opinions of people with different backgrounds. This book is a good example of what humans are capable when given certain privileges and authorities. Even though this story is based on true historical facts this story can be of any country that practices imperialism on other countries. I don't think that Conrad was helping the natives gain freedom from imperialism by writing this book. I don't think that the "Heart of Darkness" is a racist book.

Orientalism and Jungle Fever

The article Jungle Fever by david Denby really caught my attention. I especially like the way the article was written with constant quotes from "heart of Darkness" to emphasis his points. I found the debate menitoned in the article to be really interesting. I felt this way because it is interesting to note that the students were from 2 different backgrounds which makes a huge difference in their perspectives of life. i also liked the refrences to Seid because the articles clicked a little more. there were 2 views taht were brought up in this article. these were of Chinua Achebe and of the author. i found both arguments to be valid, but im not sure which onei would side with more. In the second article, Said defines his arguemtn and what he is trying to convey to be "Orientalism". he tries to distinguish between the east and the west.

Said's Orientalism

"Orientalism" that Said raises as a novel idea is nothing new to a student of Queens College. I can name at least a half a dozen classes, from anthropology to psychology, and everything in between, that have raised this similar issue about how everything is socially constructed. I'm sure everybody in the class has heard similar themes about how its always "The West" that has caused injustices all over the world and how the world would probably be a better place if "The West" did not exert their influence all over the planet. Despite not being too original, Said does add in a somewhat novel idea, though a perspective I have not heard of, namely the idea of how the authors normally focuses on the external view of the Orient. Said contends that the Orientalist is always situated outside the text and does not truthfully know what is going on inside of the Orient, just as an observer and passerby. This is an interesting little tidbit of information, and solidifies his argument as well.

Orientalism

In Said’s text we get an introduction to a huge concept in which we take the “Orient” as an ideological perspective. Said argues that Orientalisim is an idea that goes along with historical events, but at the same time constructs a set of thinking that has been presentment through a constant relationship between the Europe and the Orient, (now basically instituted by great powers such as Japan and China). Said makes obvious enfaces in the significant importance that the eighteen century oriental colonies came to symbolize in the development of European’s culture langue and writings. He also uses these ideas of “Hegemony” and politics, where Western ideas had always an upper hand from those in the Orient; a factor, which he details through out his introduction, contributed to the post- renascence European ascendancy.

Jungle Fever

I like the way the article was taken place in a classroom and the students were analyzing Conrad's Heart of Darkness.
You realize the arguement between the two students, Alex and Henry wasn't indepthly about race but it seems that way because the thought was always in the back of our mind.
Shapiro on the other hand was not very happy that his discussion had turned into something so deep and controversial. As for any teacher he didnt want sparks to fly about his own students. But when teachers ask rhetorical questions and students find the need to speak their mind and answer it, it may not have been the answer he was looking for.
I found it interesting that the women in the class were silent throughout this entire debate but afterwards claimed it to be a "guy-thing". Couldn't the women put an input of their own ideas to make a debate with their own views of the Heart of Darkness.

Jungle Fever

In Jungle Fever, Dunby discusses what takes an ongoing debate, which takes place in a lit humanism class. The class discusses Conrad's Heart of Darkness as a novel which takes you on a journey through evil vs good. The debate gets very heated b/c the students have different views on the point of the book. I would have to agree with the student Henry because he doesn't neccessarily confine the novel strictly to race and western imperialism, but he suggests that the struggle of good vs. evil is present in all men. This subject is not a race issue entirely, but a humanity issue. People are capable of anything when thrown into certain situations. In The Heart of Darkness Conrad portrays the Africans as the savages when in reality it can be true of all humanity. The teacher Shapiro makes the point that although this may be true we are capable of changing the way we think and society.

Orientalism

It seems that Orientalism, according to Said's perspective, bares a close resemblance to Freud's "lacking" and the concept of "othering" that has been prevalent in many of the texts studied in this course. Just like Freud's "other" or "lacking" is defined by the subject, the male, the possessor of the phallus, Orientalism is defined by and for the subject, the omnipotent West. The Western conception of the Orient seems to justify imperialism, as well as perpetuate the power structure in which the West dominates the East. Therefore, cruel acts of imperialism are not merely accepted, but viewed as the means of "civilizing" an inferior culture. Additionally, because these definitions are provided by the West, the object, the Orient serves a subject, a bystander, in the conception of its own reality. It seems, as Said explains, "the Orientalist is outside the Orient" (21), those who explain and define the culture of the Orient are Westerners, the Orient does not play any role in defining itself. Likewise, Teresa de Lauretis discusses this same idea, Freud's question, "What is femininity?" is asked by a man, Freud himself, answered again by Freud and his answer, revolves around the man, the phallus. In both cases, it appears, the dominate group is defining its object of domination as an "other," inherently inferior in order to perpetuate its dominance.

Edward Said sounds like he has a valid political concern in his Introduction to Orientalism. The stereotype of Orientalism does exist to certain degrees (though the fact, which he admits, that the backbone of Said’s argument is a set of historical generalizations, does not provide a very strong basis for his arguments, I sounds like Freud saying that his whole argument is based on the concept of penis envy and if that is abolished his argument would not stand). Said’s argument in III, that it is practically impossible to remove the study of humanities from politics entirely is also a valid argument; writers, painters, even musicians are all affected by politics in some way. However, that is not an excuse to over-politicize everything one comes into contact with, which what Said seems to do. I agree with David Denby that many “critics” try to inflate texts with their own political agendas, using them to prove certain ideological points that they have an interest in proving. Approaching a text already knowing what one wants to get out of it is close-minded and intellectually dishonest, and it does seem that often times “open-minded intellectuals” are just the opposite, close-minded and intellectually dishonest.

There are also a few points that Said makes in a very nonchalant way that I think are debatable, for example, that America is an imperial power. There are very clear distinctions between that way America has gotten involved in other countries and how other imperial powers (Macedonia, Rome, the Chinese, the Mongols, the Muslims, the Ottomans, England etc) dealt with lands that they conquered and were under their sovereignty.

The main gist of his argument also is that there is a way to study the perspective of one general mindset or culture’s towards a radically different one. Not such an amazing new discovery. But of course he does insert some personal politics in the end.

M. Butterfly

In the beginning of the play Gallimard’s character portrays the West and Song represents the Other (East). The westerners are portrayed as “foreign devils” but the author makes Gallimard a sympathetic character. Especially at the end, a complete reversal takes place in the cultural aspect. It’s really unclear to me why was the cultural superiority reversed? The sexism and that the idealization of a woman is wrong was successfully depicted by Hwang. Through Song’s and Gallimard’s relationship the author illustrated the embedded mentality of western men towards Oriental women and the relationship of the West to the East. Gallimard’s distorted vision of the Orient, “Of slender women… who die for the love of unworthy foreign devils. Who are born and raised to be the perfect women. Who take whatever punishment we give them, and bounce back, strengthened by love, unconditionally. It is the vision that has become my life.” comes crashing at the end of the play. Nothing ideal can survive in the harsh reality of the human truth, which is confirmed by Gallimard’s tragic ending.

Conrad's The Heart of Darkness deals with a man's journey into the congo and his realization of the hypocrisy of the people, which surround him. Marlow can not fully trust anyone because what he believes, he finds out is not what is true. Marlow's character reminds of Michael's in The Deer Hunter because they both are innocent of the world's realities. Not until they take a journey and are subjected to pure evil human spirit do are they able to transform. Once you're innocence is robbed from you through demoralization you are not able to remain the same and view the world as you once did.

conquerors “gone native” in Conrad and Cimino

In considering Conrad’s Heart of Darkness alongside Cimino’s The Deer Hunter, it’s interesting to think about the elasticity of this narrative template of the white subject’s flight into Nature and encounter with, or transformation by, some mythicized dark Other, an encounter apotheosized in both works by the figure of the white who has “gone native.” Kurtz in Heart of Darkness and Nick in The Deer Hunter have both “step[ped] over the threshold of the invisible,” as Conrad puts it, and adopted the ways of being and knowing found on the far side of that threshold. This uncanny transformation of the white subject through a palpably eroticized immersion in the sphere of the other—Kurtz has fallen under the “mute spell of the wilderness that seemed to draw him to its pitiless breast by the awakening of forgotten and brutal instincts,” while Nick is conducted by the sulfurous Frenchman into a netherworld of vice—endows each character with mystical properties even as it leaves them, to the narrator’s eye, deranged beyond remedy. Kurtz wields an occult power over the indigenous Congolese, and Nick, as was pointed out in class discussion, manages to elude the fatal bullet across years of gambling with Russian roulette, until the final confrontation with Mike. Yet both works present “going native” as a one-way street. Kurtz could no more be reintegrated to Victorian London society than Nick could rejoin the dozy, complacent routines of his Allegheny hometown; for them “the threshold of the invisible” is also the point of no return. It remains for the normative white protagonists, Mike in The Deer Hunter and Marlow in Heart of Darkness, to impart some hint of the estranging effects upon the socialized subject of the “spell of the wilderness.” Once back in London, Marlow confides, “I found myself . . . resenting the sight of people hurrying through the streets to filch a little money from each other, to devour their infamous cookery, to gulp their unwholesome beer, to dream their insignificant and silly dreams.” Cimino, by contrast, uses the device of Steven’s dismemberment and psychological breakdown to literalize the existential breach permanently separating him, Mike, and Nick from their community, which remains tenaciously innocent of both “The horror! The horror!” absorbed by the men and of the radical instability of self and subject dramatized by Kurtz and Nick.

"Heat of Darkenss"

“Heart of Darkness” set perhaps as a tell of colonial enterprise, it demonstrates the cruelty and harsh aspects of slavery and torture. Conrad describes this journey through Marlow as a narrator, revealing the true aspects of colonial slavery. We see Kurtz as an influent person whose life is built in a system based on opportunism. He is conscious in the way he demeans the African population, and forces them into work. Kurtz as seen through time and history, thinks this transformation can be achieved through slavery and inequality; believing that this would be the optimum way of introducing Africans to what he considers a civilized society. This attempt of transformation or conversion, as mention is another blog is a cruel ideology where color and race is embraced, where white people are look as intellectual individuals who have been given the right to rule and judge believes. “Heart Of Darkness” exposes this issue that is still latent in many cultures today.

Heart Of Darkness

I'm sure this has been said already, but I find the main theme of the book, the hypocrisy of imperialism and all the evils that encompasses, quite entertaining. The idea of shoving society in your face and saying "this is what it is" and displaying all the follies involved is quite invigorating. It's nice to see a novel throw away all the ideas that a society (granted in their naivte) held dear to them, all to show them how decrepit and how animal-like they have become. Imperialism and society at the time was pretty dark and Conrad's novel brought everything to light. The author brought out all the dark issues from Africa and put them out for all to see.

Heart of Darkness

We go through Marlow's journey through the Congo. We see the muck and the sickness of that area. I find it interesting the race issues that are tackled in the book. There is an almost costant contrast of black and white within the novel. We see the horrible images and the detail of the muck and the excrement that shows that areas viscous history.

"Heart of Darkness" tells us the journey of a man into a dark truth of mankind, we are animals when it comes to greed and survival. The people are blinded by greed and can not see that the workers are human too. The darkness of the land gets to them and turns them into beasts that consume as much as they can. Symbolism is used often throughout the story. Darkness is constantly referred to describing the land and at the same time it represents the Europeans who are evil and have destroyed the land.

Heart of Darkness

Reading this story made me think about today's society and their insanity levels. If you walk the streets of New York City you can see some pretty unusual things. Such as a half naked man and a cowgirl walking the streets of Manhattan. In this book we found some unusual events as well. One of the men at a station was carrying a bucket of water with a huge hole in the bottom of the bucket?! Things that one party may see as awkward and strange the others may see as fun-filled and pleasurable.
When i was reading this story and the men were shooting aimlessly i compared it to the Deer Hunter. Here are these men who have nothing better to do than hang out and shoot aimless shots into the air whereas in the Deer Hunter here are these close friends who know they are about to go on a journey with an unknown ending and want to spend some time together and bond with each other. In both cases these men are bonding. Men have a type of bonding where they dont have to say anything but just be together and do things together and they will feel united.

To go back to our humble origins and look at “Heart of Darkness” as its literary elements, it seems a story driven, not by plot or by character, but rather by setting. Marlowe, the narrator, functions much as the narrator does in Bartleby the Scrivener, as a lens (though a somewhat warped one) through which the reader sees the events of the story unfold. And Mr. Kurtz seemed more a plot point than an actual character; his reputation drove the tension in the story and gave the reader something to look forward to, but too much description was invested in the actual place itself (assumed to be the Congo River) that it seems that that is the focal point of the story.

Before leaving Fiedler and starting Orientalism, I wanted to point out a scene in the beginning of Chapter 3 when Marlowe tells his audience that they spoke of love, and our real narrator, who we only see briefly in the beginning and occasionally through the story responds, “much amused,” whereupon Marlowe quickly disclaims “It isn’t what you think…”

Heart of Darkness

Darkness certainly plays an important role in Conrad's work. Its very inclusion in the name of the story indicates that it is an element that must be considered in light of the work. Certainly, Conrad's entire work is dark, and the setting often seems dark as well. Africa is often referred to the Dark contintent- devoid of civilization and beyond the understanding of the civilized world. Certainly, in Conrad's work, the lack of understanding or sympathy on the part of the imperialist powers present, make Africa a "dark contintent"- misunderstood and abused, as the imperialists fail to consider the humanity of their African counterparts. And indeed, in this work, it is not merely a lack of civilization that can make a country or people, 'dark'. The imperialists, with all their supposed civilization and technology, are, through their abuse and corruption of that civilization, rendered 'dark' as well.

Heart of Darkness

The contrast between Marlow and Kurtz illuminates the inherent hypocrisy of imperialism. Marlow seems to represent the idea of "civilizing" a savage nation. Contrastingly, Kurtz is much more honest, he is not ashamed to admit that he forcefully engages in cannibalism, with out any lofty moral goals. However, this appears to be unacceptable because it portrays the Western "civilizers" as cannibalistic and equivalent on a moral scale to those they wish to civilize. Deborah Root discusses this idea in her book Cannibal Culture. According to Root, when Western imperialists project tropes of savagery and violence on exotic, or different, cultures on order to justify their own savagery and violence (imperialism). It seems that the stark contrast between Kurtz and Marlow serves to highlight this idea.

Heart of Darkness

One of the many interesting topics in Hear of Darkness is the chauvinistic attitude portrayed towards European women. Conrad sets the scene on a boat, which is sailing down Thames River, where he creates a central narrator, Marlow, who recounts his experience in Africa to a group of four men. This choice of a setting where women would not be present at the time creates an atmosphere for Marlow to recount his journey with no input from a female perspective. He only introduces three relatively minor female characters. I think, Conrad’s choices which are only concerned with the male experiences, illustrate a typical product of a patriarchic society. After the first female encounter (with Marlow’s aunt), he expresses his opinion to his audience on the boat. “It’s queer how out of touch with truth women are! They live in a world of their own and there had never been anything like it and never can be. It is too beautiful altogether, and if they were to set it up it would go to pieces before the first sunset. Some confounded fact we men have been living contentedly with ever since the day of creation would start up and knock the whole thing over”. Its amazing how there is no objection to this statement, all four men seem to agree that women are completely ‘out of touch with truth’ and they are incapable of handling the reality. It is clear that such a mentality was accepted by the European society, otherwise why would they all agree to such a degrading statement. He excludes women from the real world by idealizing their existence and through this created idealism Conrad shows that women can not exist and function in the real world.

The Deer Hunter

The Deer Hunter seems illustrate the homoerotic relationships that Fiedler mentions. Particularly, when the men escape into the wild for a hunting trip. Perhaps because the character are heading to Vietnam, they feel the need to escape together, understanding each other's experience. Regardless of the reasoning, several tender scenes point to the homoerotic relationships between the men.

What a sad movie...
It is a good illustration of Fiedler's hypothersis, the male patagonist of American fiction is always on the run into nature to escape his responsibilities. What's interesting is that his movie was inspired by a book Three Comrades, which was written by a German author. It would be very interesting to compare the male relationships in the book to the movie. Is the male patagonist on a run of American fiction as Fiedler claims a genre of American literature or was this portrayed in the Three Comrades as well by a European author.

The Deer Hunter

This movie is an overall touching movie. When it comes to war movies I really get emotionally involved. Overall if you relate this movie to Fielder's theory, yes we say a three men whom escape into nature and hunt together. Through their bondage I do not sense any homosexual engagements. Like Aaron said on Monday, why does a strong male bondage mean that there can possibly be some homosexual questioning in the air? They are just really close friends. If you try to use for example; the friends dancing together, this doesn't mean they are gay. Sometimes men just play like that. I remember in junior high school, it was a phase of play where the boys would joke around and make homosexual advances towards each other. It was all fun and games. The boys would be actually making fun of the homo tendencies. I only wondered if some of the boys weren't playing at times though. I guess you can relate that to Sedgewicks theory ont the Epistemology of the closet.

Deer Hunter

Although I do agree with Aaron and others that not all same gender relationships may have homoerotic feelings and tensions built up, neverthless this movie did display some of the evidence that Fiedler presented that would fit the bill of the typical American novel. The main characters in the movie all appeared to distance themselves from the domesticated society and their nagging mothers and women neighbors upon their return from the hunting trip. A few homosexual innuendos also appeared throughout the movie, including the scene where the two men are dancing together and the two women dancing together.

The Deer Hunter

This movie was sad and touching. In the beginning of the movie the friends are singing and playing pool together, they all seem to be having an innocent time. Steven the guy who is getting married, he wants leave home to get away from his nagging mother, this ties into our discussion about Feedler and how domesticity is not bliss but dullness. Michael tells Nick at the beginnig of the movie that he is the only one of the men that he trusts going hunting with. He is the only on he trusts being alone in the woods with. When they got to war they have a lot of sequences with water. After the war you can tell that they have all changed, like they were all reborn. The water is a symbol of rebirth and what they went through in that water would change anyone.

The Deer Hunter

The Deer Hunter is a very sad war movie. The three guys Michael, Nick, and Steven are very innocent before they went to the Vietnam War. They were happy together doing everything they wanted to do. They never thought about the war would changed their indulgent life. However, after they have experienced death and live moment during the war, Michael felt more melancholy than before; Steven only could stay at home and doing nothing; Nick addicted in drug and couldn't come back home. I don’t think this movie has anything related to men’s escaping from responsibility or to nature or homosexuality. I felt a strong friendship within them. They have no choice to go to the war.

the deer hunter

I thought the movie was very interesting, but so depressing. I was very suprised by everything that happen to the three friends who went off to war. There were many homoerotic instances, like the singing together and touching, but in a joking way. I do believe that sexual tension does exist in close relationships, but i did not get that feeling throughout this movie. I felt that because of the situation and that they were such close friends that they acted perfectly understandable. I think they were all expecting one thing out of life and war changed all that. Michael was the most sensitive of all and I felt he had compassion for his friends and was a good man. By the end I knew that the close friendship was all that was there.

The Deer Hunter

This movie was very appealing to watching and very entertaining. I agree with Michelle when she said that men can have just an "innocent" relationship with each other. Many people in society do joke about two close guy friends but in some way them joking makes them seem envious because they might want a relationship with a person like that. When Michael and Nick went off into their own adventures i saw nothing wrong with them saying i love you to each other and telling each other not to leave them. i think they got used to having the comfort of having each others company.
The most interesting parts were when they all had to play the gun "game". The parts that had this in it reminded me of Battle Royale where they were the entertainment giving all these older men something to watch and bet on. In the background you can see ppl passing money around. It was sick to see that but at the same time when you think about it you realize this was actually happening in the world and WORSE. The scene on the little tree house was much more intense scene than when Nick was shot in the head. The game was more intense because these men were slapping them to the point where they were getting marks on their face.
I felt bad for Michaels wife/girlfriend. i would feel helpless if i was her and would think something was wrong with me if my other half just upt and left one day

"the Deer Hunter"

I was completely surprised at this movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it, but at the same time i found it very touching. I agree with Aaron when he speaks of relationships always being viewed as sexual and never just as a friendship. In this movie, i didnt get the idea or the view of any of these men being gay, even though stan says that about steven. I feel that these men have a very strong bond and part of that bond comes from spending time together. I think taht there is an innocent love for one another, but not a "homosexual" love for eachother. men can have this type of love for eachother, with no underlying desire to sleep with eachother or have feelings for eachother. i see nothing wrong with being close to firends like these men are. These men seem to have a geniune love for eachother that is innocent. I feel that alot of these judgements also have to do with ones nationality and culture. In some families, like italians, it is completely acceptable for men to kiss one another on the cheek and hug eachother in public. in other societies, it is highly frowned upon. I think taht Fiedler would have a field day watching this movie and analyzing it, especailly with all of the nature imagery. the men are constantly in the water, the mountains, nature etc. it seems like this movie was made while someone was reading Fiedlers book out loud.

Leslie Fiedler would have a field day here, especially in the earlier scenes in the bar (when they are playing that love song, right before Steve's mother drags him out). But again, I do not think that there is any homoerotic, homosexual, whatever, tension going on, or at least there does not have to be. If one wanted to watch the movie with these things in mind, it would be feasible, but it is not a definite conclusion that must be drawn from these men's interactions. They can just be very good buddies.
In fact, it seems that all friendships are actually, deep down, they are sexual relationships. A "true" friendship seems not to be able to exist within these theories. People cannot, or do not, ever, (which is very general), look at each other as "regular" people without any sexual tension between them, be they two people of the same gender or of the opposite gender. In a case to case basis, when analyzing literature or real life, it may prove true that some friendships or "relationships" are sexual, but sometimes the sexual tension that is read into a relationship, especially when it is done so generally, that it is too deep down to really exist in any way that makes a difference.
I know that was a little off topic of the movie, I just kind of got a little side-tracked. The movie was very well done, and was able to elicit some really visceral emotions. The russian roulette scene (ironic, these guys are of russian extraction) was especially disturbing.

Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence

In Adrienne Rich's article on heterosexuality and lesbian existence she addresses many topics that gets the reader thinking. In her article she discusses the different sexual likes of women and how different authors perceive this topic. She feels that society is to wrapped up in heterosexual relationships that women are taught that the only right thing to do is have a male to female relationship. She addresses in her article that there is alot more to woman being with other women than sexual reasons. I am not saying I one hundred percent agree with Rich, but she does make a clear argument, which she backs up with evidence. I found her argument to be interesting and effective.

Eve Sedgwick & Epistomology

I was having Trouble with publishing my post. At home Ethernet problems. Please excuse me for my tardiness.

Epistemology can be defined as the study of theories of knowledge or ways of knowing, particularly in the context of the limits or validity of the various ways of knowing. Eve Sedgwick speaks on the oppression of homosexuals. She discusses why homosexuals are afraid of stepping out of the closet. The main reason of why homosexuals are afraid of stepping out of the closet is because they fear the responses that they will receive from heterosexual social groups of the world. To be more elaborate, homxosexuals tend to fear the disapproval from religious sects, co-workers, friends, family members etc. Homosexuals would like to be truthful, but are aware of the consequences of their acquisitions.

In the readings for this week there was quite some confusion within all of the texts.
It wasnt as straight forward as past readings have been.
During the reading of Fiedler i wanted some background information as to why he picked the vocabulary for this piece of writing. I couldnt find any information as to where he got the influence from but it did say that he was interested in mythology and for writing genre fiction novels.
I never realized how many writers analyzed the homosexual world. I never knew that there were writers who focused on how people became homosexual or rather born with it.
I think it is a good way to get out to the people and make people understand certain concepts. Although concepts such as the "closet" may cause controvesy within a group of people there is also a unity that brings them together for the concept to be discussed. Should the closet be a symbol of let out in the world and freedom or does it have to be a barrier?

Fiedler

....

Fiedler

In reading Fiedlers novel, i was very confused at many parts of the book, partially because i never read any of the stories that she mentions. In the preface, i love the fact that she tells the reader that everything she is saying is how she views things, and that she is not going to cite lines from books or other critics. her comparision of European literature to American literature i felt was also interesting. I really liked how she made the connection between the new sciences emerging all out once on page 32..."the series of events which includes the American and the French Revolutions, the invention of the novel, the rise of moden psychology and the triumph of the lyric in poery andds up to a psychic revolution as well as a social one". This was a key point that stuck out in my mind, that i had never known before becuase history was never of interest to me. her discussion in chapter 11 about the "innocnce via the ocular initian is bafflement and nausea" (345) was another subject taht caught my attention. in this paragraph she further discusses how children are often forced into adult hood by the things in life taht they witness.

Eva Sedgwick tries to portray essential ideas behind homosexuality in man and in woman taking different approaches, the used of the Jewish cultural system and the comparisons to a deviant and mocked scheme toward homosexuality, could be awfully confusing and hard to convey her assumptions. She starts by completely detailing all aspects that come to play through out Esther progressive move to explore herself as a Jewish woman. She uses two different texts Between Man and Epistemology of the Closet to convey and sort of contrast their ideas. She focuses in many key points citing important aspects; such as family and various socio-cultural facets. Perhaps the most shocking idea could be the consequences behind revealing a homosexual identity, on an already conformed marriage. More importantly taking family a s a factor that goes beyond man and woman, but involves a new generation which will be built upon the previous.

I agree with Aaron's contempt for Sedgwick's comparison of the gay community coming out of their closet to Eshter's revelation to Ahaseurus that she was Jewish. Revealing to one's spouse that you are gay is an inherent contradiction to the unity of that relationship. Although you might still be good friends, things are just not going to work out. Revealing oneself to their spouse that they are Jewish might be discomforting to some, but it may not throw the entire marriage into mayhem. The marriage can still exist and continue to function, the kids might get confused about what religion (if any) they are supposed to follow, but nevertheless the relationship can remain healthy. Also, if Jew's want to raise their "little girls" in predefined gender roles, that is something that they have a right to and should not be mocked. If she had a problem with that (which she apparently did with the Queens Esther costume on Purim) she should leave it to herself.

The fact that Leslie Fiedler chose to express his essay with very controversial vocabulary was very clever. His “Come Back to the Raft Ag’in, Huck Honey!” in Partisan Review captured immediate attention. The choice of such vocabulary as “queer as three dollar bills” (referring to Huck and Jim) for a controversial thesis in itself must have caused a tremendous impact in1948. I am sure if Fiedler chose to write his essay using less controversial terms as he later did in 1982 or as in Love and Death it still would have evoked an outrage, but I am sure it wouldn’t have captured as wide of an audience as it did in 1948.
I have not read as much American literature as Fiedler has, so it is hard to fairly evaluate Love and Death in the American Novel. However, I would have to agree with such statements as “Where is our Madame Bovary, our Anna Karenina, our Pride and Prejudice or Vanity Fair?” Nothing so far in American literature had captured me as Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina or War and Peace for example. His characters and their passionate love affairs are truly unforgettable.

I did not quite get what Eve Sedgwick was trying to do by comparing (or rather contrasting) the events of Biblical Esther with the “closet” of homosexuality. It seemed that her main argument was to criticize the closet as something that essentially keeps gay people separate and segregated from the rest of society, it is something that acts as a barrier between that gay community and the straight community. The very fact that there is a closet to come out of, for Sedgwick, spells certain separation of the gay community. So when she devoted a few pages to the story of Esther and how Esther, sort of, came out of the closet with her Judaism to Ahaseurus, I really saw no connection. First off, Judaism and Jewish identity is a completely different dynamic from a person’s sexual orientation. Secondly, Esther was “out of the closet” to everyone besides the royalty in the palace, her entire community knew her Jewish identity (an issue that Sedgwick addresses which seems to detach this story from her argument even more). I did not see how the story of Esther, even though there is an element of revealing the hidden (Esther, in Hebrew, means hidden), added to or supported her argument.

And as for Fiedler’s argument, it certainly makes sense, but what about Charles Brockden Brown’s “Wieland” or Hannah Foster’s “The Coquette,” both Americna novles with just as much sexual tension and romance as, say, “Wuthering Heights?”

Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence

Many of Adrienne Rich's observations are quite astute, particularly, her notions regarding female sexuality socialized as a man's possession. This is certainly seen in the way society perceives chastity as something to be saved for one's husband or a specific man, but never for one's self. Additionally, Rich forces reader to confront whether men are naturally more sexual than women and, if so, to question the extent that men can control this powerful sex drive. Rich points to various social institutions that seem to convince people that female sexuality is a mere illusion, yet another aspect woman that only exists for the sake of man. However, while socialization and perhaps social control often seem to dominate its victims, it seems inappropriate to equate these social norms with acts of sexual violence. Likewise, it seems to belittle sexual crimes like rape, molestation and harassment, when one connects these atrocities to gender socialization. While socialization is, by definition normal social practice, sexual violence is a crime and is not considered acceptable. Therefore, it would difficult to attribute sexual violence to normal gender socialization because majority of the society does not engage in this type of deviance. Moreover, to relate socialization and sex crimes would seem to belittle the severity of these crimes.

quibbles with Sedgwick

Two small quibbles need to be aired concerning the passage from Sedgwick’s Epistemology of the Closet excerpted in our readings. First, it’s jarring to notice Sedgwick’s use of the epithet “gypsy” in reference to the people known properly as Roma or Rom, since that is how they name themselves and how they are recognized by the United Nations, the EU, and other international bodies. “Gypsy” is a word of 16th-century European origin based on a dialect word for “Egyptian,” as Roma were once widely believed to hail from Egypt. What makes Sedgwick’s casual use of “gypsy” unfortunate is the highly derogatory charge the term carries, particularly in many European social contexts. It would be impossible to imagine Sedgwick referring, with a straight face as it were, to Native Americans as “Injuns,” yet something very similar occurs in her uncritical use of the functionally racist term “gypsy.”

Secondly, and in full awareness of the strategic liberties an eminence of Sedgwick’s rank may exercise with evidence, I find it nonetheless a bit odd to see her enlist Melville’s Billy Budd as evidence in her treatment of the historical process by which “sexual knowledge and knowledge per se” come to be conflated with knowledge of homosexual desire (p. 688). In tracing her epistemic arc from Diderot’s La Religieuse (The Nun), Sedgwick cites the “influence” of Wilde’s Dorian Gray and Billy Budd on this process of conflation, yet—without putting too fine a point on it—how can two novels published some 35 years apart be said to exert such a parallel “influence”? Famously, Billy Budd lay cobwebbed in a drawer before its belated publication in 1924, well after Melville’s death in 1891, one year after the publication of Dorian Gray. Sedgwick advances the two works as if contemporaneous, which would be a trifling anachrony except for the fact that Billy Budd cannot be said to have had an influence on anyone until its publication and reception. Sedgwick appears to suggest that its influence radiated by some occult means from the drawer in Melville’s dusty hovel, where he lived in impoverished obscurity at the end of his life. By the time the novella actually surfaced in the twenties, the process for which Sedgwick offers it as proof—her “condensation of the world of possibilities surrounding same-sex sexuality [. . .] to the homosexual topic” (688)—would have been completed, or mutated to a further phase.

Hester and the Scarlet Letter

Hester is a character that is in control of her life. She is capable of choosing how she deals with her disgrace within her society and how she lets it affect her. Hester is an intelligent woman who knows how to handle herself and even Pearl while she is in her more crazed state. The main weakness that I saw with Hester was that at the wrong time her emotions got the best of her. She was clearly capable of avoiding getting into an affair with Dimmsdale but her emotions caused her downfall.

I have to admit that I approached Johnson's article with an incredible amount of skepticism, and was truthfully blown away by how convincing I found her arguments. Certainly, The Scarlet Letter, confronting in its plot the issue of adultery, would naturally face analysis of a sexual nature, but Johnson's exploration of the role of impotence in the work was suprising and yet extremely plausible.
It seems that the most obvious approach to the work would be to consider sexuality of a female nature, considering that the only character we find with any kind of consistent and blatant sexual element is Hester. Hawthorne highlights her sexuality and youth, removing her sexual nature from the realm of censure which it encounters in the work. It seems that the most obvious sexual element in the work then is Hester's, seemingly representative of female sexuality as a whole. Johnson however, moves away from this aspect of the work, and chooses instead to focus on male sexuality, and how it is this sexuality, or lack thereof, which motivates the plot of the story. It is not female sexuality then, which is the main element of the story, but the exploration of male sexuality, including the narrator's own.

The Scarlet Letter and Impotence and Omnipotence

Reading "The Scarlet Letter" I did not realize that impotence was such a main theme of the story. Johnson shows very clearly that throughout the story and even the narrator shows signs of impotence. It could be physical in the case of Chillingworth or just morally in the case of Dimmsdale. Johnson also points out that Hester's act of adultary was important in regards to history because at that time many young women were married to older men and it was not unusual to find marraiges like this to breakup. What if Hester had pointed out earlier that Chillingworth was her husband? Maybe the towns people would somewhat sympathize and understand her situation. Hester would not have been as ashamed and guilty.

Impotence and Omnipotence

I found this reading to be rather interesting, yet somewhat disturbing. i have never viewed the Scarlet Letter in this light of impotence and sexual lacking. Or if i did discuss that in high shcool English, i dont remember it. I found the authors close reading of Chillingworth to be rather interesting, and finally the story made more sense to me. The fact taht Chillingworth became so involved iwth herbs and natural cures brings new light to his problem. it also helps justify his closeness and relationship with Dimmesdale. chillingworth, as i said in class, seemed to be such a two-faced man and very sketchy, but now it all makes sense. Chillingworth wants revenge on Dimmesdale, but more importantly wants to avenge his manhood. Another element that was new to me in this reading was the fact that divorces or annulments could be granted based on impotency. I found this to be completely shocking and disturbing, but i was rather intrigued by the fact. I had a mixed reaction to this reading.

Hester and "Femininity"

"If she be all tenderness, she will die. If she survive, the tenderness will either be crushed out of her, or... crushed so deeply into her heart that it can never show itself more."

This powerful quote seems to allude to Freud's idea of femininity. Freud asserts that the ideal female will become passive, similar to the concept of tenderness. If a woman is not successful in achieving passivity, she is at risk of becoming sexually neurotic, or frigid. Likewise, Hawthorne seems to suggest a similar concept that Hester has somehow abandoned her womanliness, or sexuality in her necessary, yet aggressive, attempts to survive. These binary conceptions of women are quite popular, but also very dangerous, they imply that women can only possess one simple quality, for instance, a woman is either "smart" or "beautiful." Therefore, when Hester is able to be simultaneously sexual, tender and tenacious, Hawthorne opposes Freud's idea of femininity by portraying a very modern heroine, who serves as a complex dichotomy of human characteristics.

The Scarlet Letter

I wonder how this novel would have turned out if the gender roles were switched. What would happen if Hester were a male. Number 1, I highly doubt if the male version of Hester would have been scrutinized in front of the whole Puritan community. As a matter of fact, I doubt if there would be any punishment to consider. Nathaniel Hawthorne is a feminist genius. His idea of the A to label Hester as an adulterer, makes Hester a very important character throughout the community. In my opinion this scarlet letter makes Hester important. She is an important, because she is a noble strong hearted heroine who stands tall by her daughter Pearl and the sin that she has committed.

Chillingworth vs. Dimmesdale

Johnson makes a compelling case for theme of impotence throughout the novel. The author posits that Chillingworth seeks out cures for his impotence throughout the story. Chillingworth mettled with the dark arts of the Native Americans and searched for herbs and roots looking to cure his lack of virility. However it was his opposite, Dimmesdale, who overpowered him in terms of manliness and potency. Dimmesdale was able to produce a child, whereas Chillingworth could not. I agree with Johnson that Dimmesdale is seen throughout the novel as weak and tortures himself to no end, however at the conclusion of the novel, Dimmesdale was able to redeem himself and confesses publicly his wrongdoing. Meanwhile, Chillingworth continued to hide in the shadows and dies without his revenge.

The Penis Mightier than the Sword...

Johnson’s comparison of the pen to the penis is an interesting one which I have not before contemplated, but makes more sense even, than the classic comparison of the sword to the phallus. I mean, is anything that is long and hard is a phallic object that the world is full of them, but the pen, containing ink which, when used in the pen, has the ability to create is something else entirely, it has elements, besides for shape, that make the comparison all the more valid. We even have an oft-quoted adage that “the pen is mightier than the sword,” perhaps comparing the two as phallic symbols and recognizing the pen’s creative superiority.

The idea of impotence was the only, or even the main point in The Scarlet Letter, the novel was about much more than that, but Johnson does identify this very important, underlying, driving tension in the story. To say that the story is only about impotence and the way it affected the narrator, the author, and the characters would take away from the book’s value as a religious and social criticism, as a text that promotes freedoms, Romanticism, emotions, and that rails against the suppression of natural feelings as well as the excessive moralization that Hawthorne saw in the Puritan community, moralizations that led to things far worse than the ousting of Hester from the community, the guilt and unhappiness and eventually death, of Dimmesdale, and the Chillingworth’s transformation into a villain. All of these did come about because of the laws of the Puritan community, but the Salem witch trials, which were alluded to throughout “The Scarlet Letter” was a far more extreme event in the history of the Puritan colonies.

The Scarlet Letter

Is a portayal of feminist power and shows how a woman, Hester Prynne was able to deal with being scrutinized and ridiculed by the people of her town. She did not buckle, she stood brave and was not ashamed. When she is leaving the jail cell in the beginning of the story, the townspeople see her coiming out with her head held high and her holding he baby firmly to her chest. A woman who is ashamed of her past sins, including cheating on her husband and having a baby by the other man would not have a stance like that. I think the book has an feminist undertone, Hester took responsibility for her so called sins and was not broken by it.

Impotence and Omnipotence

Impotence is defined as " lacking bodily strength" or "unable to do something." Chillingworth is the figure of an impotent man because he's an older man who sends his younger, beautiful wife away by herself for years and is not physically in her life to the point where they assume he is killed by the "savage" Native Americans.
Johnson makes Chillingworth look sympathetic and caring for Hester as he confesses that he is why this has happened to Hester. He feels if he wasn't absent in her life he would've atleast saved her from the humilation knowing fully well that he may not have fathered a child for himself at his age.
Omnipotence is defined as having a dfine power, like God. Johnson portrays Chillingworth as omnipotent because he taking the herbs and roots as a form of his strength and knowledge. Although Chillingworth was in "captivation" he was taking in stories and beliefs of the Native American remedies.

Yes I know its late, but hey, better late than never...
Its always the small details that struck me about a work and The Scarlet Letter is no different. When Hester approaches the gate to give the embroidered gloves to the governor, the bond-servant at the gate sees her wearing a scarlet letter and has no clue what it is or of its significance. He just assumes from her determination on entering the mansion that she is of some importance and high status. I can only imagine that this is just one of many subtle hints Hawthorne placed into the story to show the meaninglessness of the badge. This can correlate to what we discussed about semiotics that the bond-servant thought the badge meant the total opposite of what it was meant to convey.

The Scarlet Letter

I've always loved this book so I didn't mind reading it again, but now I was able to keep the theories of the feminist we have studied in mind while I was reading. The text seems to be very misogynistic in the way that a woman has to wear a big red letter A because she committed adultery and the whole town scrutinizes her and her child. Reading it now I see that it is a feminist novel in the way it shows that men have strong emotions and shows Dimmesdale as a weak character and Hester as the one who remains strong. Usually the woman is portrayed as the weaker sex and the men must save them in some way. However in the novel Hester is the one who is basically saving her adulterous lover who is not man enough to confess his sin and share some of the consequence with Hester. Instead he tries to lean on her and winds up making himself sick with guilt. It was a nice change to see a strong female character who did wrong and lived with the reprecussions and cared for her daughter as a single mother.

The Scarlet Letter

The story takes place many years ago when we can not relate to the beliefs and customs of the people at that time. Yet we sympathize with Hester, Dimmsdale and Pearl. They appear to be the most innocent, pure and kind people in the colony unlike Roger, the Reverend, Master Bellingham and the rest of the townspeople. Also the physical description of a character go along with the personality of him or her. For example, Hester is beautiful, young so her personality is kind and giving. Roger Chillingworth is old, ugly and he is the person who seeks to destroy Dimmsdale. The thing that was astonishing was that Hester returns to the town and resumes to wear the Scarlet letter after so many years.

Scarlet Letter

As of reading The Scarlet Letter for the first time, it is an obvious that the text is written in a misogynistic style. Not that I am saying Nathaniel Hawthorne is a misogynist, but the main character (Hester) goes through a lot of triumph and tribulation. Hester is punished for committing adultery. She has to wear an "A" which stands for adultery. She is used as an example to the Boston society. She is imprisoned. During this time period people aren't peanolized for adultery. I think that Nathaniel Hawthorne is a feminist. The way he displays Hester whom is able to be strong and fight through the societal views and hatred that is shot towards her.

Scarlet Letter

I had just read this last summer, and looking at it from the vantage of what topics that we have been reading lately, one of the first things I noticed at the beginning of the story was mentioning of Queen Elizabeth. The way that Hawthorne says she is "man-like" and that the women of the town resemble such remarks in their attitude and body. Yet, he tells how later generation of females would become lighter of body and not as open in their thinking. Hester, even in being an outcast, does not lose her strength of self.

The Scarlet Letter

I found this story interesting because of the way Hawthorne approached the details in the Scarlet Letter.
Everytime I read a story about a young individual who gets tortured for some thing they couldn't control, I can't help but think about reality. There are so many children in the world whose parents make the mistakes and they have to deal with the consequences. In this case Hester is proud of Pearl and sees her as a "blessing" and a reason to go on with her life. The townspeople talk about how she isnt human because of the question about who her father is. To instigate this theory she goes about saying her father is the Devil. Once Pearl knows that Dimmesdale is her father she feels whole for once.
Although Hester was humiliated completely by being outcasted by wearing this A where ever she went, it was also a way to show that she could cross these boundaries where everyone else was scared to go. Rebellion shows bravery and strength but has consequences for the actions.
This novel was full of seperation issues within characters as well as the individual mind.

The Scarlet Letter

Having read the Scarlet Letter once prior in high school, reading it today sheds a whole new light on the story. I dont remember much of the story from high school, but slowly it came back to me as I read it now. To begin, I am still completely infuriated by the punishment and public display of humiliation that is portrayed in this novel. Even though the story was written in a different time period, and the view of the people has drastically changed, it still aggrivates me to know that women were still put on "display" in this manner. Hester Prynne was ridiculed and humiliated, while the man who contributed to this crime was living care free. Although his freedom was dependent on Hester Prynne's refusal to speak, his cowardness and fear of admitting to his mistake makes me see him as less of a man. I am also intrigued by the relationship between the Minister Dimmesdale and Roger Chillingworth. Roger Chillingworth has to be the most deceitful, contradicting, manipulative man that exsists. He acts as a friend to Dimmesdale and confides in him, yet he is hiding this secret of adultry from the most holy man of the town. I feel like this relationship is completely superficial and will only benefit Chillingworth. It seems as though he is trying to redeem himself from his sins.
Another interesting point that i found in Chillingworth was his comparison and refrences to Satan, the same way the narrator notes these characteristics in Pearl. The two of them are so much alike, almost superfically sweet, but pure destruction inside. Pearl is this innocent child who at times is angel like, but is also able to dance on the graves of dead people. In her defense, she is a child, but the guidelines of right and wrong should be instilled upon a child. I find Pearl to be the most interesting and fun character of the whole story. It is interesting to note her reactions to physical contact, being that she has been isolated for so long. At one point she reaches out to touch the ministers hand, but she runs from Bellingham. It makes the reader wonder if she can sense a difference between "good" and "evil". I also wonder how accurate of a dipiction this is?

Hester's morals

The Scarlet Letter is a good exaple of the twisted moral structure of that time period. The morality of that time was to kill anyone who was different or "sinful". In the story Hester is a woman who has to wear an A on her clothing because she is an adulterer. In the beggining of the story three women are gossiping as to what should be done to her, and two of the women wish physical harm to come to her. One of the woman says she should die for her sins because she has shamed the entire community. They believe their moral fiber is right, when in fact Hester and Dimmesdale are the real people in the story who have the real morality.

I find Hester's actions very bold and courageous. She walks with the "A" on her chest as if with pride that she is not afraid or bothered by her community. She doesn't give up her secret even though she is pressed for it many times. She also decides to stay which I questioned. Why is she putting herself through this when she can leave and have a better life for her and Pearl? Is it because of Dimmesdale, or is it her pride that wont let her leave?

Hawthorne’s humor; Hester’s house

First, it would be easy, amid Hawthorne’s high moral seriousness and such gothic trappings as the fearsome prison gates and the pillory scaffold, to miss the flashes of restrained, subversive wit in the authorial narration. When Hester is commanded by the reverend John Wilson, the narration disarms us by revealing that Wilson’s “kind and genial spirit” is for him a source of “shame,” before “the eldest clergyman of Boston” is compared to baby Pearl: “his gray eyes, accustomed to the shaded light of his study, were winking, like those of Hester’ infant, in the unadulterated sunshine.” This solemn, law-giving patriarch, the narration implies, should stick to the cozy confines of his parsonage.

I’m also struck by the externalization of theme in the physical details of Hester’s house, the “small thatched cottage” she retreats to after prison. The cottage “stood on the shore, looking across a basin of the sea at the forest-covered hills, towards the west.” At the outset of her new existence as pariah, the only home available to Hester is this meager shelter “on the shore,” on a brink, a threshold, a continually shifting boundary, an unstable edge between the solid land of the New World and the ancient sea. The cottage gives upon a “basin of the sea” at once particular and universal; this cove on the Massachusetts coastline is also the bowl of the sea itself, the immense saline womb, a womb which is also Hester’s. This basin separates the shorefront cottage from “forest-covered hills, towards the west,” spatial data pointing us towards conquest, expansion, the ever-receding “frontier.” At Hester’s back is the awful Puritan past, in sight before her are the western hills, with all the promise and menace of the still primeval forest. The cottage itself is fringed with a “clump of scrubby trees,” probably pitch pine or scrub oak, that “did not so much conceal the cottage from view, as seem to denote that here was some object which . . . ought to be, concealed.” Here we detect a certain animism that for Hawthorne brings the landscape alive, endowing the forest and its trees with sentience. The dwarf pines conspire with Hester’s persecutors and, like the letter embroidered on her breast, announce her sin to all witnesses. Even those unacquainted with her infamy will know the single mother banished to this “little, lonely” place “ought to be concealed”; the trees will tell them.

Hawthorne's The Scarlet letter is an interesting and effective study in irony. The glaring message is that while Hester is ostracized and condemned by the Puritain community for her sinfulness and lack of virtue and morality, throughout the work, the reader is meant to feel tht she and Dimmesdale remain the only two characters who in truth embody the virtues of human kindness. In truth, they are the only two characters who truly retain their humanity. Their sin, so abhorred by the community, is what renders them most human, and acts as a sign of their human frailty. The Puritan community meanwhile, though considering themselves to be the height of piety and goodness, is in truth, Hawthorne implies, often cruel and unforgiving. Their rigid adherence to what is literally puritanical, comes at the cost of their humanity and basic human kindness.
It is interesting to note that Hawthorne's grandfather was in fact one of the judges at the famous Salem witch trials. Throughout his life, Hawthorne carried a burdened sense of guilt for the actions of his ancestor. His criticm of the Puritan community emerged partly as a result of this guilt. Hawthorne flips Puritan principles on their head, implying that perhaps, the rigidity of that which is seen as most pure, most righteous, can in truth be the cause of sin and cruelty towards others. Hawthorne's exploration of these issues of morality and its implications, truly make his work progressive.

I like Nathaniel Hawthorne's style of writing leave the ending to the reader because I agree that in reality there isn't always a happy ending. In addition the fact he concentrated in the individual's inner conflicts interests me. It feels like despite his "dark" writing brings "light" to the reader. The Scarlet Letter is an example. Nathaniel wrote about the issue like adultery that people rather favor to be covered and caused readers to think about it and come up with their best solution. Though I'm not done reading The Scarlet Letter, it is very interesting.

Multiple Perspectives

re is one episode, in the very beginning of The Scarlet Letter, that can be interpreted in two completely different ways, making the novel either pro-feminist or as functioning in the stereotype that Judith Butler deplores (or, if they are not mutually exclusive, both). When Hester Prynne is walking down the “Marketplace” the “goodwives” are described with very unflattering adjectives. They are ugly, coarse, man-like, “the beef and ale of their native land.” Hester, in contrast, is a beautiful “figure of perfect elegance,” dark haired and feminine.

Butler and deBeauvoir would scream out here that the stereotypes of women, the myth that is perpetuated that there is a distinct boundary between male and female, and that the female stereotype is one-sided. Why should the “villains” be portrayed as ugly and “un-feminine” while the protagonist is a gorgeous “model of femininity?” An outrage perpetuated by the male dominated society!

Yet, on the other hand, the book is clearly a criticism of the Puritan mistreatment of women in the 17^th century, and that is shown partly through these descriptions. The people who were the righteous good guys are now bad and the people who were viewed as bad guys are now the good guys. Form that perspective Hawthorne is an early feminist writer.

Of course these ideas have to evolve over time and this perhaps marks a step in that evolution; it is also written from a man’s perspective, and any feminist work written by a man will be approached from a male perspective.

The Scarlet Letter

In the first ten chapters of Nathaniel Hawthorne's, The Scarlet Letter, he discusses the troubles of a woman named Hester being punished for committing adultery. Hester has a three year old daughter named Pearl who is also being teased by the community because of her mother's mistake. The town really puts down Hester for what she did, which can be understandable, however her daughter has nothing to do with what she did. This to me showed ignorance on the town's part by teasing the little girl and threatening to take her away from her mother. It doesn't make her bad mother for what she did. People make mistakes, she shouldn't be judged on her parenting skills for that once incident, unless she was endangering her child, which she wasn't.