Reader/Writer/Communicator Reflection

An artist’s preferred style of art evolves throughout her life for a few possible reasons, two of which being:

1.  As she gains life experience she will mature, and the progression of her maturity will be reflected in her work.

2.  As her relationship with the world around her evolves, she will inevitably develop new perspectives, and will discover new concepts and ideas she wants her artwork to communicate.

Through what I’ve read and written this year, I’ve learned a lot about myself and my relationship with the world around me. 

            Toward the beginning of the year, I valued individualism very highly.  While reading “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula Le Guin, I realized just how important I found being a nonconformist.  This was reflected in many aspects of my life-- my clothing, my countenance, my music of choice, my artwork. . .  It was especially reflected in my writing.  In my “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas Essay”, I argued that “What Le Guin is encouraging us to do is to stop contributing to the selfish and cruel nature of our communities” (“The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas Essay” 2).  I venerated the ones who walk away as representing “those of us who question authority and are not willing to comply with a community's norms if we find them immoral” (2).  The story of the ones who walk away made me realize how much I value being an individual, and I began to take pride in setting myself apart from the rest of the world.  Much of what I valued, I still believe to be important.  However, by the time I wrote my “Irony” blogpost, I was beginning to realize that “humans have a tendency to go to extreme lengths” (Irony 1).  My relationship with the world had become pretty one-sided-- it was just me trying to communicate what an independent individual I was.  I wasn’t listening to the rest of the world and learning from it.

            Fortunately, while reading Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, I began to see the error in my ways.  I realized that Okonkwo is a lot like me: individualistic and stubborn.  While writing about Things Fall Apart, I began to notice just how different Okonkwo is from the rest of the Ibo people.  For one thing, “he doesn’t care much for words because ‘he [has] a slight stammer’ (Achebe 4) and therefore uses violence instead of language to convey his feelings. . .  However, Achebe makes it clear that not everyone in the village is like Okonkwo.  Achebe writes that ‘Among the Ibo people the art of conversation is regarded very highly, and proverbs are the palm-oil with which words are eaten’ (Achebe 7)” (“The Lion Project Essay” 1).  This is only one example of how different he is.  He is also more rash than the rest of the people, more violent, more disrespectful—not to mention he ends up hanging himself.  “If only he’d listened,” I’d find myself thinking.  “If only he’d tried to understand others.”  I realized just how similar we were.  I didn’t want to be like that.  These texts made me realize that I wanted to be able to connect with my community and learn from the world around me.

Goshumi

While reading Chapter 8 of The Namesake, one critical question came to mind:

Why does Jhumpa Lahiri have Gogol and Moushumi fall in love?

I mean, throughout their lives both of them struggle with the idea of self-determination.  They don't want to do everything their parents tell them to and live the way their parents lived.  They had both been "admonished to marry an American" (213).  Moushumi even says that "by the time she was twelve she had made a pact, with two other Bengali girls she knew, never to marry a Bengali man" (213).  So then why should the two of them, who were set up by their parents, end up falling in love?  Why should they end up following in their parents' footsteps, doing exactly what their parents want them to do, instead of creating their own paths?

Well, I have a little theory...

I think that Lahiri is definitely saying that you shouldn't let others oppress you and tell you how to live your life.  However, if you only do things to spite others, that's a whole new kind of oppression-- except this time, you're the one oppressing yourself... kind of a flashback to the Underground Man, am I right?

So, the moral of the story is this:

You shouldn't live your life only doing what others tell you to do.  However, you also shouldn't live your life only doing what others tell you not to do.  In the end, it's your life and not anyone else's, so just do what makes you happy.

But that's just my opinion.  What do you think?

Gogol vs. Nikhil

The topic of today's blogpost:  Gogol or Nikhil?  Was it wrong of Gogol to change his name, or was it for the best?

Well let's take a look at both sides:

For one thing, he did change his name without even knowing the true reason behind his original name.  He goes through his childhood and teenage years knowing his namesake as some pathetic writer with mental instability issues.  It doesn't help that the original Gogol starved himself to death and probably died a virgin.

When Gogol is finally told the real reason behind his name, he feels instantly "awkward [and] oddly ashamed" (124).  He tells his father that "[he] should have told [him]" (124), suggesting that, had he known the whole story, he might not have changed his name.

To me, it feels like Gogol is his real identity.  This whole "Nikhil" business feels kind of forced.

However, if he feels braver and more confident as Nikhil, then shouldn't he be allowed to choose?  Nikhil sure seems to be more of a badass than Gogol, which can be taken as a good thing or a bad thing.

I have to admit that I'd been more of a fan of Gogol myself-- up until the last part of Chapter 6, at least. When he meets Pamela, she seems to make a lot of assumptions based on his heritage.  She assumes that because he's Indian he must never get sick and says that "[she'd] think the climate wouldn't affect [him], given [his] heritage" (157).  However, Lydia intervenes, insisting that he's American, not Indian.  He was born in America.

There are certain stereotypes and assumptions connected with Gogol's heritage.  Your heritage is something that you're born with, not something you choose.  It doesn't determine who you are as a person-- you choose who you want to be.

Therefore, why shouldn't Gogol be able to choose his name?  He shouldn't have to stick with the name he was born with if he doesn't feel it suits him... right?


So Gogol or Nikhil?  What do you think?

T h e N a m e s a k e

While reading The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri, I found myself fascinated by the relationship between the two main characters: Ashoke and Ashima. I am completely aware that marriage issues is not the main theme Jhumpa Lahiri is trying to convey, yet I couldn't help but notice the difficult question raised by the relationship between the two of them:

In order for a marriage to be successful, do both parties have to be "meant for each other" from the start?  Does it need to be sparked by undoubtable love and affection?  Or can two completely different people ultimately grow together through the hardships they endure and eventually find love once they've shared enough of their lives with each other?

It's clear from the start that Ashoke and Ashima don't exactly "hit it off".  I mean, the poor girl didn't even learn his name until after the betrothal (Lahiri 9).  Not that she ever really uses it.  Lahiri writes that "instead of Ashoke's name, [Ashima] utters the interrogative that has come to replace it, which translates roughly as 'Are you listening to me?' " (2).  None of this is really a surprise seeing as she didn't choose her husband-- he was chosen for her.

However, just because they don't exactly "click" doesn't mean that they're bad people.  In fact, Ashoke can often be very caring.  For example, "before [Ashoke] left for the university he would leave a cup of tea by the side of the bed" (11) while she slept during her pregnancy.  She wouldn't drink it, but it's the thought that counts, right?

Perhaps they would be happier together under different circumstances.  The main difference that takes a tole on their relationship is their feelings about America.  Ashima absolutely hates it and feels completely homesick.  Poor Ashoke "[feels] at fault, for marrying her, for bringing her [there]" (33), but at the same time he can't leave.  Her greatest regret is coming, and his would be going back.  This dilemma doesn't really allow them to connect much with each other.

The first year of their son's birth is not an easy one.  Are all the hardships weighing on their relationship, or is it only strengthening their bond?  What do you think?

The Lion Project

Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe and The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton are two texts that challenge the single-story of two different groups: Africans and Teenagers.  Things Fall Apart is a story about the colonization of Africa in the late 1800s, while The Outsiders is story about a gang of teenagers in the 1960s.  Though they may seem different, they’re quite similar in that they’re both stereotyped in a way that makes them seem like less than they really are .  Adults think they’re smarter and better than teenagers in the same way that the white men think themselves superior to the Africans .  Both stories include texts written by the protagonists’ “superiors” that exploit their stereotypes and perpetuate their single stories.

One thing the Africans’ single story and teenagers’ single story have in common is that they’re both viewed  as being juvenile and unsophisticated.  Strangely enough, Okonkwo, the protagonist of Things Fall Apart, doesn’t do much to challenge the stereotype.  He doesn’t care much for words because “he [has] a slight stammer” (Achebe 4) and therefore uses violence instead of language to convey his feelings, which is viewed as a primitive and barbaric form of communication.  However, Achebe makes it clear that not everyone in the village is like Okonkwo.  Achebe writes that “Among the Ibo people the art of conversation is regarded very highly, and proverbs are the palm-oil with which words are eaten” (Achebe 7).  This completely refutes the idea that everyone in Africa is primitive and unsophisticated—most of them are eloquent speakers and utilize beautiful metaphors to portray their points.  Unfortunately, the white men are blind to this in a similar way that adults can often be blind to the intelligence of teenagers. 

The characters in both authors’ works exhibit a variety of different personality types—some, like Dallas Winston in The Outsiders, dropped out of school and are doing things like “[getting] arrested, [getting] drunk, [riding] in rodeos, [lying], [cheating], [stealing], [rolling] drunks, [and jumping] small kids” (Hinton 11).  Similarly to Achebe, Hinton creates a character that completely embodies his stereotype, which is because she isn’t trying to deny the single story—she’s merely saying that it’s incomplete , especially when it comes to characters like Ponyboy and Johnny.  Like the white men think that the Africans are dumb, “[Johnny’s] teachers [think] that [he’s] just plain dumb.  But he [isn’t]” (75).  Ponyboy and Johnny have a deep appreciation for literature, and are able to have completely mature, sophisticated conversations analyzing certain works such as “Nothing Gold Can Stay” and Gone With the Wind.  As Ponyboy discusses these works with Johnny, he realizes how much smarter he is than everyone thinks, and “it [amazes him] how Johnny [can] get more meaning out of some of the stuff in there than [he can]” (75).  Both Chinua Achebe and S.E. Hinton portray the diversity within these characters’ respective communities and convey that one can’t assume poorly of an entire group because not everyone in the group is the same.

One of the most tragic parts of both texts is how oblivious the other parties (the imperialists and the adults) are to anything outside the single story.  In Things Fall Apart, the District Commissioner has been given the amazing opportunity to observe the beauty and sophistication of the culture and the Ibo people, but instead chooses to focus solely on why they’re simple and savage The last paragraph of the story is spent with him discussing the book he’s going to write about his experience colonizing Africa; he tells that the title of the book will be “The Pacification of the Primitive Tribes of the Lower Niger” (Achebe 209).  The tragedy in this is that the book is spent discussing why the tribes aren’t as primitive as people think, yet it ends with a man discussing the book he plans to write which will only perpetuate the single story.

Similarly, in The Outsiders, there is another text that perpetuates the single story of the teenagers.  However, this text both supports and refutes the single story.  It is a newspaper article written after Dallas, Ponyboy, and Johnny save a group of children from a burning church; the headline is “JUVENILE DELINQUENTS TURN HEROES”.  Though it may seem like it’s portraying the boys in a positive light, it’s still referring to them as “juvenile delinquents” merely based on their age  and what they look like.  In addition, Two-Bit is offended because he argues that “[they] were heroes from the beginning.  [They] didn’t just ‘turn’ all of a sudden” (107).   Ponyboy and Johnny didn’t do anything in the first place to deserve the title of “juvenile delinquents”—they’re just delinquents by association, not because they did anything wrong.  This is similar to how people get their idea of Africa from minorities like Okonkwo instead of acknowledging that not everyone is like that.

Things Fall Apart and The Outsiders are very similar in that they were both created to challenge the single story, yet feature characters who completely embody it.  These characters are created by the authors in order to convey that their point isn’t that the single story is incorrect—it’s that it’s incomplete .  Both authors do an amazing job of portraying why these groups are so much more intelligent and complex than they’re given credit for being.

Things Fall Apart

History is just a bunch of stories about heroes against villains.  The good guys vs. the bad guys.  This is how every story goes... why would Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe be any different?

See, you have the good guys, who are the Africans, and then the bad guys, who are the white men.

Oh wait, no...  I'm sorry-- I meant to say that the good guys are the white men, and the bad guys are the Africans.

Wait that's definitely not right.  Okay, let's think this through:



According to the story, the people of Nigeria have a system that has been working for years.  They're happy, and they would never, not even for a second, doubt their government or religion.  They respect their gods, and live their lives according to their gods' will.

Then all of a sudden, a bunch of random white guys swoop in with total disregard for the culture of the Nigerians.  When they come to the village of Mbanta to preach, "[they tell them] that they [worship] false gods, gods of wood and stone" (Achebe 145).  The white men think it's literally their God-given duty to come to these people (who have been fine for the past hundreds of years!) and tell them that everything they believe in is a lie and that they need to change.


...So, obviously the imperialists are the bad guys, right?


Well, it's actually not that simple.  The thing is, these white guys truly do have the best of intentions.  Though they may be disrespecting the Africans' religion and culture, they aren't completely ignorant about it.  One of the white men says "All the gods you have named are not gods at all.  They are gods of deceit who tell you to kill your fellows and destroy innocent children" (146).  I mean, he has a point...

Also, according to Christianity, all of the Africans are destined to go to hell unless they convert.  The missionaries say, "We have been sent by this great God to ask you to leave your wicked ways and false gods and turn to Him so that you may be saved when you die" (145).  How bad of a guy can this priest be if all he wants is to save the Africans?

The missionaries also show love to outcasts, and save twin babies from dying.  So then that must mean they're the good guys...  Agreed?

Well wait, that's not fair.  I mean, the Umuofia and Mbanta people only casted out the osus and killed twin babies because in their culture, it's the right thing to do.

The Question:

Is a man who does bad things with good intentions a good guy or a bad guy?

Does this story even have good guys and bad guys?  Or is it just a bunch of people who may be misguided, but in the end are really all just trying to do the right thing...?

Maybe this whole "Good Guy, Bad Guy" thing is more complicated than I thought...

The Body Changes the Mind

In this Ted Talk, Amy Cuddy delves into the psychology of body language.  More specifically, she discusses how an open stance, such as this:

displays more power than a closed stance such as this:

However, what intrigued me was that she not only discussed how these poses affect how others think of us-- they also affect how we think of ourselves.  For example, if someone is ever sad, they should smile.  It is not only being happy that makes us smile, but apparently smiling can make us happy.

Similarly, a powerful stance can make us feel more confident than a timid stance.

When you think about it, this is a pretty life-changing concept.  Billions of people struggle with feelings of sadness or powerlessness every day.  Who knew the easiest solution was to simply. . .  smile?  To sit up a little straighter?  Open up a bit?  This not only increases other people's respect for us, but it increases our respect for ourselves.

So next time you feel sad or helpless, try simply adjusting the way you're presenting yourself.  And according to Amy Cuddy, after a while, you'll become a more confident, happy person altogether.  

"Don't fake it till you make it, fake it till you become it."

                           -Amy Cuddy