In the passage at the end of the book, L’Engle uses a sense of urgency to preface the sense of relief the family members (and Calvin) get from finally being together. The author creates the sense of urgency through the use of words like running, crash, catapulted and dashed. The relief comes can be seen in phrases like “a tremendous happy jumble of arms and legs hugging” and “exuberance of his greeting.”
This situation represents their victory and their happiness as well. Happiness is attributed directly to closeness when L’Engle writes about Fortinbras joining the family, stating that he “could not bear being left out of the happiness not one second longer.” In this sense, happiness is not only due to one’s company, but the proximity to that company. For L’Engle these characters represent the “us” and when they are together the “them” and the “it” no longer matter.
In terms of what L’Engle defines as evil, to me it seems like it’s the unknown. From the beginning, the characters do not know what the Thing is, and because it is foreign, and unknown, it is cast as an “it” and thus made to be evil. For example, on page 84 there is a passage in which the Medium shows Meg the Thing, resulting in her immediate, negative response. “Did it just come? Meg asked in agony, unable to take her eyes from the sickness of the shadow which darkened the beauty of the earth “(84). In this passage, the Thing is not only an “it,” but it has a “sickness” and is foul because it has “darkened the beauty of the earth,” which is an evil action in itself.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Cynicism vs Kids book. Bring the Pain!!!
From toward the end of chapter 10
She had found her father and he had not made everything all right. Everything kept getting worse and worse. If the long search for her father was ended, and he wasn't able to overcome all their difficulties, there was nothing to guarantee that it would all come out right in the end. There was nothing left to hope for. She was frozen, and Charles Wallace was being devoured by IT, and her omnipotent father was doing nothing. She teetered on the see-saw of love and hate, and the Black Thing pushed her down into hate.
L'Engle shows her readers a picture perfect example of happiness and love as what is ultimately good in life. Her depiction of the great creatures of Uriel with rainbows for wings living in pastures where they sing by flying in circles doesn't leave much space for gray areas. Good is good, evil is evil and there is no way the two could ever be mistaken. Everyone knows their place. In her happy ending these roles are exemplified by writing the mother of all run on sentences. All family members are mentioned. She could have written that all were happy and hugged, but she didn't. Throughout the story, love and its power is a recurring theme. Love conquers all, it's wielded like a sword in the final show down. Along with love, which good holds a monopoly on, there are other things in the face of which evil will crumble and die. These include the Gettysburg address and the declaration of independence.
On the other side of good we find evil. In 1962, what would you set to diametrically oppose the declaration of independence? That's right... communism. Meg and IT/sweet zombie Charles Wallace duke it out over the difference between equality and everyone being the same, and since we know that anything IT says is wrong, we are stuck with taking everything Meg says as being right. This brings about a few problems from the reading up top there. Meg is a whiny little brat. She is sent to a planted by a group of guardian angels, at least one of whom used to be a star (literally), and is mad at her “human” father for not being omnipotent and saving the day. She's worried that not everything will be all right in the end. What end? And when has there ever been a guarantee from anyone that things will be all right? And really? We're talking about the “end” when time travel is possible? From all the things we've read, I've finally come to the point where I can safely say, “I'm confused and I don't know what to think about this book.” And as Jim wrote, apparently this is written for 6th graders. What is right and wrong seems to be seen differently in every society, how is it possible that in L'Engle's time and space spanning world everyone seems to agree on what is good and what isn't?
Good vs. Evil
(1) L'Engle proposes that good is signified by love, emotion, art and choice while evil is signified by hate, indifference, control and a methodical, cold impersonal control. I think that the author is trying to show this definition of good overcoming evil by the happy reunion that the family is able to have. It is signified by this overwhelming of happy emotion and acceptence. Everyone of the protagonists seems to get what they want. I think that she is trying to say that fighting for "good" is worthwhile because it ensures that love is preserved and expressed.
(2) Looking at pg. 101 "Everybody knows our city has the best Central Intelligence Center on the planet. Our production levels are the highest. Our factories never close; our machines never stop rolling. Added to this we have five poets, one musician, three artists, and six sculptors, all perfectly channelled."
I think this particular passage does a good job of representing the world that IT has created. It is highly efficient, but at the expense of all emotion, all joy. Channeled seems to insinuate removed. It seems as though all of the things that encourage joy and bliss have been removed. There is a quote somewhere in the book where one of the characters states that people do not suffer but they also never experience joy, and that is what is evil. This theme of machine-like lives is the evil that the author is trying to express.
On the question of this concept of good and evil being helpful or harmful.... I honestly have a hardtime seeing it as significant. The idea of good vs evil is a concept that is defined differently by different people. There are not really absolute definitions, and I think that this book does not do a good enough job analyzing the concept to make a solid definition of its argument. Even if it was to go deeper, I do not think it is possible to make definitions like this that always work. To the people in our class it might sound like evil to have such an oppressive order on us.... But would someone who grew up as a refugee in one of the war torn countries in Africa or The Middle East have such a problem with all of that enforced order?
(2) Looking at pg. 101 "Everybody knows our city has the best Central Intelligence Center on the planet. Our production levels are the highest. Our factories never close; our machines never stop rolling. Added to this we have five poets, one musician, three artists, and six sculptors, all perfectly channelled."
I think this particular passage does a good job of representing the world that IT has created. It is highly efficient, but at the expense of all emotion, all joy. Channeled seems to insinuate removed. It seems as though all of the things that encourage joy and bliss have been removed. There is a quote somewhere in the book where one of the characters states that people do not suffer but they also never experience joy, and that is what is evil. This theme of machine-like lives is the evil that the author is trying to express.
On the question of this concept of good and evil being helpful or harmful.... I honestly have a hardtime seeing it as significant. The idea of good vs evil is a concept that is defined differently by different people. There are not really absolute definitions, and I think that this book does not do a good enough job analyzing the concept to make a solid definition of its argument. Even if it was to go deeper, I do not think it is possible to make definitions like this that always work. To the people in our class it might sound like evil to have such an oppressive order on us.... But would someone who grew up as a refugee in one of the war torn countries in Africa or The Middle East have such a problem with all of that enforced order?
individuality
If a person were to simply read the passage given to us there would be no doubt in anybodies mind that love is a common element that keeps this family together. No matter the distance Mr. Murray was his family never gave up on him, never once did they lose faith that he would come home. They knew he would never up and leave them like all the rumors had said he did. It was because of this love that helped bring him back in the first place.
This book focuses on good vs. evil. There are many different things that make up what is good and what is evil. It is obvious that love is a key element in what makes up good, another element is individuality. Although love is incredibly important element individuality is just as important. Each person is entitled to their own beliefs and ways of going about life. One of the many evils we have today is the fear of being different and being our own person. Throughout the story Meg struggles with being different, in the beginning when she says “I hate being the oddball…It’s hard on Sandy and Dennys too. I don’t know if they’re really like everyone else or if they’re just able to pretend they are. I try to pretend, but it isn’t any help.” (14) She later on finds out that conformity is far from a good thing when looking at Camazotz. This is an evil that we still have today being that everybody wants to be cool and wear the right clothes and talk a certain way. Somewhere along the lines we are going to lose out on what is important about our own personalities and traits. This is something that is worth fighting for because if you lose everything that makes you an individual you are going to find yourself having no feelings to yourself. The love that you at one point had for a person or thing is no longer there, because you are too busy conforming to what everyone else loves and thinks. When dealing with individuality and love I fully support L’Engle’s conception of the good and the evils. There are many things in the book that make such a great point of things that are good and bad in the lives of not only the characters in the book, but that can be applied to our lives.
Meh...I Don't Like It.
Good Things (According to Ben’s quote from pgs 201-202):
The embrace of loved ones. Reunion of the family (victory). Smiles. Laughter. Joy. Exuberance of the family pet. It seems as though goodness in this passage has nothing to do with saving Earth...or any other planet...from The Black Thing. All that matters are the needs of the family. I find this to be extremely frustrating. It’s a bit selfish I’d say! I’m surprised the entire family (plus Calvin) doesn’t just tesser off to a planet without Darkness and call it quits!
Evil: “‘From what you’ve told me it’s because Charles Wallace thought he could deliberately go into IT and return. He trusted too much to his own strength’” (159). Here is the reason why the Best of the Best succumbed to IT--pride and arrogance (98). The Mrs. W’s were absolutely right. Since Charles Wallace was the enlightened child, he thought he could defeat IT and save his father on his own.
L’Engle seems to be arguing that whether a person is good or evil heavily depends on whether or not they have a support system to keep them in check, like a fully-functioning family. The family unit signifies good, and Charles Wallace’s decision to “leave” his sister and Calvin and act independently led to his downfall. It’s very much a “Together we stand. Divided we fall” argument. It seems as though “Us” is the community (the family unit). “Them” are the individuals (meaning the people now controlled by IT)...which is ironic, because the people who chose to act independently of their support systems ended up in a new group completely lacking individuality. I’m not sure what “It” is in this context.
I don’t find L’Engle’s conception of good and evil to be helpful. I don’t agree that this family signifies good. How can it when it’s failing to continue the universal fight against The Black Thing?! Furthermore, since I don’t like L’Engle’s definition of “good,” this together-we-stand-divided-we-fall idea is not a very convincing argument. I think I’d rather be that individual who ignorantly succumbs to darkness than be part of a family which knowingly ignores evil.
The embrace of loved ones. Reunion of the family (victory). Smiles. Laughter. Joy. Exuberance of the family pet. It seems as though goodness in this passage has nothing to do with saving Earth...or any other planet...from The Black Thing. All that matters are the needs of the family. I find this to be extremely frustrating. It’s a bit selfish I’d say! I’m surprised the entire family (plus Calvin) doesn’t just tesser off to a planet without Darkness and call it quits!
Evil: “‘From what you’ve told me it’s because Charles Wallace thought he could deliberately go into IT and return. He trusted too much to his own strength’” (159). Here is the reason why the Best of the Best succumbed to IT--pride and arrogance (98). The Mrs. W’s were absolutely right. Since Charles Wallace was the enlightened child, he thought he could defeat IT and save his father on his own.
L’Engle seems to be arguing that whether a person is good or evil heavily depends on whether or not they have a support system to keep them in check, like a fully-functioning family. The family unit signifies good, and Charles Wallace’s decision to “leave” his sister and Calvin and act independently led to his downfall. It’s very much a “Together we stand. Divided we fall” argument. It seems as though “Us” is the community (the family unit). “Them” are the individuals (meaning the people now controlled by IT)...which is ironic, because the people who chose to act independently of their support systems ended up in a new group completely lacking individuality. I’m not sure what “It” is in this context.
I don’t find L’Engle’s conception of good and evil to be helpful. I don’t agree that this family signifies good. How can it when it’s failing to continue the universal fight against The Black Thing?! Furthermore, since I don’t like L’Engle’s definition of “good,” this together-we-stand-divided-we-fall idea is not a very convincing argument. I think I’d rather be that individual who ignorantly succumbs to darkness than be part of a family which knowingly ignores evil.
Love and Evil
according the the quote for this assignment, the conception of good and evil can be the difference between feeling or not feeling love. according to L'Engle, love is the base of good people and if someone is evil, it means that they have failed to achieve love.
i think that the people in Camazotz are the definition of evil in my opinion. i think that everyone who feels evil has something in common to some degree. such as the "robots" in Camazotz. everyone is forced to be the same and act the same under one evil ruler. in my opinion, "them" is the robots in Camazotz and "us" are us to day in the world.
if you love something, it is worth fighting for that one and fighting against the one trying to hurt the one you love. i belive everyone lives to fight for something or someone they love. it gives us something to look forward to. i think L'Engles' perception of good and evil is right in that you can't have love and be an evil person. the only question i would like to ask is, can you love something/someone and still be evil to that something/someone trying to threaten your love?
i wanted to look at the quote on page 154, IT says, "In Camazotz all are equal. In Camazotz, everybody is the same as everybody else". Meg replies, "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!" what Meg basically tells the audience here is that being "like" someone is a choice. you can choose to be like someone if you chose to do so. You can not chose to be equal with somebody unless under law, which is the world of Camazotz.
with the passage that we see for this assignment, it is "us", Mr. and Mrs. Murray and the others, where we see true love. this is a choice for us to be like these people. so doesn't everybody want love?
i think that the people in Camazotz are the definition of evil in my opinion. i think that everyone who feels evil has something in common to some degree. such as the "robots" in Camazotz. everyone is forced to be the same and act the same under one evil ruler. in my opinion, "them" is the robots in Camazotz and "us" are us to day in the world.
if you love something, it is worth fighting for that one and fighting against the one trying to hurt the one you love. i belive everyone lives to fight for something or someone they love. it gives us something to look forward to. i think L'Engles' perception of good and evil is right in that you can't have love and be an evil person. the only question i would like to ask is, can you love something/someone and still be evil to that something/someone trying to threaten your love?
i wanted to look at the quote on page 154, IT says, "In Camazotz all are equal. In Camazotz, everybody is the same as everybody else". Meg replies, "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!" what Meg basically tells the audience here is that being "like" someone is a choice. you can choose to be like someone if you chose to do so. You can not chose to be equal with somebody unless under law, which is the world of Camazotz.
with the passage that we see for this assignment, it is "us", Mr. and Mrs. Murray and the others, where we see true love. this is a choice for us to be like these people. so doesn't everybody want love?
# 8
How L'Engle sets up the beginning of the book makes the passage from pages 201-202 a happier ending. The beginning talks about how the Murrays are struggling without having and closure as to where their father has disappeared. The children missed their father enough to tesseract into a new mysterious world. Even after they saw the black thing and heard about IT they continued on their journey to find their father. They were relentless for their father. The words “reached out and pulled in” stuck out to me. The family is having a huge group hug and Meg reached out for Calvin and pulled him in. Those few words add power to the excitement and climax of their journey. It also adds to the feelings Meg and Calvin built throughout their voyage.
I misplaced my book somewhere over break so I can’t give an exact passage but the part that gave me the biggest sense of bad/evil was when the man with red eyes attempts to hypnotize the three children without directly talking to them. Charles and Calvin were trying to ignore him by reciting random facts and texts. But in the end through their struggle the man with red eyes trapped Charles. The struggle seemed so great and intense and the young boy seemed helpless against a much stronger force.
Ultimately love was the major factor. Us (Charles, Calvin, Meg, Mrs. W’s) went up against them (IT, black thing, man with red eyes). It was love because it was an emotional attachment Meg had for her father and Charles that got her father back and eventually rescued Charles. Love was the driving factor throughout the story. In the beginning Meg’s love for her father was driving her to gain closure for her father. It was also the factor for Calvin and Charles when the man with red eyes was hypnotizing them. They struggled with the man with red eyes for awhile. Even if it meant losing one of them for a significant amount of time and losing him in the mysterious planet. The tougher the struggle the more rewarding it is after you achieve victory.
Overall I supported L’Engle’s approach to good and bad. When someone wants something so bad they would bend over backwards for that person or object. The children heard about “them” and what they could potentially do but that did not seem to phase them. There would not be complete satisfaction until everyone was back home safe and sound. It was a very Christian view of good and bad.
Love versus evil
When reading Bens passage that he provided you can see immediately that there is an abundant amount of love that each member of the family is showing each other. After I got done reading the book and thinking about how could those people that lived in Camazotz feel anything if something or someone else was controlling them was kind of mind boggling to me and really got me thinking of evil in our world today and if those people experience any kind of love in their lives or if the absence of it would cause them to do evil. Another thing that got me thinking was if our heart really feels or if it is our brain that does all of the feeling with the metaphor being our heart. The description of the brain really shows that if IT, whatever it may be in present day is controlling our ability to feel.
"An oversized brain, just enough larger than a normal to be completely revolting and terrifying. A living brain. A brain that pulsed and quivered that seized and commanded. No wonder the brain was called IT. IT was the most horrible, the most repellent thing she had ever seen, far more nauseating than anything she had ever imagined with her concious mind, or that had ever tormented her in her most terrible nightmares." (152) To me this is a perfect portrayal of what evil is. Anyone or anything that is evil could be described as this. You dont want to be around someone who acts this way so you try and avoid them as much as possible. If someone acts like this, like the brain, the IT, then how could they possibly show love? It is so important, especially in todays society that people have the ability to love others because that is what makes our world go round. Without love where would any of us be??
"An oversized brain, just enough larger than a normal to be completely revolting and terrifying. A living brain. A brain that pulsed and quivered that seized and commanded. No wonder the brain was called IT. IT was the most horrible, the most repellent thing she had ever seen, far more nauseating than anything she had ever imagined with her concious mind, or that had ever tormented her in her most terrible nightmares." (152) To me this is a perfect portrayal of what evil is. Anyone or anything that is evil could be described as this. You dont want to be around someone who acts this way so you try and avoid them as much as possible. If someone acts like this, like the brain, the IT, then how could they possibly show love? It is so important, especially in todays society that people have the ability to love others because that is what makes our world go round. Without love where would any of us be??
Love conquers all
I think one of the major themes that L’Engle proposes in terms of good versus evil is something that is present in many texts that discuss good and evil; the notion of love. Love is present in many texts that discuss good versus evil, and is often seen as something that can overcome evil when the hero or, in our case, heroine, realizes its power. I think that something to be considered is that love may go hand in hand with good. As in the passage that was presented to us, the Happy Ending, there was so much love present, even if it wasn’t discussed in this particular moment. It’s the love a family, finally reunited. I also believe that love pervades this story; it’s what propels Meg to find her father, to continue on her journey. It’s what keeps Calvin protecting her and Charles Wallace, because he felt at home, and he felt love, for the first time after meeting them. Though the major theme of good versus evil is prominent in A Wrinkle in Time, I believe that the underlying facet of love in each sequence and choice made is also very important.
“’Didn’t you ever have a father yourself?’ Meg demanded. ‘You don’t want him for a reason. You want him because he’s your father.’” (pg 118) This small but pertinent passage when Meg is talking to the Man with Red Eyes completely supports my theme of love conquering all. Meg probably wouldn’t be anywhere in the galaxies besides Earth if it wasn’t for the overwhelming need to have her father back. The love for her father is what keeps her from not hiding in fear, but facing the evil head on.
“’Didn’t you ever have a father yourself?’ Meg demanded. ‘You don’t want him for a reason. You want him because he’s your father.’” (pg 118) This small but pertinent passage when Meg is talking to the Man with Red Eyes completely supports my theme of love conquering all. Meg probably wouldn’t be anywhere in the galaxies besides Earth if it wasn’t for the overwhelming need to have her father back. The love for her father is what keeps her from not hiding in fear, but facing the evil head on.
Good vs. Evil
As can be seen from the quote that Ben provides, the notion of good in the book is the ability to love. The language in the quote excites the reader and it gives an impression of eagerness and a fast paced scene for the characters. It actually reminds me of picking my boyfriend up from returning from deployment - anxious, excited, and blurred in memory all at once. I think the quote is really hits home on the happy ending because even the dog is excited that Mr. Murray is home.
This also relates to the position I am taking for my final paper - the idea of the meaning of life - and that is being able to spend the most amount of time as possible with the few that we love. And that love in this world is what makes the human race possible.
A second reading from the book that relates to the authors notion of evil would be on page 150 when Meg and the other characters go to the building where IT is. “…at the end of the street was a strange, domelike building. Its walls glowed with a flicker of violet flame. Its silvery roof pulsed with ominous light. The light was neither warm nor cold….Meg could feel a rhythmical pulsing. It was pulsing not only about her, but in her as well, as though the rhythm of her heart and lungs was no longer her but was being worked by some outside force.” This shows that society or conformity is the evil in this book. By conforming and doing as one is told – evil encompasses the world, and no one is unique anymore. This also goes with the theme of US/Them/It. Us are the people we love and care for. Them are the other people that we don’t really know but still know that they are human. And It is conformity and societal norms which seek to confine people.
GOOD vs. eeevil
In the story of A Wrinkle in Time, I believe that the "good" is the allowence of happiness, and that the "evil" is the blocking of happiness and beauty (not literally "beauty," but beauty in the eye of the beholder). I am not quite finished with the story, actually, I am about to start chapter 7: the man with the red eyes, and am very anxious in finishing it and seeing what happens. As I said, from what I have read so far, it seems that there are a few different types of "good" such as the people (Meg, Charles, Calvin, the mother, the Ms. W's, and Happy Medium), who can see good in things and have a more broad outlook in life, who can see the beauty in life. And then there are the different types of "evil," such as the dark thing, the greyness on Medium's planet, and the people on the Camazotz planet, who try to cover up the beauty and make things either dark or the same as everything else (not real).
"Mr. Murray was running across the lawn, Mrs. Murray running toward him, and they were in each other's arms, and then there was a tremendous happy jumble of arms and legs and hugging, the older Murrays and Meg and Charles Wallace and the twins, and Calvin grinning by them until Meg reached out and pulled him in and Mrs. Murray gave him a special hug all of his own. They were talking and laughing all at once, when they were startled by a crash, and Fortinbras, who could bear being left out of the happiness not one second longer, catapulted his sleek black body right through the screened door to the kitchen. He dashed across the lawn to join in the joy, and almost knocked them all over with the exuberance of his greeting" (201-202).
- I think that L'Engle uses her conception of good in this passage by showing that in the end, the family (blood-related or not) is all you need to be happy. Calvin became part of the Murray's family, and seemed to fit in to this family much more than his own. Even the dog, Fort, is part of this loving family and knows when he wants to be surrounded by them and when they need each other the most. This is the epitamy of happiness and "good" in this story, and in my opinion, in life. As long as you fight for the people you love, and keep them close to you and in your heart through out all of lifes journey's, then you will find happniess.
""I hate it!" Charles Wallace cried passionately. "I hate the Dark Thing!" Mrs. Whatsit nodded. "Yes, Charles dear. We all do. That's another reason we wanted to prepare you on Uriel. We thought it would be too frightening for you to see it first of all about your own, beloved world." "But what is it?" Calvin demanded. "We know that it's evil, but what is it?" "Yyouu hhave ssaidd iit!" Mrs. Which's voice rang out. "Itt iss Eevill. Itt iss thee Ppowers of Ddarrkknesss!"" (85).
- I think that this is a clear example of L'Engle is trying to say of what she considers "evil." It is dark and we hate it, but we are not sure exactly what it is, but it seems to always be there. I think that this is more of a concept that has multiple meanings, because I think she is trying to say what is considered "evil" in this story, but also saying that since it can not be described, it is completely in the eye of the beholder to what evil actually is. To me, evil is saddness and unhappiness to those who do not deserve it, but it means something different to every one.
Basically, when it comes to a conclusion... I honestly believe that this story is just trying to get the basics of the fact that good and evil are every where, in every world, all the time. Good and evil are however different to every one individually... and yet the same to everyone in some context also, as to say that there is always good and evil. The "us" in this story is the main characters (Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace), the "them" is the three ladies, Ms. Which, Ms. Whatsit, and Ms. Who, and the "it" is the Dark Thing (or evil thing).
"Mr. Murray was running across the lawn, Mrs. Murray running toward him, and they were in each other's arms, and then there was a tremendous happy jumble of arms and legs and hugging, the older Murrays and Meg and Charles Wallace and the twins, and Calvin grinning by them until Meg reached out and pulled him in and Mrs. Murray gave him a special hug all of his own. They were talking and laughing all at once, when they were startled by a crash, and Fortinbras, who could bear being left out of the happiness not one second longer, catapulted his sleek black body right through the screened door to the kitchen. He dashed across the lawn to join in the joy, and almost knocked them all over with the exuberance of his greeting" (201-202).
- I think that L'Engle uses her conception of good in this passage by showing that in the end, the family (blood-related or not) is all you need to be happy. Calvin became part of the Murray's family, and seemed to fit in to this family much more than his own. Even the dog, Fort, is part of this loving family and knows when he wants to be surrounded by them and when they need each other the most. This is the epitamy of happiness and "good" in this story, and in my opinion, in life. As long as you fight for the people you love, and keep them close to you and in your heart through out all of lifes journey's, then you will find happniess.
""I hate it!" Charles Wallace cried passionately. "I hate the Dark Thing!" Mrs. Whatsit nodded. "Yes, Charles dear. We all do. That's another reason we wanted to prepare you on Uriel. We thought it would be too frightening for you to see it first of all about your own, beloved world." "But what is it?" Calvin demanded. "We know that it's evil, but what is it?" "Yyouu hhave ssaidd iit!" Mrs. Which's voice rang out. "Itt iss Eevill. Itt iss thee Ppowers of Ddarrkknesss!"" (85).
- I think that this is a clear example of L'Engle is trying to say of what she considers "evil." It is dark and we hate it, but we are not sure exactly what it is, but it seems to always be there. I think that this is more of a concept that has multiple meanings, because I think she is trying to say what is considered "evil" in this story, but also saying that since it can not be described, it is completely in the eye of the beholder to what evil actually is. To me, evil is saddness and unhappiness to those who do not deserve it, but it means something different to every one.
Basically, when it comes to a conclusion... I honestly believe that this story is just trying to get the basics of the fact that good and evil are every where, in every world, all the time. Good and evil are however different to every one individually... and yet the same to everyone in some context also, as to say that there is always good and evil. The "us" in this story is the main characters (Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace), the "them" is the three ladies, Ms. Which, Ms. Whatsit, and Ms. Who, and the "it" is the Dark Thing (or evil thing).
Love vs Lacking Love
In A Wrinkle in Time, I believe that good is “love” and evil is “lacking love”. I think it is pretty obvious to see the concept of “love” being good from the passage Ben provided. That moment was the first time in a very long time where the Murry family was together, where all of them were truly happy. Their continuing love throughout the years apart gave them the strength to hold out while away from each other, and their love eventually brought them together. Love also kept them believing that they could one day be reunited. This is why I believe Mr. Murry was fighting against IT and the Dark Thing. Mr. Murry believed that love was worth fighting for and returning to his family was the most important thing to him. Those fighting against love and feeling simply want to be in control of others, so they may feel powerful. I think this is what IT was trying to do and why IT was fighting against love.
On page 198, I believe this passage defines evil as lacking love, “And that was where IT made Its fatal mistake, for as Meg said, automatically, ‘Mrs. Whatsit loves me; that’s what she told me, that she loves me,’ suddenly she knew. She knew! Love. That was what she had that IT did not have.” As mentioned before, IT was fighting love and lacking love in order to gain control of people. If IT loved people, IT would feel bad for what it was doing to others, depriving them of individualism. On page 191, Meg tells Aunt Beast that she loves her and Aunt Beast says, “I love you,” back to Meg. The creatures in the universe who love are good and those who lack love are evil. This makes me think why Earth and Camazotz had the Dark Thing around them. Camazotz lacked loved because IT was controlling people and depriving them of love. Earth has problems between people, such as wars, murders, and corruption. Even though love exists on Earth, the lack of love outweighs the existence of love. Planets such Uriel and the one Aunt Beast are on have complete love. This is why the Dark Thing does not encircle these planets. Love fights off evil and lack of love draws evil in.
On page 198, I believe this passage defines evil as lacking love, “And that was where IT made Its fatal mistake, for as Meg said, automatically, ‘Mrs. Whatsit loves me; that’s what she told me, that she loves me,’ suddenly she knew. She knew! Love. That was what she had that IT did not have.” As mentioned before, IT was fighting love and lacking love in order to gain control of people. If IT loved people, IT would feel bad for what it was doing to others, depriving them of individualism. On page 191, Meg tells Aunt Beast that she loves her and Aunt Beast says, “I love you,” back to Meg. The creatures in the universe who love are good and those who lack love are evil. This makes me think why Earth and Camazotz had the Dark Thing around them. Camazotz lacked loved because IT was controlling people and depriving them of love. Earth has problems between people, such as wars, murders, and corruption. Even though love exists on Earth, the lack of love outweighs the existence of love. Planets such Uriel and the one Aunt Beast are on have complete love. This is why the Dark Thing does not encircle these planets. Love fights off evil and lack of love draws evil in.
Love, Togetherness, and another mispreception of Communism
The passage on pages 201-202 is an illustration of love and togetherness. L'Engle's conception of goodness ( happiness, success, and victory) is a Love, a caring touch,a feeling that everyone you love and care about is near, by your side. Accentuation of L'Engle's on "Loving presence", knowing that everyone you love is near and safe, because in the beginning of the book there was sadness in her (L'Engles) passages:"But it was still not possible to think about her father without the danger of tears","I'm sorry, Meglet. Maybe if Father were here, he could help you.."Someone they all love was missing, gone, and their life was incomplete.
"Meg could feel rhythmical pulsing.It was a pulsing not only about her, but in her as well, as though the rhythm of her heart and lungs was no longer her own but was being worked by some outside force." I think the author's illustration of evil is anything that can interfere with a personal freedom, anything that enforces it's ideas and decisions on a person. I think a place with the houses and buildings that look alike, people that are suppose to be acting like robots and doing same things at a same pace, the big disembodied brain, that makes decisions for everyone else, the men with red eyes - all this is referring to the USSR (Red Flag, Red Army, All the Communistic Ideas were written on red colors, Communistic Party - "The big brain"). Even when Meg was ready to give in to the IT, red miasma began to creep before her eyes. Otherwise,why red color? US American understanding of evil especially during the cold war with the USSR, was associated with communism, where people were "forced" to do things in a same way and think alike, where someone who would do things differently will be severely punished. But why LOVE can defeat COMMUNISM? Why love is relevant in this very context?
"We'll never see Mother or the twins again!...We're lost out in space! She did not realize that she was as much in the power of the Black Thing as Charles Wallace." Meg in this passage give up hope and blames her Father for what happened, she says things that can destroy love and presence of loving people, and that is considered evil by L'Engle.
"Good" in this text signifies Love, togetherness, personal freedom, clarity, hope, caring presence. "Evil" in this text signifies loneliness, hate ("the Black Thing pushed her down into hate") banishment, distance between loving people, anything that can take away a freedom, anything that would enforce people to be like everybody else.
"Meg could feel rhythmical pulsing.It was a pulsing not only about her, but in her as well, as though the rhythm of her heart and lungs was no longer her own but was being worked by some outside force." I think the author's illustration of evil is anything that can interfere with a personal freedom, anything that enforces it's ideas and decisions on a person. I think a place with the houses and buildings that look alike, people that are suppose to be acting like robots and doing same things at a same pace, the big disembodied brain, that makes decisions for everyone else, the men with red eyes - all this is referring to the USSR (Red Flag, Red Army, All the Communistic Ideas were written on red colors, Communistic Party - "The big brain"). Even when Meg was ready to give in to the IT, red miasma began to creep before her eyes. Otherwise,why red color? US American understanding of evil especially during the cold war with the USSR, was associated with communism, where people were "forced" to do things in a same way and think alike, where someone who would do things differently will be severely punished. But why LOVE can defeat COMMUNISM? Why love is relevant in this very context?
"We'll never see Mother or the twins again!...We're lost out in space! She did not realize that she was as much in the power of the Black Thing as Charles Wallace." Meg in this passage give up hope and blames her Father for what happened, she says things that can destroy love and presence of loving people, and that is considered evil by L'Engle.
"Good" in this text signifies Love, togetherness, personal freedom, clarity, hope, caring presence. "Evil" in this text signifies loneliness, hate ("the Black Thing pushed her down into hate") banishment, distance between loving people, anything that can take away a freedom, anything that would enforce people to be like everybody else.
Conformity as the Root of all Evil.
While Charles Wallace certainly was one of 'them' for a brief period, the final paragraphs of the story makes sure that we feel a part of the 'us' of the Murry family. On the surface, this scene might be read as saying that the nuclear family and all of its trappings are good and right according to L' Engle. Judeo-Christian values, bible quotation, sweet innocence -- all make significant appearances in the story and might lead to a superficial reading of what the author feels is right and good. But a clear recollection of what has occurred up to the moment of Fortinbras (a significant name for the dog, too, I think) crashing through the screen door should bring us back to the dominant leitmotifs of this book: to question and to be oneself is the ultimate good; to meekly accept and to conform for conformity's sake is the ultimate evil.
Ben's pre-selected passage employs active and confused words in a scene that is universally recognizable to anyone in my culture (American-Irish) who has been separated from their loved ones for a long time (for we who are unable to tesser, that is). The word selection in the ultimate scene uses action to signify that the love being signified is neither uniform nor neat, not tucked in with tight corners - love is messy, loud, unpredictable, and can be expanded to include new members in an instant: running, jumble, hugging, grinning, talking, laughing, startled, crash, catapulted, dashed, joy, exuberance. L' Engle's genius lies not only in the simplicity of her storytelling abilities but in her ability to place almost universally recognizable signification in alien locations (literally).
L' Engle's ideal portrait of evil and defeat and sadness comes, I feel, in a moment of defeat for Darkness. While in the cave with the Happy Medium, the children witness a supernova destruction of a patch of the Darkness; in the description of what remains after the destruction of evil, we find the best definition of evil itself when the narrator tells us "Suddenly there was a great burst of light through the Darkness. The light spread out and where it touched the Darkness the Darkness disappeared ... and through the shining came the stars, clear and pure. Then, slowly, the shining dwindled until it, too, was gone, and there was nothing but stars and starlight. No Shadows. No fear. Only the stars and the clear darkness of space, quite different from the fearful darkness of the Thing" (102). Evil, in L' Engle's conception, exists in the muddling of clarity, it exists in smog that obscures and prevents beauty, it lives within the human tendency to resist what is not understood.
Calvin is 'them' until he becomes us, the principal is definitely them, Dennys and Sandy - them, until the final scene. Aunt Beast? Come on! This blurring and fading of the line us/them/it is a tool of L' Engles subordinate leitmotif which rails against prejudice - but only up to a point. When the children first see the Dark, on Uriel, they know it is evil and judge it as such without hesitation; however, the first encounter with the Ixchel and Aunt Beast would lead us to believe that we should reserve judgement - that just because something is unusual, does not make it an enemy.
L' Engle's conception of good and evil is problematic in only one major way that I can see: just as conformity for conformity's sake lacks merit, so too non-conformity for non-conformity's sake. Those who are able to be themselves in the face of peril and despite pressures to conform, are the heroes of L'Engle's poetics; however, the real possibility of lashing out simply for the sake of being apart from the herd is not addressed in this book. But , based on the weight and presence of a book written for sixth graders, I am willing to give this author the benefit of the doubt.
Ben's pre-selected passage employs active and confused words in a scene that is universally recognizable to anyone in my culture (American-Irish) who has been separated from their loved ones for a long time (for we who are unable to tesser, that is). The word selection in the ultimate scene uses action to signify that the love being signified is neither uniform nor neat, not tucked in with tight corners - love is messy, loud, unpredictable, and can be expanded to include new members in an instant: running, jumble, hugging, grinning, talking, laughing, startled, crash, catapulted, dashed, joy, exuberance. L' Engle's genius lies not only in the simplicity of her storytelling abilities but in her ability to place almost universally recognizable signification in alien locations (literally).
L' Engle's ideal portrait of evil and defeat and sadness comes, I feel, in a moment of defeat for Darkness. While in the cave with the Happy Medium, the children witness a supernova destruction of a patch of the Darkness; in the description of what remains after the destruction of evil, we find the best definition of evil itself when the narrator tells us "Suddenly there was a great burst of light through the Darkness. The light spread out and where it touched the Darkness the Darkness disappeared ... and through the shining came the stars, clear and pure. Then, slowly, the shining dwindled until it, too, was gone, and there was nothing but stars and starlight. No Shadows. No fear. Only the stars and the clear darkness of space, quite different from the fearful darkness of the Thing" (102). Evil, in L' Engle's conception, exists in the muddling of clarity, it exists in smog that obscures and prevents beauty, it lives within the human tendency to resist what is not understood.
Calvin is 'them' until he becomes us, the principal is definitely them, Dennys and Sandy - them, until the final scene. Aunt Beast? Come on! This blurring and fading of the line us/them/it is a tool of L' Engles subordinate leitmotif which rails against prejudice - but only up to a point. When the children first see the Dark, on Uriel, they know it is evil and judge it as such without hesitation; however, the first encounter with the Ixchel and Aunt Beast would lead us to believe that we should reserve judgement - that just because something is unusual, does not make it an enemy.
L' Engle's conception of good and evil is problematic in only one major way that I can see: just as conformity for conformity's sake lacks merit, so too non-conformity for non-conformity's sake. Those who are able to be themselves in the face of peril and despite pressures to conform, are the heroes of L'Engle's poetics; however, the real possibility of lashing out simply for the sake of being apart from the herd is not addressed in this book. But , based on the weight and presence of a book written for sixth graders, I am willing to give this author the benefit of the doubt.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Individualism
The acceptance of an individual’s differences is what set the standard of good and evil in A Wrinkle In Time. The people and creatures that are able to look past individual differences, have empathy, and open themselves up to acceptance and love form the “good side.” The people who refuse to accept people/creatures for what they are make up the evil in this story. In this specific passage, the citizens of Camazotz are required to act exactly the same way, under the control of one evil leader. So the “us” in this story are also the “good” people in this story which include Meg, Charles Wallace, Calvin, Mother and Father, the Mrs. Ws, and Aunt Beast amongst others. The evil of this story is made up of the people opposing the acceptance of differences which includes IT and to a lesser degree of evil the principal, post-office headmaster, and the others verbally attacking Meg, Charles Wallace, and the family for having differences. The “them” in this story is anyone/anything that did nothing to either progress or attack individualism such as the citizens of Camazotz.
At one point IT states “In Camazotz all are equal. In Camazotz everybody is the same as everybody else”(154). Meg responds “Like and equal are not the same thing at all!” This passage is so powerful because it really establishes how groups are classified in this story. Each of the “us” characters in this story were extremely likely to accept others for who they are. The fact that Aunt Beast looked scary and foreign to Meg (and vice versa) it didn’t stop them for finding love in each other. In the same way, the “different” appearance of Mrs Whatsit didn’t stop Charles of accepting her.
The characteristics of “them” in this story is extremely different. Characters constantly looked at Meg and Charles Wallace as being weird, freaks. They beratted their differences and assumed that both Meg ad he younger brother we unintelligent. They were actually brilliant. At one point the more accepting group acknowledged this. Meg’s dad said “Don’t worry about Charles Wallace, Meg” her father had once told her. Meg remembered it very clearly because it was shortly before he went away. ‘There’s nothing the matter with his mind. He just does things in his own way and in his own time”(10). The principal and others were just trying to hurt the others because they didn’t conform.
At the end of this story we see a clear example of good defeating evil. Everyone, including the dog, are extremely excited to see each other and embrace each other. This small group of “us” was so excited because they truly loved each other for who they were as individuals. If a citizen of Camazotz died, I imagine they would just be replaced with another replica but the “us” in this story could express their love for each other because they were open enough to actually let each other into their lives and show that love in the first place.
At one point IT states “In Camazotz all are equal. In Camazotz everybody is the same as everybody else”(154). Meg responds “Like and equal are not the same thing at all!” This passage is so powerful because it really establishes how groups are classified in this story. Each of the “us” characters in this story were extremely likely to accept others for who they are. The fact that Aunt Beast looked scary and foreign to Meg (and vice versa) it didn’t stop them for finding love in each other. In the same way, the “different” appearance of Mrs Whatsit didn’t stop Charles of accepting her.
The characteristics of “them” in this story is extremely different. Characters constantly looked at Meg and Charles Wallace as being weird, freaks. They beratted their differences and assumed that both Meg ad he younger brother we unintelligent. They were actually brilliant. At one point the more accepting group acknowledged this. Meg’s dad said “Don’t worry about Charles Wallace, Meg” her father had once told her. Meg remembered it very clearly because it was shortly before he went away. ‘There’s nothing the matter with his mind. He just does things in his own way and in his own time”(10). The principal and others were just trying to hurt the others because they didn’t conform.
At the end of this story we see a clear example of good defeating evil. Everyone, including the dog, are extremely excited to see each other and embrace each other. This small group of “us” was so excited because they truly loved each other for who they were as individuals. If a citizen of Camazotz died, I imagine they would just be replaced with another replica but the “us” in this story could express their love for each other because they were open enough to actually let each other into their lives and show that love in the first place.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
love conquers all?
I think it is obvious that the difference between good and evil in this book is the existence of love. In the quote on pages 201 and 202, the unity of the family presents the most pure image of joy in the book. By listing every one of the family members’ names, including the dog joining in, makes all of the individuals become a true family unit for the first time in the book. Fortinbras could “bear being left out of the happiness not one second longer.” This use of language implies that happiness is not reached until one is a part of the family unit.
L’Engle is trying to show, not only that evil is life without love, but also life without true feeling. Therefore, I think the “it” in this book doesn’t only refer to IT, but the entire world of Camazotz. It fits better with our class description of “it” meaning soulless. The people of Camazotz are merely robots, controlled by IT. The entire world of Camazotz is L’Engle’s representation of evil in my opinion.
On the other hand, to be “good” means to feel. On page 228, Meg finally discovers what truly separates her from the evil. “Love. That was what she had that IT did not have.” I think that L’Engle is trying to prove that a creature that is loved and loves back cannot be evil.
I agree to some extent with this argument, but I definitely think there can be exceptions. I feel like it can be harmful to portray this type of argument in such a “fairy tale, happy-ending” type story. It gives that feeling that a lot of modern day movies do that “love conquers all.” While I agree that things are more likely to be evil without love, I don’t think everything that has been loved is not evil. The idea that Meg could conquer the most evil she has ever encountered by simply embracing the power of love is slightly dangerous. There are many evils in the world (such as natural disasters), that love is not going to keep from harming us. Love can, however, help us overcome the difficulties that come with these travesties. I think this also relates to spending a life fighting for one and against the other. There are constantly struggles and hurdles in life that we must fight against and we usually do it for survival, and the survival of our loved ones. It’s worth the fight to save the ones we love. Meg was scared out of her mind to go face IT for the second time, but she fought the fear for the sake of her beloved brother.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Posting Assignment #8 (due MONDAY 11/30, 11:59 P.M.)
"Mr. Murray was running across the lawn, Mrs. Murray running toward him, and they were in each other's arms, and then there was a tremendous happy jumble of arms and legs and hugging, the older Murrays and Meg and Charles Wallace and the twins, and Calvin grinning by them until Meg reached out and pulled him in and Mrs. Murray gave him a special hug all of his own. They were talking and laughing all at once, when they were startled by a crash, and Fortinbras, who could bear being left out of the happiness not one second longer, catapulted his sleek black body right through the screened door to the kitchen. He dashed across the lawn to join in the joy, and almost knocked them all over with the exuberance of his greeting" (201-202).
This is the Happy Ending. The first -- and last -- unambiguously happy ending in this course. (You could argue for Snow Crash, I suppose, but that whole "home seems about right" thing just feels way too resigned for me.) Good has triumphed; evil has been, if not vanquished, at least momentarily defeated.
The question I'd like you to consider is this:
What conception of good and evil does L'Engle propose in A Wrinkle in Time? What signifies "good," and what signifies "evil"? What does it mean to spend your life fighting for one and against the other, and why is it worth doing? And finally: to what extent do you support L'Engle's conception of good and evil? Is it helpful? Is it harmful? Why?
Please answer this question through two close readings: (1) a close reading of the passage above, looking at L'Engle's use of language and how it affects her conception of goodness (and happiness and victory and success), and (2) a close reading of at least one other passage of your choice, which you think will be most helpful in explaining her conception of evil (and sadness and defeat and failure -- they all seem to go together here). And of course, make sure to bring your close readings together into a single argument or idea. (And if you haven't guessed, us/them/it will be helpful here.)
This is the Happy Ending. The first -- and last -- unambiguously happy ending in this course. (You could argue for Snow Crash, I suppose, but that whole "home seems about right" thing just feels way too resigned for me.) Good has triumphed; evil has been, if not vanquished, at least momentarily defeated.
The question I'd like you to consider is this:
What conception of good and evil does L'Engle propose in A Wrinkle in Time? What signifies "good," and what signifies "evil"? What does it mean to spend your life fighting for one and against the other, and why is it worth doing? And finally: to what extent do you support L'Engle's conception of good and evil? Is it helpful? Is it harmful? Why?
Please answer this question through two close readings: (1) a close reading of the passage above, looking at L'Engle's use of language and how it affects her conception of goodness (and happiness and victory and success), and (2) a close reading of at least one other passage of your choice, which you think will be most helpful in explaining her conception of evil (and sadness and defeat and failure -- they all seem to go together here). And of course, make sure to bring your close readings together into a single argument or idea. (And if you haven't guessed, us/them/it will be helpful here.)
Sunday, November 8, 2009
I had been transformed into a naked creature. That was fine.
Curiosity had changed to gaiety, and gaiety to sympathy, and when I stir the still pool in its depths the sympathy will be transformed into a desire upon whose taut strings I shall play as I wish.
page 38
This is pure power. It is manipulation at it's best. It is Boal accusing empathy of tearing away an observer's ability to think, to judge. In images we go from innocence to playfulness to depth something fluid and tranquil. That tranquility is disturbed and becomes something rigid that can be used and bent to a strong will. In many stories of conquerors the natives are depicted as slow and stupid. Even in Snow Crash we hear all kinds of prejudice about the people who come off the raft. At one point Stephensen describes how 'electricity is still new' in some of the places the refus came from. Not a very respectful view when the absence of a technological infrastructure is used as the judging criteria of someone's intellect.
Along with the characterization of natives as being slow, there is also the theme of curiosity. Early discoverers were seen as Gods because there was no other way of explaining their arrival in huge ships with unseen technologies and languages. It is just that curiosity that Salih plays at in this passage. Curiosity which was anticipated with the full intention of abuse. There is a sense of contempt that becomes obvious in this passage. Mustafa Sa'eed says he will play the prey's desires as he wishes. No where does it say what will be played or why. It's simply the ability to use Isabella Seymour. Having control is all he craves much like colonization was a race to have more than other European colonial powers. And much like those powers, once a colony lost it's usefulness, it was discarded and left to die.
the middle way....
"How strange! How ironic! Just because a man has been created on the Equator some mad people regard him as a slave, others as a god. Where lies the mean? Where the middle way" (89)?
I found this passage to be a strong demonstration of a counter-argument to both modern and historical attitudes toward the idea of the exotic and enigmatic Oriental man. I am at a loss to describe the feelings evoked by this book and as if I have little right to write about it at all, it's that good. Let's begin with the broad strokes: post-colonial Africa was neither post-colonial, nor was it Africa. The deep and irreversible impression left by Great Britain (and the other colonizers) penetrated so deep into the consciences of the individual that the passage above is a plea for reason. A man, an African man, can not understand how he himself can be perceived as Other to such an extent.
We are inside of the writer's conscience, the writer is a man like any other man. Yet when he is in contact with the colonizer - whether in Africa or in England - he is not a man at all; in the mind of the colonizer he is all that is mysterious, all that is Other. The use of the words "created on the Equator" evokes, even as I try to be objective, an image to my mind that includes jungles, primordial soup, and fossilized footprints in the desert. The counter-argument is not just a plea to the past, I am proof; if I can not conceive of the Other Oriental, the African of Sir Lawrence, without such nonsense clouding my mind, what sense can be made of the sentence?
"Some mad people regard him as a slave, others as a god," but no one regards him as a man. The mean to which Salih refers - the middle way - is, I argue, recognition as a Man. Indeed, I have no difficulty conceptualizing the position at the exact middle of the spectrum between god and slave as man. I'm not sure that I will ever be able to conceive of man in any other way.
Salih brings truth through metaphor. The Hegelian Grand Narrative of Great Britain places men like Salih in a category that alienates all of his "kind" in an object position. Orientals are something to be studied, something in which one can be a specialist, a problem that begs solution, a department at Oxford. No Oriental - that grand and sweeping category that encompasses anything in its path, like a tidal wave - can possibly be in the middle space. Salih refrains, if only momentarily, from poetic language in this plea.
The story is told of a culture that has been in an object position for so long that it can only scream for recognition. "We are men, the location of our birth is but an accident of fate. How can you not see that we are just men? This is the counter-story to your story of us, let us tell you what is true: we are men."
I found this passage to be a strong demonstration of a counter-argument to both modern and historical attitudes toward the idea of the exotic and enigmatic Oriental man. I am at a loss to describe the feelings evoked by this book and as if I have little right to write about it at all, it's that good. Let's begin with the broad strokes: post-colonial Africa was neither post-colonial, nor was it Africa. The deep and irreversible impression left by Great Britain (and the other colonizers) penetrated so deep into the consciences of the individual that the passage above is a plea for reason. A man, an African man, can not understand how he himself can be perceived as Other to such an extent.
We are inside of the writer's conscience, the writer is a man like any other man. Yet when he is in contact with the colonizer - whether in Africa or in England - he is not a man at all; in the mind of the colonizer he is all that is mysterious, all that is Other. The use of the words "created on the Equator" evokes, even as I try to be objective, an image to my mind that includes jungles, primordial soup, and fossilized footprints in the desert. The counter-argument is not just a plea to the past, I am proof; if I can not conceive of the Other Oriental, the African of Sir Lawrence, without such nonsense clouding my mind, what sense can be made of the sentence?
"Some mad people regard him as a slave, others as a god," but no one regards him as a man. The mean to which Salih refers - the middle way - is, I argue, recognition as a Man. Indeed, I have no difficulty conceptualizing the position at the exact middle of the spectrum between god and slave as man. I'm not sure that I will ever be able to conceive of man in any other way.
Salih brings truth through metaphor. The Hegelian Grand Narrative of Great Britain places men like Salih in a category that alienates all of his "kind" in an object position. Orientals are something to be studied, something in which one can be a specialist, a problem that begs solution, a department at Oxford. No Oriental - that grand and sweeping category that encompasses anything in its path, like a tidal wave - can possibly be in the middle space. Salih refrains, if only momentarily, from poetic language in this plea.
The story is told of a culture that has been in an object position for so long that it can only scream for recognition. "We are men, the location of our birth is but an accident of fate. How can you not see that we are just men? This is the counter-story to your story of us, let us tell you what is true: we are men."
Blog #7
"And the train carried me to Victoria Station and to the world of Jean Morris.
Everything which happened before my meeting her was a premonition; everything I did after I killed her was an apology,not for killing her, but for the lie that was my life." pg 26
Before this quote, Mustafa was telling the narrator about his life and how he had made it to Cairo and then to London. He had just been broughten to Victoria Station and then he said that. Immediatly when I read that I was like what the hell, I really must have missed something. Nope, that was it.
Later on in the paragraph, we briefly hear about his encounters with Jean Morris, but then really don't hear anything more like we do with the other girls. But we do hear that he killed her..intentionally. When I was reading this I was wondering what the narrators reaction was. That's such an unexpected twist in the story that he was telling before and really just came out of nowhere. I don't know if shock has anything to do with what we have been talking about in class, but I think that is a huge part of why this quote works for the author. I also think that it leaves the reader with a lot of suspense.
I've only made it through about half of the book, but I think that Jean Morris is going to play a huge role in Mustafa's life and ultimately why he ended up in that particular village. I think that the context of this quote temporarily acts as a counterstory, but later on in the book will mean a great deal to its entirety.
Everything which happened before my meeting her was a premonition; everything I did after I killed her was an apology,not for killing her, but for the lie that was my life." pg 26
Before this quote, Mustafa was telling the narrator about his life and how he had made it to Cairo and then to London. He had just been broughten to Victoria Station and then he said that. Immediatly when I read that I was like what the hell, I really must have missed something. Nope, that was it.
Later on in the paragraph, we briefly hear about his encounters with Jean Morris, but then really don't hear anything more like we do with the other girls. But we do hear that he killed her..intentionally. When I was reading this I was wondering what the narrators reaction was. That's such an unexpected twist in the story that he was telling before and really just came out of nowhere. I don't know if shock has anything to do with what we have been talking about in class, but I think that is a huge part of why this quote works for the author. I also think that it leaves the reader with a lot of suspense.
I've only made it through about half of the book, but I think that Jean Morris is going to play a huge role in Mustafa's life and ultimately why he ended up in that particular village. I think that the context of this quote temporarily acts as a counterstory, but later on in the book will mean a great deal to its entirety.
Blog #7
"...I don't know - a thick mask, as though her face as a surface of a sea.. It possessed not a single colour but a multitude, appearing and disappearing and intermingling.."
I understand this passage as an illustration of gender roles in this particular culture. Mustafa's mother could not express most of her feelings, opinions,or concerns. She had to hide it under "thick mask". Her face was compared with the surface of a sea, because as we she might have to pretend to be someone she is not, or she might cover her true feelings, but nobody would never know what under the surface. She had many feelings, and she had to work very hard to cover them. Perhaps, she did not want her son to know something. Perhaps she had to cover it for his own good.
"That was bad luck for him, because it is said he was intelligent" (page 49)This passage implies that maybe it's better not to know as much, so our minds and souls won't struggle with strong feelings disagreements, and opinions, because "Justice, Equality and Socialism - mere words", meaning that such things do not exist in this world. The interesting fact is: Mustafa was very intelligent man but yet he has chosen a simple way of life. Maybe he realized that he'll never be able to change the world or life he was striving for. Then he decided to enter a world, which he can change, alter in some ways. During his intelligent life he may have discovered things that he wished he didn't know, and he may became superstitious.
"You have transmitted to us the disease of your capitalist economy. What did you give us except for a handful capitalist companies that drew off our blood - and still do?" Maybe it would be much better for the world and for the humanity as a whole, if some developed capitalistic countries would not enter developing countries under mask of humanism and with the single purpose - taking resources. Maybe people of developing countries do not need this knowledge poisoning their minds and souls.
I see a strong philosophy under Mustafa's purposeful living in village.. He feels very strongly helping people of this village with his "strength and means". He had many opportunities to become and influential man in developed society. He was well respected by his teachers and fellow students, and yet he struggles with his moral values, and he acts like his life has no purpose anymore. Then, he returns to the village and finds his purpose.
I understand this passage as an illustration of gender roles in this particular culture. Mustafa's mother could not express most of her feelings, opinions,or concerns. She had to hide it under "thick mask". Her face was compared with the surface of a sea, because as we she might have to pretend to be someone she is not, or she might cover her true feelings, but nobody would never know what under the surface. She had many feelings, and she had to work very hard to cover them. Perhaps, she did not want her son to know something. Perhaps she had to cover it for his own good.
"That was bad luck for him, because it is said he was intelligent" (page 49)This passage implies that maybe it's better not to know as much, so our minds and souls won't struggle with strong feelings disagreements, and opinions, because "Justice, Equality and Socialism - mere words", meaning that such things do not exist in this world. The interesting fact is: Mustafa was very intelligent man but yet he has chosen a simple way of life. Maybe he realized that he'll never be able to change the world or life he was striving for. Then he decided to enter a world, which he can change, alter in some ways. During his intelligent life he may have discovered things that he wished he didn't know, and he may became superstitious.
"You have transmitted to us the disease of your capitalist economy. What did you give us except for a handful capitalist companies that drew off our blood - and still do?" Maybe it would be much better for the world and for the humanity as a whole, if some developed capitalistic countries would not enter developing countries under mask of humanism and with the single purpose - taking resources. Maybe people of developing countries do not need this knowledge poisoning their minds and souls.
I see a strong philosophy under Mustafa's purposeful living in village.. He feels very strongly helping people of this village with his "strength and means". He had many opportunities to become and influential man in developed society. He was well respected by his teachers and fellow students, and yet he struggles with his moral values, and he acts like his life has no purpose anymore. Then, he returns to the village and finds his purpose.
Blog Post 7
“The string of the bow is drawn taut and the arrow must needs shoot forth.” pg 24
I chose this passage because it originally stood out to me as an odd way to phrase a metaphor for an event that must come to pass. The language, the “must needs”, and the metaphor were all highly interesting to me, and though I read on thinking I might find a different passage that interested me, I kept coming back to this one.
One of the reasons I think it represents a counter story is because in many parts of Mustafa’s retelling of his story, he questions whether different actions or circumstances could have brought him to a different ending. But this quote seems to show his understanding that once something is set in motion, it cannot be undone; the arrow needs to shoot, to go forth.
It is very effective in saying that things happen inevitably because it is a forceful metaphor; there is not a lot of room to say that the arrow may not propel forward. It specifically states that it must go, it must shoot. In effect, whatever must happen, will happen. It seems to me that you could make and argument for the metaphor going on further, and something coming in the way of the powerful arrow, but this quote states, simply and finitely, that there will be stopping the arrow.
This quote also made me read it twice because of the unique way in which Salih puts it; he seems redundant at the end, and it is a metaphor that is sort of handily thrown into that part of the paragraph. There seems to be very little segue into the discussion of Mustafa’s unavoidable path, and this quote brings his whole perspective into the situation. I like to think that his double use of necessity related verbs helps to enforce its story. It might have not caught my attention as much as it did had it not been strangely worded and placed strategically to get me thinking about how Mustafa views his tale.
I chose this passage because it originally stood out to me as an odd way to phrase a metaphor for an event that must come to pass. The language, the “must needs”, and the metaphor were all highly interesting to me, and though I read on thinking I might find a different passage that interested me, I kept coming back to this one.
One of the reasons I think it represents a counter story is because in many parts of Mustafa’s retelling of his story, he questions whether different actions or circumstances could have brought him to a different ending. But this quote seems to show his understanding that once something is set in motion, it cannot be undone; the arrow needs to shoot, to go forth.
It is very effective in saying that things happen inevitably because it is a forceful metaphor; there is not a lot of room to say that the arrow may not propel forward. It specifically states that it must go, it must shoot. In effect, whatever must happen, will happen. It seems to me that you could make and argument for the metaphor going on further, and something coming in the way of the powerful arrow, but this quote states, simply and finitely, that there will be stopping the arrow.
This quote also made me read it twice because of the unique way in which Salih puts it; he seems redundant at the end, and it is a metaphor that is sort of handily thrown into that part of the paragraph. There seems to be very little segue into the discussion of Mustafa’s unavoidable path, and this quote brings his whole perspective into the situation. I like to think that his double use of necessity related verbs helps to enforce its story. It might have not caught my attention as much as it did had it not been strangely worded and placed strategically to get me thinking about how Mustafa views his tale.
Moutains & Deserts. Cairo & Mrs. Robinson.
“I felt as though Cairo, that large mountain to which my camel had carried me, was a European woman just like Mrs. Robinson, its arms embracing me, its perfume and the odour of its body filling my nostrils. In my mind her eyes were the colour of Cairo: grey-green, turning at night to a twinkling like that of a firefly...Mrs. Robinson was a buxom woman and with a bronze complexion that harmonized with Cairo, as though she were a picture tastefully chosen to go with the colour of the walls in a room” (Salih, Season of Migration to the North, 23).
There’s a lot of information in this passage. I don’t feel like I’ve figured it out in its entirety, but here are my thoughts thus far:
Mustafa Sa’eed repeatedly uses large mountains and hills as metaphors for various destinations on his lifelong journey. This places emphasis on the nature of his journey--point A to point B, mountain to mountain, obstacle to obstacle. He is not simply free and along for the ride. He is worried about his immediate future and survival. Life is never easy, because between these mountains lies the metaphorical desert, vast and unforgiving. This desert reminds the reader that, despite his education, Sa’eed is a wanderer. He is the archetypal “outsider” no matter where he ties up his camel for the night. He has no permanent home or people. He is neither fully Eastern nor fully Western, and consequently is alienated by both groups and stripped of his authenticity and authority. The desert is also full of mirages, which torment Sa’eed with hopes for a peaceful life and a sense of belonging. In the end these things prove impossible to achieve.
This passage in its entirety is also a vivid metaphor--comparing Cairo to Mrs. Robinson. The metaphor is described first using sense of touch (also emotional response), then by smell (perfume and pheromones) and finally by sight. The metaphor tells a lot about Sa’eed’s first meeting with Mrs. Robinson, more so than his first impressions of Cairo. Cairo is not that important in the scheme of things. It’s just another mountain to be scaled. Mrs. Robinson is painted as an exotic European woman. She is tender, smells lovely, has dazzling eyes, full breasts and bronze skin. Sa’eed (age 12 at this point) is clearly coming of age. More importantly, he is traveling not only to conquer the European educational system, but also the exoticism of the European woman (represented here by his sexual yearnings for Mrs. Robinson). In some ways then, this metaphor also foreshadows his time in London.
There’s a lot of information in this passage. I don’t feel like I’ve figured it out in its entirety, but here are my thoughts thus far:
Mustafa Sa’eed repeatedly uses large mountains and hills as metaphors for various destinations on his lifelong journey. This places emphasis on the nature of his journey--point A to point B, mountain to mountain, obstacle to obstacle. He is not simply free and along for the ride. He is worried about his immediate future and survival. Life is never easy, because between these mountains lies the metaphorical desert, vast and unforgiving. This desert reminds the reader that, despite his education, Sa’eed is a wanderer. He is the archetypal “outsider” no matter where he ties up his camel for the night. He has no permanent home or people. He is neither fully Eastern nor fully Western, and consequently is alienated by both groups and stripped of his authenticity and authority. The desert is also full of mirages, which torment Sa’eed with hopes for a peaceful life and a sense of belonging. In the end these things prove impossible to achieve.
This passage in its entirety is also a vivid metaphor--comparing Cairo to Mrs. Robinson. The metaphor is described first using sense of touch (also emotional response), then by smell (perfume and pheromones) and finally by sight. The metaphor tells a lot about Sa’eed’s first meeting with Mrs. Robinson, more so than his first impressions of Cairo. Cairo is not that important in the scheme of things. It’s just another mountain to be scaled. Mrs. Robinson is painted as an exotic European woman. She is tender, smells lovely, has dazzling eyes, full breasts and bronze skin. Sa’eed (age 12 at this point) is clearly coming of age. More importantly, he is traveling not only to conquer the European educational system, but also the exoticism of the European woman (represented here by his sexual yearnings for Mrs. Robinson). In some ways then, this metaphor also foreshadows his time in London.
Blog Seven
" 'Darling,' she said painfully, ' I thought you would never do this. I almost gave up hope of you.' I pressed down the daggar with my chest until it had all disappeared between her breasts...I began crushing my chest against her as she called out imploringly: ' Come with me. Come with me. Dont let me go alone.' " (136)
What this passage is giving us plain and simple is that Mustafa is killing his wife after he finds out that she has had an affair and wasnt planning on telling him. He doesnt do this immediately after he finds out but does wait. He enters their bedroom finding her ready to make love for the first time in the 2 year period they had been married. Mustafa doesnt want any of this and cant forgive her for what she put him through so decides that it is time to kill her.
If you unpack this phrase, or most of that page you can see that he was almsot doing her a favor. Its like when people today make mistakes and want to find the easy way out, I feel like that was what Mustafa was doing for her. She never had any objection to him killing her as she lay on their bed and throughout the story she always tells him that he would never have the guts to kill her. It also reminds me a little of Romeo and Juliet. It is a love story in a sense during that part of the book when he lusts for her so badly and she feels nothing toward him. Once he decides to kill her she wants him to die with her. She thinks that this will bring them closer together. We can see that Mustafa was never a romantic in this book, far from it actually and we can tell that he never truly loved any of the wives he married.
In a way you almost feel empathetic towards those women who were thrown into marriages that they didnt want to be a part of. I can definately feel for this woman because she wanted nothing to do with marrying Mustafa that is why she never wanted to have sex with him. You can see that also with Bint Mahmound and Wad Rayyes. The same thing happens in that marriage except its the reverse partner who does the killing. I think that there is alot underlying what Salih is trying to get at, and putting this passage at the end of the book makes the reader think about how this would tie into the rest of the book.
What this passage is giving us plain and simple is that Mustafa is killing his wife after he finds out that she has had an affair and wasnt planning on telling him. He doesnt do this immediately after he finds out but does wait. He enters their bedroom finding her ready to make love for the first time in the 2 year period they had been married. Mustafa doesnt want any of this and cant forgive her for what she put him through so decides that it is time to kill her.
If you unpack this phrase, or most of that page you can see that he was almsot doing her a favor. Its like when people today make mistakes and want to find the easy way out, I feel like that was what Mustafa was doing for her. She never had any objection to him killing her as she lay on their bed and throughout the story she always tells him that he would never have the guts to kill her. It also reminds me a little of Romeo and Juliet. It is a love story in a sense during that part of the book when he lusts for her so badly and she feels nothing toward him. Once he decides to kill her she wants him to die with her. She thinks that this will bring them closer together. We can see that Mustafa was never a romantic in this book, far from it actually and we can tell that he never truly loved any of the wives he married.
In a way you almost feel empathetic towards those women who were thrown into marriages that they didnt want to be a part of. I can definately feel for this woman because she wanted nothing to do with marrying Mustafa that is why she never wanted to have sex with him. You can see that also with Bint Mahmound and Wad Rayyes. The same thing happens in that marriage except its the reverse partner who does the killing. I think that there is alot underlying what Salih is trying to get at, and putting this passage at the end of the book makes the reader think about how this would tie into the rest of the book.
the dance of intimacy
“I felt the flow of conversation firmly in my hands, like the reins of an obedient mare: I pull at them and she stops, I shake them and she advances; I move them and she moves subject to my will, to left or to right.” Page 34
This quote instantly reminded me of the Intimate Relations class I am in. The topic we have covered most thoroughly thus far is “The Dance of Intimacy.” I think this quote tells the story of every developing relationship and epitomizes the “dance.” It explains that feeling of trying to maintain control in the relationship because the power is comforting.
Similar to Joey’s quote, this quote contains a counterstory that opposes modern day fairy-tales and love stories. Most stories talk about the “honeymoon phase” of relationships, where everything is exciting and easy; when most flaws are overlooked because of the wonderful beginning-of-the-relationship lust. This quote reveals the true feelings that are involved in the complicated beginning of a relationship, presenting why the beginnings of relationships are so lustful….they’re a rollercoaster of emotions! Mustafa also goes against the common male archetype in love stories these days. He’s far from romantic, and seems more interested in being powerful rather than actually getting to know the girl.
I think it is effective in communicating the truth about these complex dances because of the raw, truthful statement and the use of a metaphor. The reader is already inside of Mustafa’s head, so naturally it is easy to relate with the character when the entire thought process is evident. It’s even easier when he states his feelings flat out, blatantly expressing that he has entire control. Salih strategically places a descriptive metaphor directly after the bold statement, to make it even clearer. The metaphor of an “obedient mare” lowers the woman down to the level of an animal, simply being dragged around by its owner. For me, it created an image of this relationship and the direction it is headed. Lastly, as if the reader does not get an image through the first two attempts, Salih uses more description building off of the metaphor.
This quote instantly reminded me of the Intimate Relations class I am in. The topic we have covered most thoroughly thus far is “The Dance of Intimacy.” I think this quote tells the story of every developing relationship and epitomizes the “dance.” It explains that feeling of trying to maintain control in the relationship because the power is comforting.
Similar to Joey’s quote, this quote contains a counterstory that opposes modern day fairy-tales and love stories. Most stories talk about the “honeymoon phase” of relationships, where everything is exciting and easy; when most flaws are overlooked because of the wonderful beginning-of-the-relationship lust. This quote reveals the true feelings that are involved in the complicated beginning of a relationship, presenting why the beginnings of relationships are so lustful….they’re a rollercoaster of emotions! Mustafa also goes against the common male archetype in love stories these days. He’s far from romantic, and seems more interested in being powerful rather than actually getting to know the girl.
I think it is effective in communicating the truth about these complex dances because of the raw, truthful statement and the use of a metaphor. The reader is already inside of Mustafa’s head, so naturally it is easy to relate with the character when the entire thought process is evident. It’s even easier when he states his feelings flat out, blatantly expressing that he has entire control. Salih strategically places a descriptive metaphor directly after the bold statement, to make it even clearer. The metaphor of an “obedient mare” lowers the woman down to the level of an animal, simply being dragged around by its owner. For me, it created an image of this relationship and the direction it is headed. Lastly, as if the reader does not get an image through the first two attempts, Salih uses more description building off of the metaphor.
blog 7
"Then, returning to my lies, I gave her such a terryfing description of how I had lost my parents that I saw the tears well up in her eyes. I told her I was six years old at the time when my parents were drowned with thirty other people in a boat taking them from one bank of the Nile to the other," -p. 33. This passage fits the assignment because it tells a compelling story but it also undermines another story.
What is it telling? The story this passage is telling is how Mustafa lost his parents at a young age and grew up pretty much on his own. This is compelling (definition: interesting, captivating, or requiring attention) because the death of one's parents is a big deal and has a large impact on one's life.
What is it opposing? It opposes/undermines the true story of his parents. In truth, his father died weeks before he was born, not in a boating accident. For all we know, his mother is still alive. Mustafa left his mother and his home when he was very young (12, if I am correct) to finish his schooling in Cairo and has never seen her since.
How does it function to oppose the other story (how does it work)? It opposes the other (true) story because it is a lie. Lying opposes the truth. What makes it effective in doing so? I think it is effective because it arouses pity and empathy in the listener (the girl- Jean Morris). He is trying to make her feel sorry for him, I think, and he does this by telling her a sad story about his his parents and lying about the details to make it seem worse. Telling such a story to a girl is a good way to make her feel pity, and that was probably his motive because he likes this girl and wants a connection with her.
What is it telling? The story this passage is telling is how Mustafa lost his parents at a young age and grew up pretty much on his own. This is compelling (definition: interesting, captivating, or requiring attention) because the death of one's parents is a big deal and has a large impact on one's life.
What is it opposing? It opposes/undermines the true story of his parents. In truth, his father died weeks before he was born, not in a boating accident. For all we know, his mother is still alive. Mustafa left his mother and his home when he was very young (12, if I am correct) to finish his schooling in Cairo and has never seen her since.
How does it function to oppose the other story (how does it work)? It opposes the other (true) story because it is a lie. Lying opposes the truth. What makes it effective in doing so? I think it is effective because it arouses pity and empathy in the listener (the girl- Jean Morris). He is trying to make her feel sorry for him, I think, and he does this by telling her a sad story about his his parents and lying about the details to make it seem worse. Telling such a story to a girl is a good way to make her feel pity, and that was probably his motive because he likes this girl and wants a connection with her.
I'll take that heart
"Mustafa Sa'eed, gentlemen of the jury, is a noble person whose mind was able to absorb Western civilization but it broke his heart. These girls were not killed by Mustafa Sa'eed but by the germ of a deadly disease that assailed them one thousand years ago." pg 29.
This passage in my opinion is a counterstory of most Western civilization literature because it is bringing a different side to light other than that of the Western civilization. If we look at Tarzan we see the ideals and concepts of Western civilization as redemptive or the intellect of the west was what brought him to Jane and to love.
In this passage Mustafa is under the influence of the west it's ideology, society, and religion which seems to have corrupted his heart and his ability to love because of the intellect and ideology passed on to him from the west unlike the story of Tarzan. He also states later on the same page that this is not him it is a fake(paraphrasing). From this passage and the second sentence of the passage I chose gave me a rather unique outlook and explains more as to why the intellect and ideologies of the west had destroyed his heart.
He had been going to school in the west for quite some time at this point and time. I believe that what makes this counterstory effective is the backround of Mustafa, he is a muslim living in a western world. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that when Maxwell referred to the "germ of a deadly disease that assailed them a thousand years ago" he was referring to the rise of Muhammed and islam. I believe that maybe this breaking of the heart occured because he lived in the west and his heart was back home. He could have also had troubles with the conflict of morals this may have caused him to cave into the pressures of the west.
This passage in my opinion is a counterstory of most Western civilization literature because it is bringing a different side to light other than that of the Western civilization. If we look at Tarzan we see the ideals and concepts of Western civilization as redemptive or the intellect of the west was what brought him to Jane and to love.
In this passage Mustafa is under the influence of the west it's ideology, society, and religion which seems to have corrupted his heart and his ability to love because of the intellect and ideology passed on to him from the west unlike the story of Tarzan. He also states later on the same page that this is not him it is a fake(paraphrasing). From this passage and the second sentence of the passage I chose gave me a rather unique outlook and explains more as to why the intellect and ideologies of the west had destroyed his heart.
He had been going to school in the west for quite some time at this point and time. I believe that what makes this counterstory effective is the backround of Mustafa, he is a muslim living in a western world. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that when Maxwell referred to the "germ of a deadly disease that assailed them a thousand years ago" he was referring to the rise of Muhammed and islam. I believe that maybe this breaking of the heart occured because he lived in the west and his heart was back home. He could have also had troubles with the conflict of morals this may have caused him to cave into the pressures of the west.
blog 7
“The railways, ships, hospitals, factories and schools will be ours and we’ll speak their language without either a sense of guilt or a sense of gratitude. Once again we shall be as we were- ordinary people – and if we are lies we shall be lies of our own making” (41).
In this passage, the narrator has just spent time with Mustafa hearing his life story and is telling the story of life under colonial rule. This is a story of a conquered people, under rule for so long that indifference has become commonplace.
One of the techniques the passage uses is estrangement. This can be seen through the use of phrases like ‘their language’ and ‘ordinary people,’ which serve two functions. First,
it pulls the reader out of the specific stories being told in the book and forces he/she to consider the broader, social context in which the narrator exists. However, the removing of the reader from the specific stories also serves as a way to highlight the feelings of estrangement that the characters have because of their existence in that broader, social context. This serves a way to encourage empathy. The narrator feels that his language has been marginalized and that he is not an ordinary person, and since the reader has just been pulled out of the main story of the book, he/she is now able to relate to that feeling.
In that sense, I would argue that it is a counterstory, but it does not necessarily oppose/undermine the other story. Rather, it serves as a way to contextualize and thus enhance it. The characters and their stories would not exist without the broader story of colonial rule and that makes the counterstory important.
In this passage, the narrator has just spent time with Mustafa hearing his life story and is telling the story of life under colonial rule. This is a story of a conquered people, under rule for so long that indifference has become commonplace.
One of the techniques the passage uses is estrangement. This can be seen through the use of phrases like ‘their language’ and ‘ordinary people,’ which serve two functions. First,
it pulls the reader out of the specific stories being told in the book and forces he/she to consider the broader, social context in which the narrator exists. However, the removing of the reader from the specific stories also serves as a way to highlight the feelings of estrangement that the characters have because of their existence in that broader, social context. This serves a way to encourage empathy. The narrator feels that his language has been marginalized and that he is not an ordinary person, and since the reader has just been pulled out of the main story of the book, he/she is now able to relate to that feeling.
In that sense, I would argue that it is a counterstory, but it does not necessarily oppose/undermine the other story. Rather, it serves as a way to contextualize and thus enhance it. The characters and their stories would not exist without the broader story of colonial rule and that makes the counterstory important.
number 7
On the bottom of page 77 and top of 78 says…
“Her perfume and the silence were lost and nothing existed in the whole world except the lamentation of a woman for a husband she did not know, for a man who, spreading his sails, had voyaged off on the ocean in pursuit of a foreign mirage.”
This sentence tells me a story of someone going through a state of depression from losing an object he/she is passionate towards. His/her life has changed dramatically, both physically and mentally. People do not realize what they have until it has disappeared and detached themselves.
This story opposes the story of every fairytale love story that is crammed down our throats in many movies and books. These books and stories never end showing the depression and feelings that go into such relationships. Her entire world is lost in this statement, a man she loved has just left her and “spread his sails” to explore the unknown. He is in pursuit of something that is not necessarily sure to be in existence.
It functions in a way to counter this story by using the phrase, “husband she did now know.” This woman was married to a man and did not really know him and realize what she even had until it was too late. I think the last few words also make it effective. Her husband is leaving in “pursuit of a foreign mirage.” He is leaving his relationship to explore the unknown and search for something that is just an image/illusion of something he can not even touch or feel. It leaves me thinking there is no hope of him coming back. In many fairytale love stories the spectator may have a feeling in the middle of the movie like this quote but always knows that the couple will eventually reunite and be together again. Metaphorically Taleb Salih is using sailing into the ocean to show that chances of him returning are slim. When I think of someone voyaging off into the ocean I imagine the sailor will come across trouble, like a storm, and taking a big risk of never returning.
Blog Post 7
“We were in fact know in the village for not divorcing our wives and for not having more than one. The villagers used to joke about us and say that we were afraid of our women, except for my uncle Abdul Karim who was both much divorced and much marred- and an adulterer to boot.” Pg 67
I think that these sentences are a counter story within the story. These sentences speak to the culture of the village. When reading these words it paints the picture that the village men are different from the other men in Africa. They are portrayed to be scared of their women. The village men are not as manly as the other men because they do not take on many wives and they do not divorce often. When looking at these sentences one could be mislead to believe that this is true. The character Wad Rayyes that has been married and divorce several times is in opposition to this point of view. Wad Rayyes is known throughout many villages as being a ladies’ man. He is described as changing women as often as people change donkeys. He not only divorces often but also has had more than one wife at a time. He believes whole heartily in marrying and divorcing. He even advises the men of the village to take on additional wives. He speaks on all the different attributes in having a plethora of women can offer a man. What unfolds between Wad Rayyes and Mustafa Sa’eed is correlated to these two sentences. Wad Rayyes is in opposition to these sentences. He is old and has been married several times. He is currently married and wants to marry Mustafa Sa’eed . His wants and actions are in contradiction to these sentences. He knows that Mustafa Sa’eed does not want to marry him but he does not care. Wad Rayyes is not concerned with the wants of Mustafa and he is not afraid of a woman. Wad completely goes over Mustafa’s head to her father and forces her into marriage. In the sentences on page 67 a certain image is portrayed. This image shows a certain relationship between men and women. Women may have more power than men when it comes to relationships. These sentences are effective in making the reader think that there may be a different power relationship between men and women in this village. The narrator tells us that it is true that few men divorce or take on more than one wife. This counter story leads the reader in a direction that is opposite of what is the reality of the situation.
I think that these sentences are a counter story within the story. These sentences speak to the culture of the village. When reading these words it paints the picture that the village men are different from the other men in Africa. They are portrayed to be scared of their women. The village men are not as manly as the other men because they do not take on many wives and they do not divorce often. When looking at these sentences one could be mislead to believe that this is true. The character Wad Rayyes that has been married and divorce several times is in opposition to this point of view. Wad Rayyes is known throughout many villages as being a ladies’ man. He is described as changing women as often as people change donkeys. He not only divorces often but also has had more than one wife at a time. He believes whole heartily in marrying and divorcing. He even advises the men of the village to take on additional wives. He speaks on all the different attributes in having a plethora of women can offer a man. What unfolds between Wad Rayyes and Mustafa Sa’eed is correlated to these two sentences. Wad Rayyes is in opposition to these sentences. He is old and has been married several times. He is currently married and wants to marry Mustafa Sa’eed . His wants and actions are in contradiction to these sentences. He knows that Mustafa Sa’eed does not want to marry him but he does not care. Wad Rayyes is not concerned with the wants of Mustafa and he is not afraid of a woman. Wad completely goes over Mustafa’s head to her father and forces her into marriage. In the sentences on page 67 a certain image is portrayed. This image shows a certain relationship between men and women. Women may have more power than men when it comes to relationships. These sentences are effective in making the reader think that there may be a different power relationship between men and women in this village. The narrator tells us that it is true that few men divorce or take on more than one wife. This counter story leads the reader in a direction that is opposite of what is the reality of the situation.
Mountains and Deep Depressions
“And the river, the river but for which there would have been no beginning and no end, flows northwards, pays heed to nothing; a mountain may stand in its way so it turns eastwards; it may happen upon a deep depression so it turns westwards, but sooner or later it settles down in its irrevocable journey towards the sea in the north” (58).
I thought this quote was an exceptional example for this assignment because there is such an incredible amount of information packed into just a couple line of the story. On the surface there is the story of the Nile River flowing through Africa on its long journey to the Mediterranean Sea. Looking a little deeper there are surely hundreds of historical stories relating to the effect the Nile has had on the individuals that live along its banks. The Nile allowed the Egyptians and other Africans to irrigate their crops enabling life in the region.
Although this quote refers to the incredible presence of the Nile, I think it would be foolish to assume that Salih’s words here are only about the river. Metaphorically this statement is saying that throughout life people have a mission; call it destiny, fate, religious predestination, or some other driving force that ultimately drives the world we live in. The “mountains” and “deep depressions” represent the significant people, events, and obstacles that may affect our lives. Ultimately there is some stronger force or goal that will drive our being.
The river’s story serves as an excellent example of a counterstory to most Western, Hegelian literature where main characters live a life in which the control their own destiny. Look at old fashioned, shoot-em up Western dramas. These cowboys control their environment through vigilante justice. In Cowboy Westerns people did whatever the hell they wanted to do and responded to John Wayne’s revolver, not some higher force or overlying life mission. Also, look at the countless stories in American and European society where “self-made men” become successful through sheer hard work and individual thought. This passage from Season of Migration to the North opposes this thought of individuals controlling their environment. This is a clear example both literally and metaphorically of something reacting to its environment following a larger, more controlling force. In a sense, both the individuals and the river are forced to follow a mission, sure things may get in the way that make life different whether it be mountains and deep depressions or murder trials and other life events but ultimately both the river and the individual have to end up in their final predestined place.
I thought this quote was an exceptional example for this assignment because there is such an incredible amount of information packed into just a couple line of the story. On the surface there is the story of the Nile River flowing through Africa on its long journey to the Mediterranean Sea. Looking a little deeper there are surely hundreds of historical stories relating to the effect the Nile has had on the individuals that live along its banks. The Nile allowed the Egyptians and other Africans to irrigate their crops enabling life in the region.
Although this quote refers to the incredible presence of the Nile, I think it would be foolish to assume that Salih’s words here are only about the river. Metaphorically this statement is saying that throughout life people have a mission; call it destiny, fate, religious predestination, or some other driving force that ultimately drives the world we live in. The “mountains” and “deep depressions” represent the significant people, events, and obstacles that may affect our lives. Ultimately there is some stronger force or goal that will drive our being.
The river’s story serves as an excellent example of a counterstory to most Western, Hegelian literature where main characters live a life in which the control their own destiny. Look at old fashioned, shoot-em up Western dramas. These cowboys control their environment through vigilante justice. In Cowboy Westerns people did whatever the hell they wanted to do and responded to John Wayne’s revolver, not some higher force or overlying life mission. Also, look at the countless stories in American and European society where “self-made men” become successful through sheer hard work and individual thought. This passage from Season of Migration to the North opposes this thought of individuals controlling their environment. This is a clear example both literally and metaphorically of something reacting to its environment following a larger, more controlling force. In a sense, both the individuals and the river are forced to follow a mission, sure things may get in the way that make life different whether it be mountains and deep depressions or murder trials and other life events but ultimately both the river and the individual have to end up in their final predestined place.
Blog Post 7
Page 33- "Then, returning to my lies, I gave her such terrifying descriptions of how I had lost my parents that I saw the tears well up in her eyes. I told her I was six years old at the time when my parents were drowned with thirty other people in a boat taking them from one bank of the Nile to the other."
This quote is telling a story of how a guy tells a girl something true but dramatically changes how the truth came about in order to gain her sympathy, empathy, or pity. In this case, Mustafa is telling a girl that his parents died when he was young, which is true, but tells her a dramatic story of how they did. This dramatic story and is false. So even though he is telling her the truth about his parents dying, he is lying about how they died.
Plenty of stories include guys telling girls the truth of how something terrible came about in order to gain their sympathy, empathy, or pity. The true process in which the terrible thing came about, in itself, does enough to make the girl feel sympathy, empathy, or pity for the guy.
What makes the lie work for Mustafa is that this lie is not totally unbelievable. It is possible that his parents died when he was only six years old. Since he is from an area near the Nile River, it is very possible that his parents did die in such an accident. It is possible that a boat did sink on the Nile River and that many people drowned. So the girl has no reason to expect that he is lying to her.
Mustafa's made up story is effective by showing that a lie can make a girl feel sympathy, empathy, or pity for a guy. True events aren't the only things that could evoke these emotions into a girl. False events, that are entirely possible and not outrages, are also effective in making these emotions come about.
This quote is telling a story of how a guy tells a girl something true but dramatically changes how the truth came about in order to gain her sympathy, empathy, or pity. In this case, Mustafa is telling a girl that his parents died when he was young, which is true, but tells her a dramatic story of how they did. This dramatic story and is false. So even though he is telling her the truth about his parents dying, he is lying about how they died.
Plenty of stories include guys telling girls the truth of how something terrible came about in order to gain their sympathy, empathy, or pity. The true process in which the terrible thing came about, in itself, does enough to make the girl feel sympathy, empathy, or pity for the guy.
What makes the lie work for Mustafa is that this lie is not totally unbelievable. It is possible that his parents died when he was only six years old. Since he is from an area near the Nile River, it is very possible that his parents did die in such an accident. It is possible that a boat did sink on the Nile River and that many people drowned. So the girl has no reason to expect that he is lying to her.
Mustafa's made up story is effective by showing that a lie can make a girl feel sympathy, empathy, or pity for a guy. True events aren't the only things that could evoke these emotions into a girl. False events, that are entirely possible and not outrages, are also effective in making these emotions come about.
NuMbeR 7
Phrase chosen: "The whole of the journey I savoured that feeling of being nowhere, alone, before and behind me either eternity or nothingness" (Salih, 24).
Unpacking the phrase: I think that this phrase says so much and is so deep in many different ways. This person, who grew up with literally no one to love him, or no one that he noticed to love him, no father, a mother who was more like a stranger, people who wanted him to succeed but he did not care what they felt for him... and the only way he felt something that he had always longed for when he was alone and nowhere, which was some where in actuality. The whole point of his journey, that had been magically layed out for him, was to have and endure this feeling of being alone and not knowing where he will end up next, or what "bigger mountain" he will come across during his journey. I feel like another story that this phrase is opposing is how utterly lonesome this poor boy is, a 15-year old boy, who does not even know what it feels like to be loved or wanted, and so by not knowing anything different, this is the greatest feeling he wanted to achieve, the most alone he could possibly be. I feel like it is such a sad phrase, even though it states that this is what his whole journey was meant for, it seems as though this is the most alone he has ever been and that he is so lost as to where his life will go and does not know where he belongs in his own life even. The way that it functions to me is when it says that he is "nowhere" instead of being "somewhere" and that he does not know if it was "eternity or nothingness" before or behind him. It works so well because it is so incredibely deep, and makes you realize that when you think that you are some where, you can actually be no where, and that we all do not know what has been behind us or what will come before us, but we at least are loved and have someone with us. This man had no one and is trying to keep his life so secretive and non-important when he actually does have an amazing and interesting past and present. So it just shows that the people who seem like the most regular, keep to themselves type of people are actually full of wonder, but then we all are to some degree.
Unpacking the phrase: I think that this phrase says so much and is so deep in many different ways. This person, who grew up with literally no one to love him, or no one that he noticed to love him, no father, a mother who was more like a stranger, people who wanted him to succeed but he did not care what they felt for him... and the only way he felt something that he had always longed for when he was alone and nowhere, which was some where in actuality. The whole point of his journey, that had been magically layed out for him, was to have and endure this feeling of being alone and not knowing where he will end up next, or what "bigger mountain" he will come across during his journey. I feel like another story that this phrase is opposing is how utterly lonesome this poor boy is, a 15-year old boy, who does not even know what it feels like to be loved or wanted, and so by not knowing anything different, this is the greatest feeling he wanted to achieve, the most alone he could possibly be. I feel like it is such a sad phrase, even though it states that this is what his whole journey was meant for, it seems as though this is the most alone he has ever been and that he is so lost as to where his life will go and does not know where he belongs in his own life even. The way that it functions to me is when it says that he is "nowhere" instead of being "somewhere" and that he does not know if it was "eternity or nothingness" before or behind him. It works so well because it is so incredibely deep, and makes you realize that when you think that you are some where, you can actually be no where, and that we all do not know what has been behind us or what will come before us, but we at least are loved and have someone with us. This man had no one and is trying to keep his life so secretive and non-important when he actually does have an amazing and interesting past and present. So it just shows that the people who seem like the most regular, keep to themselves type of people are actually full of wonder, but then we all are to some degree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)