Week 6 - My late Thanksgiving Dysfunctional Familytacular - As I Lay Dying

Pulling up Kid Cudi's "Pursuit of Happiness" on youtube. Ah, yep feels good, now let's begin. This time with an exciting Lit Analysis focusing on symbols, irony, and prose. As this may be my second to the last blog, it needs to be excellent. This will be the Game of Thrones Episode 9 of blogs -- the penultimate. I need to show that this is what the blog has been leading up to, preparing me for. To show that I've learned something, made progress, that I'm not just coasting along, is my intended goal here. This will be an in-depth analysis of a book, similar to the ending essays in How to Read Literature Like a Professor. Don't worry though, I'll still be following the typical blog tone so it won't be as dry.

So, I've planned out this penultimate book analysis way back when making the Shark Tank Presentation with the classic William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying. It was for numerous reasons. William Faulkner is revered by many literary enthusiasts for his exemplary prose and symbolism which is perfect for my penultimate lit analysis. As I Lay Dying is Faulkner's self-described magnum opus, so out of the books he wrote, I selected this one as he must've used all his tools in his literary toolbox to be so proud of it. I was correct, however, it just took me a couple more hours than preferred to figure them out.



I originally thought the week 6 blog would be released around Thanksgiving and I thought this book would be great for my Thanksgiving Dysfunctional Familytacular. What a shame, though. I guess the book's still relevant, maybe not as timely, however. The book follows the Bundren's family trek across the Missipian countryside to bury their wife and mother Addie, going through all of their perspectives on the journey. Of course, it isn't as simple with the Bundren family. They're a stubborn, manly (I'll get into what I mean by that later) bunch who accepts no charity until forced to accept it. Along the way, there will be many symbols and events that will illustrate their problematic family dynamics. So, I got my How to Read Literature like a Professor and my scribbles that vaguely look like notes on As I Lay Dying, so let's begin with some of those symbols.



Tools in the novel are significant in how they represent their family. Cash Bundren tries to mend the family together with his tools. He makes the coffin for his mother who is on her deathbed. He is aiming for unrealistic perfection in his coffin, trying to show his love to his unappreciative mother and make his family rejoice upon something. Actually, according to How to Read Literature like a Professor, this would probably be one of their claimed Christ figures. Personally, I always feel like these Christ figures are forced or just rely on pure speculation, but, for once, I'll digress. With the list given in the book, he does meet four of the criteria given.

• Employed as a carpenter. Check, a year before he was installing a roof on a church and actually fell off, so that actually adds to it.
• In agony. Check, when he broke his leg after their mule wagon failed at fording a river, Anse Bundren, his dad, poured concrete on it as some sort of cast. This only worsened it, and at the book end's, a doctor chipping off the concrete, states that he'll probably never be able to use his leg again because of how his dad treated it.
• Self-sacrificing. Check, after their wagon crashed and he has a broken leg, Cash remains stoic. Essentially, he says, don't worry about my broken leg, keep on going. To continue their quest, he sacrifices his long-held dream in life, a gramophone. He gives his funds to Anse so they could purchase some new mules.
• Came to redeem an unworthy world. Check, this is where the tools come in. The tools represent him making efforts to fix and correct his broken family.

Even when I do this Christ figure thing with evidence to support it, it still feels flimsy, but I believe Faulkner did intend to portray Cash as a Christ figure to elucidate a point. My experience coming from the Is He Serious and Other Ironies chapter of How to Read Literature Like A Professor, i.e., irony trumps everything. The Christ figure that he's portrayed as valiantly sacrifices a leg, but for what? To bury his mother? They could've paused at a town to address his leg with someone who actually has experience, instead, he says continue, don't worry about my leg. So while typically a Christ figure commits a sacrifice for the greater good, here there's no reason to it. With that irony, Faulkner basically attacks manliness and heroism in situations where it is pointless. At first Cash's martyrdom seems noble, but after he tolerates it just fine when finding out that his leg is destroyed, it becomes ridiculous.



Remember the first chapter of How to Read Literature like a Professor? (Let's start calling it Lit. like Prof. to save space, by the way.) It was on the whole idea behind quests being a way of development for the characters involved. Here with the quest in As I Lay Dying, the quest to bury their mother and wife is used ironically. At the end of it they are successful in their mission, but even though there were defining moments where the Bundren family could have developed, they instead resided and remained in their old ways.

At the end of the novel, (I don't think anyone is reading this or has any future plans at the moment to read it, so I'm fine with spoiling it) it turns out this whole trek wasn't about burying Anse's wife Addie, instead, it was about Anse getting a new pair of teeth from the orthodontist in the town where the cemetery was located. In the end, ironically the quest proves to be more destructive than helpful to the family. One son now has lost a leg. Another is now in a mental hospital for his actions. Admittedly, I don't understand everything, that's why I leave some things vague. The daughter/ sister of the family finds herself increasingly more distrustful of men and increasingly desperate to end her pregnancy. Another son has lost his cherished horse that he worked months to attain, sold by his dad. Overall, the only one who profited from this quest, although his character remains the same, was Anse who at the end of it got rid of his deceased wife, a new pair of teeth, and, with barely two seconds with Addie being in the grave, a new wife. The ending quote involves him addressing his family, "'It's Cash and Jewel and Vardaman and Dewey Dell,' pa says, kind of hangdog and proud too, with his teeth and all, even if he wouldn't look at us, "Meet Mrs. Bundren," he says. Ooh, commentary on woman's roles two weeks in a row. With this ending, Faulkner basically mocks how women are perceived in society as being replaceable, simply fulfilling basic roles and not much else. Or at least that's how I interpreted it, I could easily be wrong there.

Let's discuss the hardest aspect of reading As I Lay Dying. The way it was written, woof it's hard. Like I mentioned above, I didn't fully understand everything that was going on. In the book, Darl, one of the sons, gets so frustrated with his family that he attempts to incinerate his mother's coffin. I figured that out 50 pages after the event took place. When Cash talked about him being sent to a mental asylum, I was blindsided. When did this happen, I asked. You see this book employs stream of consciousness which some of you may be familiar with, but I don't think we have ever covered explicitly in any class, so I'll cover it now. Stream of consciousness goes into different people minds, following their flow of thoughts as events take place. Imagine it being basically all your thoughts written down with the general cohesion those thoughts may have. Here, stream of consciousness is invaluable to your reading experience in As I Lay Dying. Instead of an objective narration on the subject, it puts you into the mind of the character and gives you a much better idea of the character, their perspective, and their beliefs.

Should I try stream of consciousness blogging for my next genius hour? I'll basically just write on whatever for a couple hours.

Here's an example of what I mean, this is in the perspective of Anse: "I have done no wrong to be cussed by. I am not religious, I reckon. But peace is my heart: I know it is. I have done things but neither better nor worse than them that pretend otherlike, and I know that Old Marster will care for me as for ere a sparrow that falls." Stream of consciousness is great at creating empathy and sympathy with our characters, but its inherent flaw is that when that same voice is used to describe an event that is going on, at times I found it incomprehensible to decipher what was going on. This was my main struggle with doing an analysis of As I Lay Dying, that type of writing, in any book really, proves to be so obstinate that I was completely lost.

Well, that was my Penultimate Lit Analysis. As I Lay Dying was a unique experience for me with its writing style, and with the angle of analyzing, it certainly was a challenge. This blog isn't my longest, but man, it sure takes a while to write about symbols and all that jazz. I've probably spent more time on this one than others that I've written. With most of my time spent skimming through the book trying to spark ideas. Of course, there's still a lot more symbols I didn't even touch, I didn't even talk about the fact that it was set in the south, for one. I had to be realistic with myself though with who my audience was. I doubt many, if any, of you, have read the book, and a lot of you considered Lit. like Prof. to be rather dry, and I can't crack many jokes with the focus of literary analysis. Oh well, I'm saving them up for the next one. Was it penultimate? Meh, I wish Brandon would get off the computer earlier so I could've started it earlier for one. I'll leave that up for you to decide.

Short, concise MetaBlog:
I need some sleep. I technically finished this blog on Friday, actually. No one's probably going to notice my blog missing at 12:20 a.m., so it is not too much of a concern. Literary analysis is hard guys.

Week 5 - Modern Lit: Handmaid's Tale

Irony is:
  "We won't be the only one to compare Margaret Atwood's haunting novel to Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange--it's that frightening. Atwood examines life after the extreme right has had its way. Believe us, you won't want to live that long. Read this novel--then contribute to your favorite liberal cause."
  -Playboy (this was 1985-86 Playboy by the way)

Thought about doing a Playboy cover as a joke, but I figure that may be out of my bounds for a school blog. I hope you get the irony nevertheless.

I don't give modern literature a chance. I think out of the 30 books I've read this year only two of them have been what most would call modern: The Life of Pi and Closing Time. The Life of Pi I read just because I saw a discussion on it on Reddit which inspired me to read it and I needed to change things up. That's partially why I am reading modern literature here, to change things up. Closing Time I read because it's the little-known sequel that came forty years after one of my favorite books Catch-22. Matter of fact, I was inspired to read The Divine Comedy after a discussion on the book between two of the characters. Matter of fact, Dante and The Divine Comedy is referenced in The Canterbury Tales, the book we're currently reading in class. MATTER OF FACT, the book I read alludes to how many of the stories were titled in The Canterbury Tale (i.e.,  [possessive role in society here] tale). In the book, the main character is a handmaid or a female servant, thus the title is The Handmaid's Tale. Woven like a quilt, that was.

So, I have some experience with the dystopian genre, I've read all the dystopian novels that are esteemed as classics by most. Those being Fahrenheit 451 (1953), Brave New World (1932), and 1984 (1949). All of those books I enjoyed immensely and with the genre it is always fascinating reading into what their respective philosophy might be. So, I went into The Handmaid's Tale with that in mind … well, it wouldn't be a dystopian novel if I disagreed with some of the ideas.

One of the advantages of reading modern literature is that you can understand the context and the espoused views easier than you can with classic fiction. Like in the classic, Brave New World, where it depicts a hedonistic (meaning the ultimate goal is to indulge in the senses such as drugs and sex) society that indoctrinates all citizens at birth. I really don't know where the author, Aldous Huxley, could've been coming from when he created such a society. I guess maybe people advocating for repealing the Prohibition Act may have had an influence on him, but that is the best I could do. Here I understand where Margaret Atwood was coming from. There was a revival in conservative values at the time and people were denouncing the ongoing sexual revolution and feminism in general.



For being made in 1985, the main theme of the novel, women under control in a patriarchal society, isn't as powerful as I thought it would be, however. With other dystopian novels, I usually see the society presented as what could be ours through a distorted mirror of the present. But I'm sorry to all the impassioned readers and supporters of the book, I have a tough time seeing society develop into the theocratic system described. You could say that's because you are a guy Alex, you just don't understand the female side of things. You got me, I guess, but at the same time they are forcing women into the constricting roles of this new system, they are taking away men's freedoms, from their current relationships, from their jobs, from all the comforts of modern society. Why wouldn't they protest this, I ask. And I never received an answer, the best explanation the author gives me is that their freedoms were gone before they could react to it. "The newspaper stories were like dreams to us, bad dreams dreamt by others. How awful, we would say, and they were, but they were awful without being believable." Heck, Atwood just does away with all African-Americans in a couple lines in the story and that's it. It feels like an editor pointed out a plot hole and she didn't want to deal with themes of race, so she just did a real quick patch-up job.

Nowadays, the minority would be so small in support of the society presented that, although the back of the book asks, "In the world of the near future, who will control women's bodies?" I can't help but think the book's argument is a bit outdated, women have made massive steps towards equality since then and I can't see all the progress being reversed by a particular group of people even if the argument is made currently referring to the presidency.

Women dress up as characters from The Handmaid's Tale to protest Vice President Pence. Therefore, you might see signs referencing the book or just signs saying "Abort VP Pence."

Protesters referencing abortion being restricted in some states in the U.S.

Alas, I'm getting too opinionated here, but with books rooted strongly in politics, I think that will inevitably happen when addressing the subjects especially with it being more relevant than say, my last book Dracula, its political belief being Western European countries forcing their society upon Eastern Europeans. When I say relevant, this is what I am typically referring to, this book experienced a resurgence when Trump was elected, even a TV show was made just recently in 2017 on The Handmaid's Tale.

I could've compared the book to the show, but it feels wasteful when I just watch TV for hours. Maybe it's good, I don't know. I hear they have black actors in some of the roles, but it doesn't change much.

The book was a refreshing change than my past classics, however. It's an enjoyable feeling actually being engaged in the environment and story presented and it is its own experience and can't be replaced with simply reading a summary from Sparknotes. In 1984, Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451, this was the case when reading those novels and it's the same here. With Dracula and The Divine Comedy, I couldn't help but feel that I would've received the same experience if I just read a chapter by chapter summary of the books. In The Handmaid's Tale, it begins with the dystopian society already progressed with the main character Offred  (Offred, get it? She subverts what is expected of her in the red gown) in a depressed situation and you want to know how it came to this, what's her background. Atwood answers all through flashbacks and discussions Offred covertly has with other characters in the book. It's well organized, feeling like an authentic journal coming from the protagonist, and it's not outlandish in how it is written, which is what I was looking forward to when reading this book, cleansing my palate of some of the classic books' prose. It's straightforward, doesn't try to be pretentious, except when it acts like this could happen to the U.S., and answers every question that you may have, making it a satisfying read.

The exception to that being the ending ... it was unfortunately disappointing. I was expecting something emotionally powerful that will remain with you and at the end make you contemplate, "could this happen to us?", or "is there really no path of recovery from that point forward?". I remember when I read 1984 (I won't spoil it as I know Kari is reading it currently and it will probably weaken your experience of the book if you plan to read it someday) that I was in a melancholy state after reading its ends, thinking:is there any way to avoid this? The answer lies with Orwell's original purpose in creating 1984, not allowing totalitarianism to continue and develop. Nevertheless, I am going to spoil The Handmaid's Tale. It is what I was expecting when reading the book, it doesn't mean that the ending can't be good although. Brave New World was what I expected, but the ending I found to be so much more powerful than I expected. It ends with her being captured by what looks the all-seeing Eye, the omnipresent government of Gilead, but her secret sexual partner says they're with him and she'll see freedom. Thus, it leaves us uncertain as to her fate. According to Offred, she'll be happy with whatever "new beginning" she experiences; either she receives death out of her intolerable life or she actually will escape the country and be free. It's a sound ending, not top ten material, but still, I appreciate it. 

 

Wait just a second Margaret Atwood, what are these twenty pages after the ending of our protagonist's story? Are you telling me that instead of strengthening your message by ending there with an air of uncertainty, you instead decide to resolve the story and then some? Not following the format of the book, there is a section titled "Historical Notes on The Handmaid's Tale." When I saw this I thought it was just a postscript from the author, but apparently, it is a transcript of a lecture discussing and presenting their thoughts on an audio recording of The Handmaid's Tale in the year 2195. The recording which was illegal in Gilead, Offred managed to do at some point in her journey to freedom. I do not understand why the author would want to go this route at the end. Maybe she instead wants her final ending point to be don't make assumptions which is what Atwood was doing a commentary with the speaker in the lecture I believe. But why? That theme wasn't even explored in any other part of this book.  If you have read this book, and I know a couple people have in our class, I would welcome your explanation and interpretation of this ending, because, at the moment, I don't get it.

Altogether, my experience with The Handmaid's Tale has been a positive one even if I've been overly critical of the book. Perhaps that's because I gauged this book on the impact 1984, Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451  had on me. Perhaps I viewed those books through rose-tinted glasses. But the difference still remains I don't think my first-time reading experience of The Handmaid's Tale was as memorable as a journey as the others. For it being more modern than its counterparts, I feel like it is more dated. With classics, I feel like I always have an excuse for something repugnant or obstinate about the work. I give them the benefit of the doubt; it was a different time, I'll say. What can I say excusing a book made in 1985? Oh well, I'll say, maybe it wasn't for me. Ergo, that's the end of this blog for week 5. I would recommend this book for people who are a feminist and desire to read some literature surrounding that cause. Otherwise, read the other dystopian novels mentioned in this blog, then, if you are craving more, read The Handmaid's Tale.

If commenting, ask me about the novel's place in high school. The book used to be read in Modern Literature classes at CCDHS (how I got my book).  I wrote a decent paragraph on it, but cut it because it didn't relate to the focus of the blog.