Tuesday, September 28, 2010

For Thursday: Part III of Heart of Darkness


More questions/passages/ideas to chew on...


* Toward the end of the work, Marlow is discussing Kurtz with the manager, who dismisses Kurtz’s madness as the result of an “unsound method.”  Marlow counters with “No method at all.”  In other passages of the work, Marlow discusses his method—or the need for one.  What does he mean by this?  What quality does he feel he has that Kurtz lacks? 

* A passage to consider, page 74: "But the wilderness had found him out early, and had taken on him a terrible vengeance for the fantastic invasion.  I think it had whispered to him things about himself which he did not know, things of which he had no conception till he took counsel with this great solitude—and the whisper had proved irresistibly fascinating.  It echoed loudly within him because he was hollow at the core…”

* And on page 75: "I seemed at one bound to have been transported into some lightless region of subtle horrors, where pure, uncomplicated savagery was a positive relief, being something that had a right to exist—obviously—in the sunshine."

Re-read the famous passage, where Kurtz, ill and nearly insensible, cries out “the horror!  the horror!”  What does Marlowe believe he has “seen” to provoke this outcry, and has he seen it himself?


Related to the above, why does Marlow lie about Kurtz’s last words to his fiancĂ©e?  This passage seems to relate to an earlier statement Marlow made about women…what is he protecting here? 

From Freud's The Uncanny (1919)

Below are the passages from Freud's "The Uncanny" we discussed in class relating to Heart of Darkness.  Consider how images of Africa, the natives, and Kurtz himself play into "the uncanny," which is both alien and familiar (hauntingly so) to Marlowe.  This reading suggests that the voyage is less into physical than mental "darkness," uncovering a past which has been sublimated beneath the spires of culture and British civilization.  And yet, it lurks there still...

"However, after considering the manifest motivation behind the figure of the double, we have to own that none of this helps us understand the extraordinary degree of uncanniness that attaches to it, and we may add, drawing upon our knowledge of pathological mental processes, that none of this content could explain the defensive urge that ejects it from the ego as something alien.  Its uncanny quality can surely derive only from the fact that the double is a creation that belongs to a primitive phase in our mental development, a phase that we have surmounted, in which it admittedly had a more benign significance.  The double has become an object of terror, just as the gods become demons after the collapse of their cult…this phase did not pass without leaving behind in us residual traces that can still make themselves felt, and that everything we known find ‘uncanny’ meets the criterion that is linked with these remnants of animistic mental activity…”

Saturday, September 25, 2010

For Tuesday: Heart of Darkness, Part II (46-71)

NOTE: Even though I said we would finish Heart of Darkness for Tuesday, it's so incredibly rich that I think we should go slower and only focus on Part II for Tuesday.  That said, if you feel compelled to finish the work for Tuesday by all means do so; we will tackle Part III on Thursday. 

A few passages to consider a close reading (or at least a further examination of ):

Page 51: "The earth seemed unearhtly.  We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there--there you could look at a thing monstrous and free.  It was unearthly, and the men were--No, they were not inhuman.  Well, you know, that was the worst of it--the suspicion of their not being inhuman."

Page 61: "then suddenly, as though a veil had been removed from my eyes, I made out, deep in the tangled gloom, naked breasts, arms, legs, glaring eyes--the bush was swarming with human limbs in movement, glistneing, of brozen colour.  The twigs shook, swayed, and rustled, the arrows flew out of them, and then the sutter came to..."

Page 64: "They say the hair goes on growing sometimes, but this--ah--specimen was impressively bald.  The wilderness has patted him on the head, and, behold, it was like a ball--an ivory ball; it had caressed him, and --lo!--he had withered: it had taken him, loved him, embraced him, got into his veins, consumed his flesh, and sealed his soul to its own by the inconcievable ceremonies of some devilish initiation."

Page 65: "He had taken a high seat amongst the devils of the land--I mean literally.  You can't undetrstand.  How could you?--with solid pavement under your feet, surrounded by kind neighbors ready to cheer you or fall on you, stepping delicately between the butcher and the policeman, in the holy terror of scandal and gallows and lunatic asylums--how can you imagine what particular region of the first ages a man's untrammeled feet may take him into by the way of solitude..."

Page 69: 'Don't you talk with Mr. Kurtz?' I said.  'You don't talk with that man--you listen to him,' he exclaimed, with severe exaltation...'I tell you,' he cried, 'this man has enlarged my mind.'  He opened his arms wide, staring at me with his little blue eyes that were perfectly round."   

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

For Thursday: Conrad's Heart of Darkness, Part I (pp.17-46)

Joseph Conrad, writer of darkness

Ideas to consider for Part I of Heart of Darkness:

* How does the narrator describe Marlowe in Part I?  What might be significant about these descriptions?

* What role does nature play in the work?  How is it described?  How does it seem to affect Marlowe?

* Why does Marlowe say of the Thames that "this also...has been one of the dark places of the earth?" (19)

* What colonial projects does Marlowe witness in Africa?  What might these say about 'progress,' or 'Englishness'?  

* Related to the above, how to the English maintain their identity from their "dark" surroundings?  How is one to tell the English from the 'savage'? 

* Why is his trip to the "heart of darkness"?  How is the idea of darkness explored/explained in this first part of the book?  How does Marlowe define "darkness"--and is this belief confirmed in Africa? 

Thursday, September 16, 2010

For Tuesday: Exam #1

If you missed class today, you missed a discussion on how all literature can be nationalistic and/or colonialist, meaning that it exhibits a distinct set of values unique to that culture...values that are often defined against an "other," be in a race, a group, or an idea.  We discussed this in relation to Jane Eyre, and I gave examples from widely divergent works such as The Lord of the Rings and Robinson Crusoe.  For your exam on Tuesday, I will give you a two part exam: Part One is in-class, followed by Part Two, which is a take-home essay question.  I let students begin writing on this question in class, which is pasted below:

Thinking about one of your favorite books or films, consider how it might be “national” or contain a national/racial point of view that defines itself against “others,” whatever those others might be.  Consider who it’s heroes are, where they live, how they act, and what world(s) they function in.  What is the “norm” in this world, and consider if this norm is universal or national in a way that would exclude or possibly leave out other “norms.” 

This essay question will be due on Thursday, either in-class or by 5pm via e-mail or my box (336C).  I will not accept late papers, so please get it in on time! 

For the In-Class portion of the exam, you MUST read one of the following essays in the back of Oroonoko or Wide Sargasso Sea:

Brown, The Romance of Empire: Oroonoko and the Trade in Slaves (Norton, 232-245)

OR

Rody, Burning Down the House: The Revisionary Paradigm of Jean Rhys' Wide Sargasso Sea (Norton, 217-225)

You will answer questions on ONE of the essays for your In-Class exam.  The In-Class portion will be a series of short essay questions that will challenge how you can analyze the two works from a different perspectives (colonial, feminist, etc.).  As long as you read the works, responded to the daily responses, and listened in class, you should do amazingly well.  If not, then...

Please e-mail me with questions or concerns. 

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Readings/Writing for Tuesday

Finish Part Three of Wide Sargasso Sea (105-112) if you haven’t already

Then read BACKGROUNDS (119-156):
* Bronte, from Jane Eyre
* Rhys, Selected Letters
* Rhys, Selected Excerpts (The Bible is Modern, etc.)

For Tuesday’s class, I want you to read the above excerpts, and use them to “read” some aspect or passage of the novel. How do Rhys’ other writings, or Bronte’s original novel shed light on what Rhys wrote or how she may have wanted us to see it? How do her letters reveal her own creative struggle to bring the “madwoman in the attic” to life, as well as discuss her own identity as a “postcolonial”/Caribbean writer in English? Also consider how the short essays may “rewrite” or expand upon ideas that are implicit in Wide Sargasso Sea itself. Be SPECIFIC and use these background writings as theory: that is, as a way to decipher and understand the subjective and mercurial nature of a literary work.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

For Thursday: Wide Sargasso Sea (finish Part Two)

Painting of Jean Rhys and Antoinette Cosway (2006)
Questions and ideas to consider for Thursday’s reading…
  • Why does Rochester insist on calling Antoinette “Bertha” in the story? What might this change signal for him, especially in a novel where, as Antoinette herself says, “names are important”?
  • Do you feel Rochester is a reliable or an unreliable narrator? Is he supposed to be sympathetic or unsympathetic? Is anything he records or presents to the reader “true”?
  • What role does Daniel Cosway play in the novel? Why does Rochester ultimately agree to meet him, and what is the result of this meeting?
  • Christophine says to Rochester that “You young but already you hard. You fool the girl. You make her think you can’t see the sun for looking at her” (Norton, 92). Was it Rochester’s plan to destroy her—to punish her? And if so, for what reason?
  • Why does Rochester allow himself to be seduced by Amelie? Is this a simple fling, as gentlemen were expected to have, or is there something more allegorical behind this seduction?
  • Is Antoinette “mad”? Does she suffer from a family illness, as evidenced in her mother and brother…or is her madness merely the result of the ‘colonial gaze,’ which sees her as alien and ‘other’? Is her ‘madness’ simply characteristics that are not valued in England?

Friday, September 3, 2010

A Note of Interest: Modern Library's 100 Greatest Novels

As a curiosity, I came across Modern Library's highly subjective list of the 100 greatest novels published in English.  What you might find interesting is that two of the novels in this class, Wide Sargasso Sea (#94) and Kim (#78) made the list, and two other writers did as well V.S. Naipaul (represented by A House for Mr. Biswas and A Bend in the River) and Joseph Conrad (for Nostromo and Lord Jim).  And you thought you weren't getting an education!  You can find the complete list here: http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html

Thursday, September 2, 2010

For Tuesday: Rhys' Wide Sargasso Sea (read to around page 50 or so)

Jean Rhys as a young woman
NOTE: See the post BELOW for more discussion and ideas about Kincaid's "A Small Place" (if you're not already exhausted by it).  It was our best discussion yet, so I kind of want to prolong it.  Remember, I'm not trying to offend anyone, but to complicate our views about the 'postcolonial' world, which may or may not even exist!

Some ideas to consider when reading/responding to Wide Sargasso Sea:

1. How does the novel contrast Antoinette with the rest of her society, almost all of whom are recently liberated slaves?  Why do they call her "white nigger" and "white cockroach," and how might this hint at tensions in power structure of slavery itself? 

2. How does Rhys use the landscape as a character itself in the novel?  How is it described and how do individual characters, such as Antoinette and Rochester, respond to it? 

3. Examine the passage on page 23-25 when the estate is burned down.  What is the significance of this scene and what happens (and what is said)? 

4. Why does Christophine stay with the family when everyone else abandons them?  What role do you feel she plays in the novel?

Some Additional Thoughts on Kincaid

Nice, heated, but informed disucssion on Thursday!  I wish we had more time to discuss Kincaid specifically, but we can return to many of her ideas in future classes.  Here are some additional ideas to ponder based on points made in class (but not developed), and some of the responses I glanced at after class:

* Is colonialism truly over?  We talk about people getting over their situation and moving on, but is there a historical date for colonialism ending for any country?  And if so, what does it change?  Can a colonial country (Britain, France, etc.) still rule without ruling?  What does 'independence' really mean? 

* Is part of the outrage/insult we feel reading Kincaid based on the fact that the narrator (who is supposed to be limited or omniscient, but in both cases largely unaware of 'us') calls us out?  Traditionally, the narrator is supposed to be our 'guide' through a world, and here the narrator turns on us, making us complicit in the 'fictional' world she creates.

* Is she trying to make American/European readers feel the same outrage that indigenous people have felt for centuries in novels?  Remember, from Columbus onwards, most writing and novels have made no bones about calling natives "lazy, stupid, weak, unintelligent, inferior," etc.  Is she trying to take power back and call those who would be complicit in tourism "ugly"?  By mastering the language, is she also hijacking the genre itself and making it speak for her? 

* Even though many countries rely on tourism and many natives participate in it, does that make it right?  Can Kincaid still read it as an evil and colonialist institution even if most of Antigua disagrees with her?  (in a related argument, if a Native American writer, such as LeAnne Howe or Sherman Alexie, criticizes Native American mascots in sports, do other Native Americans have to agree?  Do they need a consensus?).

* Consider how many of the arguments we read about in defense of slavery can be equally applied against Kincaid's argument.  Like her or not, it's chilling how we can use many of the same 200/300 year-old arguments (we're protecting them, they need us, their lives are better, we're bringing them civilization and a chance at a market economy, etc.).   

* And finally, is being ignorant an excuse?  A 'tourist' doesn't know about the postcolonial issues of an Antigua or a Barbados, etc.  He/she only went there to escape from their own taxing lives.  Are you innocent if you simply didn't know?  And can you help the economy of a nation while destroying its soul?

And here's a final quote from Kincaid from a later part of A Small Place: "Eventually, the masters left, in a kind of way; eventually, the slaves were freed, in a kind of way.  The people in Antigua now, the people who really think of themselves as Antiguans (and the people who would immediately come to your mind when you think about what Antiguans might be like; I mean, supposing you were to think about it), are the descendants of those noble and exalted people, the slaves.  Of course, the whole thing is, once you cease to be a master, once you throw off your master's yoke, you are no longer human rubbish, you are just a human being, and all the things that adds up to.  So, too, with the slaves.  Once they are no longer slaves, once they are free, they are no longer noble and exalted: they are just human beings."