Milkman as Birdman

As I read the ending of Song of Solomon, I couldn’t help but compare the ending of the Song of Solomon to the ending of the movie Birdman. Now, this blog post will contain very serious spoilers for the movie Birdman so if you haven’t seen Birdman and don’t want it to be spoiled for you STOP READING NOW and so see Birdman!!

There. Now I have hopefully weeded out all the people who want to avoid spoilers and now the only people left are the ones who have either seen Birdman or don’t really care.

In the ending of Birdman, the main character of the movie jumps out of a window. There is no shot of him after he leaves the window ledge and one character is seen looking out of the same window wistfully moments after he jumps, leaving ambiguity as to if the main character has flown or fallen.

This reminded me a lot of the ending of Song of Solomon. They both have main characters who are fascinated with flight and both stories have supernatural elements. At the ending of both, if you have believed the supernatural and mystical elements the whole time you would have little trouble believing the more optimistic of successful flight, but if you do not buy into these it is also easy to see how both characters could be committing suicide and falling to their deaths. In Birdman he is a superhero type character, yet it is ambiguous if this character is only in his mind.

In Song of Solomon Milkman discovers he is from a legendary tribe of flying men, yet this is only a story and is not concrete evidence that Milkman can fly. In both stories, the ending is left open to the interpretation of the reader. Both have evidence for a more optimistic interpretation where they fly. In Song of Solomon, there is the line about being able to ride the air makes it appear as though Milkman has achieved his dreams of flight and in Birdman the other character’s calm at seeing what has happened out of the window achieves the same.

I think that both endings are very beautiful and fascinating. I think that the ambiguity of the ending adds a lot to the story, but I can see how these endings could be frustrating to the reader/viewer. With no complete ending, the reader is left to wonder about both endings. What do you think?

Annette and Antoinette- An Exploration of “Like Mother Like Daughter”

Throughout Wide Sargasso Sea we see a strained and complicated relationship between Antoinette and her mother Annette. From the beginning of the book, we see Anette pushing away Antoinette. She does not want anything to do with Antoinette, and if this is because she does not want to hurt Antoinette or does not Antoinette to bother and hurt her is not entirely clear. Personally, I think that her motives are a combination of these two ideas. I think that Annette sees herself in Antoinette and does not like this. She does not want to make her daughter like herself because she hates herself and the life that she lives so she keeps herself away from her daughter as to not “rub off” on her. But, I also think that this is not entirely self-sacrificing. I think that it upsets her to see Antoinette because she does not like herself so anything she sees of herself in Antoinette she hates, therefore making it difficult for Annette to be around her daughter so she gives up at having a relationship with her daughter and leaves her to fend for herself.

Throughout the whole of the novel we see people saying Antoinette is just like her mother and will become just like her mother, and we do in fact see this happening. We see Antoinette start to struggle with mental illness just like her mother before her. We see Antoinette with a husband that she does not love, or even really like, and who cheats on her. We see Antoinette with the same feelings of not belonging or fitting in socially, all of which we saw with her mother.

But, how much of this is caused by her being her mother’s daughter and how much is just the circumstances they are both put in?? It is easy to argue that Antoinette might have had legitimate hereditary reasoning for her mental health deteriorating like we see in the novel. With modern studies of mental health, we do see that mental illness is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Therefore, we can see how it is possible for Antionette to have inherited the same mental illness as her mother, but I think another argument is that Annette and Antoinette have had similar struggles in their lives that could have caused mental illness. They both have a lack of sense of belonging in their environment and husbands who do not help this. As well, for her entire life Antoinette was told that she was like her mother, and no matter if this is true or not telling someone that they are crazy over and over will eventually make them start to feel crazy.

What do you think? How much is Antoinette like her mother? Are there other ways that I missed? Or, do you think that they are very different?

Meursault is the Universe

At the end of The Stranger, one line caught my attention. This line was “I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother” which was Meursault describing how he feels like he is a brother to the universe. I see this in an even more drastic case than Meursault puts it, I see that in many ways, Meursault is the same as the Universe.

For one, people hearing about Meursault’s case view Meursault’s murder of the Arab much in the way that they view someone dying from natural causes in one key way; they want to know why. The people try to give reason to the life Meursault took in the same way that they try to give reason to a life that the Universe takes, they don’t want to accept that there is really no reasoning. It is all arbitrary, but people do not find that comforting so they try to give answers. Yet, neither the universe nor Meursault have answers to offer.

As well, Meursault goes through his life mostly observing without significant opinion on what other people are doing. This is like he way that the Universe could be said to be impassive to the life of the world. Meursault is also is several times impassive towards bad things that Raymond does, for instance when he doesn’t call the police when he hears Raymond beating his girlfriend. The universe could also be impassive towards bad things that people do and are not brought to justice for the same as Meursault does in relation to Raymond.

The way that Meursault deals with his mother’s death is very similar to the way that the universe “deals with” any death; the universe just moves on without any thought. The planets still turn, the people of earth still go about their daily lives. To people who are grieving a loss like this, it might seem insensitive or incorrect how little the world stops after such a seemingly important event, but this is simply how the world operates. Comparatively, this is simply how Meursault operates. People don’t want this to be true because it seems insensitive, but Meursault and the universe do not stop their continuance for death.

I think in general the way that Meursault operates and the way the universe operates are very similar, especially in the way that people view actions not taken. Do you think this comparison is meaningful in how we view Meursault? Are there other ways in which Meursault is like the universe?

Bugging Out: An Analysis of the Transformation of Gregor

Over the course of the metamorphosis, Gregor Samsa becomes increasingly insect-like. This is partially due to the transformation of his human body into an insect-like one, but also the treatment of Gregor by his family leads him to develop more insect-like habits and to feel more and more like his internal mind matches his external body.

We have significant evidence that the transformation of Gregor into a bug is not just mental. For one, there is the obvious fact that physically he has turned into an insect. He looks like an insect, his body moves like an insect would, as we can draw from Gregor’s attempts to move his body out of bed in a way that would be successful to get himself out of bed when the body he is human, but when he is a bug he cannot even roll over onto his side. As well, we see that Gregor develops a dislike for milk and for fresh food, things that as a human he very much enjoyed. Gregor says that milk was his favorite drink, but now he does not even want to go near the bowl of milk that his sister sets in front of him. He does, however, enjoy the rotten and old things that his sister brings to him. He is thankful that she has found what he likes to eat now, and eats the rotten food. This shows that Gregor’s transformation has gone more than skin-deep, his instincts on what he should eat and what he should not are far different from what they were when he was fully human.

But, there is evidence that Gregor’s transformation is at least partially mental and environmental, his bug-like tendencies coming from the fact that he is treated as a bug by his family. His isolation, for example, is something that is bug-like but is also because no one in his family tries to see him and their anger at him when he ever leaves his room. As well, his bug-like tendency to hide under the couch whenever his sister enters the room does not come from Gregor’s inherent liking of hiding under couches (unlike his newfound inherent liking for rotten food) it is because he does not want his sister to have to see him in his transformed bug body. So, because of his interactions with others, he becomes more bug-like.

Yet, I think that Gregor’s enjoyment of climbing the walls comes from a combination of these two. Bugs like climbing over the walls, so it would make sense that because Gregor is now in this insect body he likes to climb the walls too, but I also think that Gregor takes up this new hobby as a wall-climber because he has been isolated and has nothing else to do. Here, this new interest is a combination of physical, mental, and environmental factors.

What do you think? What parts of Gregor do you think come from Gregor’s bug-body and which ones do you think come from the way he is being treated by his family? 

In Ernest; Honesty and Transparency in Brett and Jake

Two specific omissions of truth by Brett and Jake come to mind first for me, and I want to spend time unpacking both “lies” and their intentions and implications and comparing them against each other.

I’ll start with a lie that one could hardly call a lie; Jake keeping his injury hushed. This is not a direct lie, but it is the kind of omission of truth that changes some aspects of Jake and his comportment. We can see how this affects Jake as a person, how he acts and how he interacts. He feels like an outsider in a sexually driven culture, his injury affects how he interacts with Brett, and many other parts of him. I think it’s safe to assume that all the characters (like the real people we interact with every day) have similar things that they are all not always transparent about, though most likely with varying degrees in comparison to Jake, who has a large detail of his life that he keeps hidden.

We can now connect this to another omission of truth; when Brett does not tell Jake that she is going to San Sebastian with Cohn. It could be argued that Brett is not intentionally not being transparent with Jake about who is going with her to San Sebastian, but for the sake of conjecture, I will be assuming that she wasn’t mentioning Cohn to Jake on purpose.

I don’t think it’s fair to call either of these omissions of truth intentionally malicious, but there is certainly a different circumstance and motive surrounding both. Neither of them is directly asked questions where they did not tell the truth, so I don’t feel comfortable saying they are “lying” but they are certainly not being completely transparent.

Jake omits the truth to benefit himself. Not to say that Jake is being “selfish” but he deems it beneficial to himself to not tell people about his injury. With that statement about Jake, looking at Brett, her omission of truth is harder to tell who it “benefits”. On one hand, it could be argued that Brett is not telling the truth to benefit Jake because she doesn’t want to hurt Jake’s feelings. Another explanation is that Brett could be lying to protect herself, knowing that Jake would be upset with her. Personally, I think that the explanation is a mix of both.

As well, I think Brett’s lie is shallow in comparison to Jake’s in terms of pervasiveness into their lives. Jake’s  life is shaped by his “secret” and Brett’s “secret” is shaped by how she lives her life.

This is all just a simple comparison, but I think it shows something into the way that they both live their lives and on the ideas of truth and honesty in The Sun Also Rises and in Brett and Jake.

The Importance Of Big Ben in Mrs.Dalloway

Big Ben is the steady heartbeat of Mrs. Dalloway. The sounding of Big Ben indicates the time passing in the novel, and though it is not typically stated what exact time that the bell is sounding (for example Big Ben will be said to be sounding the half hour, but it will not be said which hour it is the half hour of). It gives the book a linear track not possessed in other aspects of the novel, making it more possible to follow what is the “present” in the book, because the book itself doesn’t lean towards being linear, and the actual plot points being mundane, the real significance and core of the book being stories and thoughts from the past and the present mixing together to give us a well-rounded image of the life and being of the characters. Yet, occasionally, the reader gets the tolling of the clock to surface them within the day where the book is set. The clock is an essential feature of the parts of the linear structure that Mrs. Dalloway maintains by giving a clear indication of the passage of time within the day that Mrs. Dalloway is set.

Secondly, it not only centers us in the time during the day that the novel is set over, it centers us into where the novel is located, London. Big Ben is a very recognizable London landmark. When you think of London, that’s one of the images that has been drilled into our minds. Big Ben, The London Eye, The Houses of Parliament, so every time that the novel records the tolling of the clock it assures us of the novel’s location. Mrs. Dalloway is a very British novel from the way it’s written to the fashions to the places Clarissa goes to during the day. It is, in many ways, a commentary on or at very least a reflection of British society and culture so to have that returning reminder of that central feature is an important way for the reader to center themselves within the story, and realize the significance of the story. Without the setting of London and all that post-war London implies, the book loses a large chunk of Virginia Woolf’s likely intentions when she told the story of Mrs. Dalloway.

Finally, Big Ben also serves as a subtle reminder that no matter what is happening in the novel, our perspective is only a small sliver of what is going on in the greater city of London. Woolf’s free indirect discourse goes hand in hand with this, showing the complexity and depth of a city filled with so many people, all with their own storylines that we could follow during this day. The person across from Clarissa on the street could tell as complex a story as Clarissa’s. There are millions of people in London, and thousands likely hearing that bell all at the same time that our characters do.

“Women’s Work”: Peter’s Shaming of Traditionally Feminine Tasks in Mrs. Dalloway

In Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf, we see Clarissa Dalloway performing “women’s work.” By this I mean Mrs. Dalloway is doing jobs that are traditional to the gender roles assigned to women such as sewing, flower arranging, shopping, and, of course, party planning. The way that Clarissa and Peter react to and view these tasks in the novel is telling of how society views females participating in “women’s work.”

Clarissa herself seems to have little problem with the jobs she is doing, she seems to rather like planning parties. She is fulfilling a traditional and “proper” role as Mrs. Richard Dalloway, a competent wife and mother. But, we still see Clarissa thinking about how Peter would view her so willingly participating in this life. When they were younger, Peter called Clarissa “the perfect hostess”, which was meant as an insult to hurt Clarissa. This is telling of how Peter feels about women who chose to fulfill this traditional role. He sees them as lesser, not living up to their potential. He does not think that it is a good thing to be one of these women, or for Clarissa to become one.

Again, when Peter comes to see Mrs. Dalloway he looks down upon her because he thinks that she has been sitting sewing a dress. Sewing is a traditionally feminine task (“women’s work), and Peter does not see this as much of a valid task as some of its more masculine counterparts. Peter’s thoughts about sewing are not about the inherent nature of the action, sewing a dress is a task that requires a certain amount of skill nor is it a meaningless task, yet Peter does not think highly of Mrs. Dalloway when he sees her sewing because of his own views of traditionally feminine tasks. He thinks that Clarissa is above that kind of work, that she has wasted her potential.

Peter’s negative views of Clarissa’s continued voluntary participation in a traditional role for a woman as she lives her life as Mrs. Richard Dalloway is t indicative of a larger problem in society. While women continue to be liberated from the confines of gender roles, those who choose to stay in them are often scorned for their choices. Often, these women are seen as “not living up to their potential”, like Peter sees Mrs. Dalloway. In more modern discourse, it is often argued that these women are setting back the feminist movement, and people get focused on shooting women such as single mothers or stay-at-home moms down. Many would counter this ideology is very destructive because it continues to perpetuate the idea that femininity is wrong, which clashes with the ability of women to make their own decisions about how they want to live.

In Mrs. Dalloway, Clarissa fulfills a gender norm for the time and performs a few different traditionally feminine tasks. Peter Walsh looks down on her for these, thinking that she has wasted her potential. But, ultimately, it is most important to look at Clarissa’s decision about what she wants to do and about the “women’s work” she chooses to do.