I had a difficult time picking a poem for my poetry reading because I'm very indecisive and liked so many of the ones I read, but I ultimately went with "Beverly Hills, Chicago" because I liked the vivid imagery (like what someone said in class, I really got the sense that I was in the car with them) and I thought that the tone/overall idea would work well for discussion. And it did so that's cool.
This poem isn't particularly ambiguous to me. Gwendolyn Brooks tells a story about a group of people driving by a rich neighborhood in a car. However, I think there's a lot going on that adds to the overall idea of the poem. Like Kavi said in class today, the way the poem is recited has an impact on how it's interpreted. I considered reading it more sarcastically because I'm quite a sarcastic person so it wouldn't have been all that difficult, but I chose to read it in a more subdued way because I took the second half of the poem as conveying more longing and slight jealousy rather than pure anger. The last stanza especially gives me a sense that the feelings of those in the car is more All the people in this neighborhood still have problems, their trash is trash, they're all still people, but at the same time, by the end of the poem, the mood changes in the car and there is the sense that something is not quite right. But, I definitely see how reading it slightly differently can completely change the meaning. This is something that I like about the poem. Despite being pretty straightforward (at least in my opinion), it can still be interpreted in so many ways, and I like this versatility.
The story itself is also something I found kind of interesting. I think all the emotions evoked just from driving by a nice neighborhood really emphasizes economic tension, though it's not quite as pronounced. This could relate back to the idea about the slightly jealous tone of the poem, but again, it depends on how the poem is actually read.
Overall, I just really like this poem. Brooks did a great job of giving a lot to think about and analyze but not making it so there are too many things to take in.
~~~
Friday, September 26, 2014
Friday, September 12, 2014
Dentures and Such
A lot happened in chapter 10. There was a lot of discussion in class. Here is a blog post. (more of an extended question I guess)
There was so much symbolism in chapter 10, from the paint to Kimbro to the union. I could write so much about just the paint scene and Kimbro, but I'll save that for later. It was a lot to take in, but I feel like the amount of symbolism corresponds to the development of the narrator as an individual. Especially with the Optic White paint, it seemed like the narrator was becoming more aware and all the details given made us more aware as well. It seemed like quite a dramatic change, from the breakfast scene earlier.
And then there's the dentures. Overall, I found the scene quite humorous and somewhat anticlimactic, but I still enjoyed reading it. However, it also raised some questions. In class, there were many comments about how the narrator fighting Brockway really showcased his development as a character. I don't doubt that we see changes in the narrator at this point (see previous paragraph for thoughts on that), but I can't help but wonder: if the narrator was still as submissive and innocent as in chapter 1, what would he have done? Would he have defended himself against Mr. Brockway if put in this situation at an earlier stage in his life? Or would he have just allowed Mr. Brockway to hurt him? The narrator believed that Mr. Brockway was stabbing him, so I have a hard time believing that he would have just stood there and allowed it to happen. Thoughts in the comments?
~~~
There was so much symbolism in chapter 10, from the paint to Kimbro to the union. I could write so much about just the paint scene and Kimbro, but I'll save that for later. It was a lot to take in, but I feel like the amount of symbolism corresponds to the development of the narrator as an individual. Especially with the Optic White paint, it seemed like the narrator was becoming more aware and all the details given made us more aware as well. It seemed like quite a dramatic change, from the breakfast scene earlier.
And then there's the dentures. Overall, I found the scene quite humorous and somewhat anticlimactic, but I still enjoyed reading it. However, it also raised some questions. In class, there were many comments about how the narrator fighting Brockway really showcased his development as a character. I don't doubt that we see changes in the narrator at this point (see previous paragraph for thoughts on that), but I can't help but wonder: if the narrator was still as submissive and innocent as in chapter 1, what would he have done? Would he have defended himself against Mr. Brockway if put in this situation at an earlier stage in his life? Or would he have just allowed Mr. Brockway to hurt him? The narrator believed that Mr. Brockway was stabbing him, so I have a hard time believing that he would have just stood there and allowed it to happen. Thoughts in the comments?
~~~
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Invisibility
Time for another blog post? (If you can't tell, I haven't quite figured out how to start these posts yet. Maybe I'll get it eventually)
Today in class, someone said something in class that I would like to explore more. I can't remember who it was because I have terrible memory and also 9 am is very early, but it had to do with the blindness of the narrator, and kind of went something like this:
During chapter 1, the narrator had on a blindfold and was participating in this battle royal and not once questioning the morality of what was happening, and was blind in the sense that he both had on a blindfold and also in general was not seeing what was wrong with what was happening and blindly accepting the events that were occurring. (Sorry that wasn't as good of an explanation as I expected, but hopefully it kind of made sense) At the end of the chapter, when he received his scholarship, he had his blindfold off and saw what was happening, but then seemed to happily put on another blindfold and go to college.
This got me thinking. Is this blindness more because of ignorance or just following the words of his grandfather? I think throughout the book it's both, but in chapter 1 maybe more ignorance (especially because these battle royals weren't atypical) and more following his grandfather in chapter 2. I found that I was extremely frustrated with the narrator in chapter 1. Seriously, he didn't react at all to being thrown in a ring and made to beat up other people when he was supposed to be giving a speech. I understand that a battle royal was likely not a new thing that the narrator encountered, but I don't think he was so blind as to not even acknowledge this blatant racial divide.
In chapter 2, I wasn't quite as frustrated with him. The narrator was less blind (?) but it seemed to me that he wanted to be blind as a way to fulfill his grandfather's wishes. Was that paradoxical? I got the impression that he would rather be blind so he could please Mr. Norton and as a result in a way do what his grandfather wanted and please white people and fight oppression by being subservient. But then again, maybe being blind would be a way to forget his grandfather's last words that have haunted him for so long? I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if in these beginning chapters (before the sarcastic, light bulb hoarding "version" of the narrator from the prologue) blindness is necessarily a negative thing?
Just some thoughts.
~~~
Today in class, someone said something in class that I would like to explore more. I can't remember who it was because I have terrible memory and also 9 am is very early, but it had to do with the blindness of the narrator, and kind of went something like this:
During chapter 1, the narrator had on a blindfold and was participating in this battle royal and not once questioning the morality of what was happening, and was blind in the sense that he both had on a blindfold and also in general was not seeing what was wrong with what was happening and blindly accepting the events that were occurring. (Sorry that wasn't as good of an explanation as I expected, but hopefully it kind of made sense) At the end of the chapter, when he received his scholarship, he had his blindfold off and saw what was happening, but then seemed to happily put on another blindfold and go to college.
This got me thinking. Is this blindness more because of ignorance or just following the words of his grandfather? I think throughout the book it's both, but in chapter 1 maybe more ignorance (especially because these battle royals weren't atypical) and more following his grandfather in chapter 2. I found that I was extremely frustrated with the narrator in chapter 1. Seriously, he didn't react at all to being thrown in a ring and made to beat up other people when he was supposed to be giving a speech. I understand that a battle royal was likely not a new thing that the narrator encountered, but I don't think he was so blind as to not even acknowledge this blatant racial divide.
In chapter 2, I wasn't quite as frustrated with him. The narrator was less blind (?) but it seemed to me that he wanted to be blind as a way to fulfill his grandfather's wishes. Was that paradoxical? I got the impression that he would rather be blind so he could please Mr. Norton and as a result in a way do what his grandfather wanted and please white people and fight oppression by being subservient. But then again, maybe being blind would be a way to forget his grandfather's last words that have haunted him for so long? I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if in these beginning chapters (before the sarcastic, light bulb hoarding "version" of the narrator from the prologue) blindness is necessarily a negative thing?
Just some thoughts.
~~~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)