Achebe

Chinua Achebe’s “Dead Men’s Path” exemplifies, on a broad spectrum, the ongoing conflict between old and new. The story follows Michael Obi, the new headmaster of Ndume School. The setting is Nigeria in 1949. He is described as “young and eccentric” with a “passion for ‘modern methods’ (Achebe 1). He is very eager to turn the “unprogressive” school around. His wife (whose description I find fascinating- hoping to discuss it in class) decorates the school accordingly. To his surprise, he finds a path in the flowers. He orders that the path be closed. The Ani priest of the village tells him of the animist beliefs of the village- that the path connects the spiritual and the physical world. Obi, as a modern, well educated, and ambitious headmaster, is excited by this. He seems to take pleasure in telling the priest that the point of their school is to eradicate such beliefs. In the end, the villagers break down the fence used to block the path and vandalize the school and the flowers around it. The supervisor then came to inspect the school, giving it an unfavorable review. He also states that the “tribal-war situation developing between the school and the village” was due in part to the “misguided zeal” of the new headmaster (Achebe 3).

                I believe that this story represents the power struggle between old and new, as well as the unwillingness to tolerate the ideas of others. The villagers of that time subscribed to a very animist system of beliefs, represented by the path in the flowers. Instead of allowing the villagers to keep their path, and in turn, their beliefs, the headmaster denies them both by closing the path. Because of this, the villagers tear down the fence and trample the flowers. This is important for two reasons. The first is that, by denying them the right to hold their beliefs because of his excitement to implement his own, the headmaster started a war with the villagers. He was narrow minded and subscribed only to his own point of view of modern reform, evident by the statement "The whole purpose of our school is to eradicate just such beliefs as that. Dead men do not require footpaths. The whole idea is just fantastic. Our duty is to teach your children to laugh at such ideas" (Achebe 2). His unwillingness to tolerate the ideas of others could be considered the “dead men’s path”- the path that will only lead to confrontation. To that end, the flowers are also important. The flowers symbolize how fragile the headmasters’ modern beliefs are in comparison to the long-held animist beliefs of the villagers. The headmasters’ modern flowers are trampled by the villagers, just his “misguided zeal” for modern-reform is trampled by the old, fundamental beliefs of the people on whom he tried to impose them. 

Saboteur

Ha Jin’s “Saboteur” takes on many meanings as you delve further into the context of both the setting and the author. It was written during the Cultural Revolution, a time when China was trying to enforce true communist ideology and abolish elitism. Because of that, there was a lot of hatred aimed scholars- at people like Chiu, the protagonist of our story. Chui is on vacation with his wife in Muji when police officers throw tea at their feet. Outraged, Chui speaks up and accuses the police of disrupting the public order they were supposed to uphold. He states “Comrade Police, your duty is to keep order, but you purposely tortured us common citizens. Why violate the law you are supposed to enforce?” (Jin 272). Because of this, he is arrested and held in prison until he confesses to the crime that he did not commit.

                This irony is only one example of the many in this story. Irony is the most abundant literary device. I believe this irony represents the idea that actions and consequences are arbitrary and disconnected. Chiu is arrested for trying to uphold justice when the police fail. There is disconnect between his action and the consequence. This would be counter-intuitive to the concept of true justice, which I believe this story is arguing against.

                At the beginning of the story, Chiu believes in truth and justice. He has faith that his government and communist party will abide by the idea that all people are treated equally before the law, and therefore has faith that he will not remain in jail. However, his belief in this justice fades as the story progresses. He soon learns that the system will not support him. Desperate, he turns his faith in justice to something else- to the media. He claims that he will turn to the newspapers and the press to inform the world of the injustice that has happened to him. However, that threat is not taken seriously.

                In the end, when Chui signs an acknowledgement of the crime he did not commit, his faith in true justice has vanished completely. He knows that there is nowhere he can turn in order to reprimand those who have done him an injustice. He decides to take justice into his own hands by deliberately spreading his hepatitis that has been acting up throughout the story. As a result, over 800 people are infected with 6 deaths, two of them being children. This is the most important part of the story for me. It undermines the concept of true justice. There was no way for Chui to achieve justice other than to take it into his own hands. Similarly, though we see the death of these people as unjust, it may have very well appeared just to Chiu, who had been wronged by not only the police of that town who arrested him, but by the citizens of the town who had provided eye-witness accounts of the incident. 

Brokeback Mountain

“Tell you what, we could a had a good life together, a fuckin real good life. You wouldn’t do it, Ennis, so what we got now is Brokeback Mountain. Everthing built on that. It’s all we got, boy, fuckin all, so I hope you know that if you don’t never know the rest.”

Of the love stories we have read this semester, I believe Annie Proulx’s “Brokeback Mountain” was the most exemplary. The theme of love in this story is seen as a force of nature- one that cannot be controlled. The story is narrated by Ennis, our protagonist. The writing is italicized in the beginning and written in past tense, then written as a flashback, shifting to past tense. As the story begins, Ennis tells us how his current troubles pale in comparison to the pleasure he is filled with as a result of the dream he had just had about Jack Twist, his lover. The story then switches to past tense and Ennis tells us about his experience on Brokeback Mountain.

Ennis gets a summer job working as a camp tender on Brokeback Mountain. This is where he meets Jack, who also has a job there as a sheep herder. During their time together, they end up falling in love. However, they continuously deny their homosexuality. Ennis tells Jack a story about how when he was a child, his father took him to see the body of a murdered gay rancher. This is symbolic of the idea that society, at that time (the 1960’s), looks upon the love between two men unfavorably.

 One of the things I find very interesting is that Brokeback Mountain is a fictional setting in Wyoming. However, the rest of the areas mentioned in the story are non-fictional. I believe this was done intentionally, making Brokeback Mountain symbolic of love as a concept in the face of adversity, evident by the quote above. Love, in the story, is described as a force that cannot be controlled, despite the societal norms that might inhibit the love of these two men. Such is evident when Ennis says to Jack (about their relationship) “There’s no reins on this one. It scares the piss out of me”. Brokeback Mountain embodies, in my interpretation of the story, the ethereal romance that takes place between Jack and Ennis. It can be seen as too true and true delicate for the outside world during that time, which is why it develops in a fictional setting. The expression of their love in the outside world (in non-fictional settings) ends tragically. Ennis ends up divorced and his wife sees their love as sickening, while Jack ends up dead- Ennis suspects that he was murdered. Similarly, when their boss see’s Jack and Ennis through the binoculars, it can be seen as the representation of the way the outside world looks down on their love, thus interfering with and defiling a place of beauty with judgment the same way judgment defiled the life they could have had together. However, despite the societal norms they were instilled with, their love could not be controlled, as Ennis still dreams of Jack. 

O'Connor

Subject to analysis today is Flannery O’Connor’s “Everything that Rises Must Converge”. There were many elements of this story worthy of inspection, however, the main focus of my discussion will focus primarily on the dichotomy between Julian and his mother, as well as the way it manifests in the form of race. I believe that this relationship is representative of the dichotomy of “the old” and “the new”. In the story, Julian is perpetually annoyed with his mother. Even though she provides him with a place to stay because he does not make enough money to support himself right out of college, he is still very hostile towards her. He cannot tolerate her racism, nor can he tolerate her obsession with appearance, both of which represent her innate disposition to an old view of the world. For example, his mother believes that appearance is a representation of who a person really is; their appearance is their identity. This is evident when Julian removes his tie and his mother asks “. “Why must you look like that when you take me to town? Why must you deliberately embarrass me?” (O’Connor 3). As such, she continues to dress as though she were as wealthy as she once was and prides herself on the neighborhood in which she lives, despite having lost her wealth and the deterioration of the neighborhood. This representative of her unwillingness to adopt the new ways of the world. In contrast, Julian believes that a person’s identity lies within their mind.

                The big theme, however, that both separates and unites Julian and his mother, as well as highlights their distinct different points of view on the world (old and new) is that of racism. Julian’s mother is flat out racist. She opposes the newly desegregated society and believes herself to be above African Americans. Her sense of entitlement is presented in many lines throughout the story such as “I've always had a great respect for my colored friends” (O’Connor 2). Julian, on the other hand, believes himself to be much more liberal and accepting of the newly desegregated world, due perhaps in part to his college education. However, though he does believe himself to be accepting and liberal towards desegregation, let it be noted that he might be considered just as racist as his mother. He never really shows empathy for African Americans, nor does he ever really see them as people as often as he sees them as tools with which he can anger his mother. He seeks to engage African American people as though they were trophies with which he can declare his new, liberal points of view. This is, perhaps, representative of the transitional period between the old and new ideas on topics such as desegregation.  

                The thing that tied everything together for me was the hat. Julian’s mother bought a ridiculous hat that she wore on the bus on the way to the Y. Similarly, the large black woman that got on the bus with Julian and his mother was wearing the same hat. To me, shit shattered the illusion of the old world that Julian’s mother was living in. There she was, riding the same form of public transportation to the same place, wearing the same detestable hat that she liked so much as the person that she considered herself so far above. Her sense of entitlement manifested in the form of the penny she tried to give to the black woman’s child. Though she may have believed herself to be doing the child a kindness, the penny was, in fact, condescending in nature, as Julian suggested. The rejection of the penny declared the woman an independent, free member of society who no longer needed to look to white members of society for support, thus symbolizing the new age whilst simultaneously shattering the old one that Julian’s mother lived in. 

The Voorman Problem

1

11)      “And what kind of God finds wars amusing?”

“A bored one. Yes. I equipped humans’with imaginations mainly so they can dream up new ways to entertain me. ”

22)      “Prisoners are more fun than well-kept congregations”

This is perhaps my favorite of the readings or films we have read or watched thus far. In “The Voorman Problem”, directed by Mark Gill, Dr. Williams (played by Martin Freeman) is a professional psychiatrist hired by Governor Bentley (played by Simmon Griffiths) to address what he refers to as “the Voorman problem”. He explains that inmate Voorman believes himself a god and that the prisoners all subscribe to the same belief. Upon interviewing Voorman, Dr. Williams’s initial clinical reaction is to label him as insane. However, Voorman proposes that, as proof, he will make Belgium disappear by tea time. Doctor Williams tells his wife of the proposal to illustrate how ludicrous it is, only to find that she has never heard of Belgium, and that Belgium no longer exists. During their next meeting, Voorman explains that, as god, he operates for the sole purpose of entertaining himself (a character trait I have as well, at times). He then switches the places of himself and Dr. Williams and exits the room.

 I believe the most important notion to address in this film is the actual “Voorman Problem”. I will explain my theory, which is best exemplified by the quotes above. My interpretation of the film is that “the Voorman problem” refers to the actual “problem” of the possibility of a god in general. The problem is that god, as an entity, might not actually care about the world he has created or its constituents. In fact, he may consider human beings his toys or his prisoners, regardless of whether or not they worship him. Evidence for this claim is abundant throughout the film. When asked about why he remains in the prison if he is a god, Voorman claims “Prisoners are much more fun than well-fed congregations”. I believe there is a dual meaning to this quote, implying that it is more entertaining to control and “imprison” people as god (by creating them for entertainment) than it is to have people surrender their control to you by worshipping you. This idea also reveals a hint of irony in the dialogue. The Governor refers to Voorman as “a prisoner who believes himself a god” when he is, in fact, a god who assumes the role of a prisoner. Similarly, it is all the more ironic because all members of the human race could be considered his prisoners or his play things. This idea is further supported in the beginning when Dr. Williams asks how they "will know when to release the prisoners” to which the governor replies “…release them?” implying that they will never be free, just as humans could never be free from a god like Voorman. This brings to light the main problem; even if we were to look past the flaws in logic and assume there was a god, there is always the possibility that he might be operating under the principle of self-interest. The problem with Voorman (exemplified by the first quote above) is that he created the human race to satisfy his boredom and his need for entertainment, deconstructing the general notions of our purpose in this world. There exists, in our world, the possibility of a god who may have very well done the same. The other part of the Voorman problem is that, as previously mentioned, if this were true and that god did exist, we would all be under his control, making us his eternal prisoners. This is the Voorman problem. 

Tim Parrish

“And in that moment, I hated him, for hitting me, for making Bob go to war, for being an adult in a place that made no sense. But mostly I hated him for being weak the way a child sees weakness, hated him for being unable to solve complexity with a simple gesture, hated him because when he held Mr. Ramos I had seen the limitations of strength” (Parrish 32).

                I believe Tim Parrish’s “It pours” is a coming of age story. Jeb, the narrator and protagonist, lives with his mother and his father. His brother, Bob, enlisted to the army and sent a tape home describing his troubles and his concerns, though it was not intended to be heard by his family. His mother blames his father for not stopping Bob from going to war.

                I believe there were two very interested highlights from this story. The first is the parallel between Jeb’s father, Mr. Ramos, and their families. Both Jeb’s father and Mr. Ramos have “lost” their sons per se, and both seem to blame themselves for it. Mr. Ramos’ son was sent to prison after being arrested for a “marijuana bust”. To that end, I thought it was interesting how Jeb’s father blames Mr. Ramos in the beginning when he states “Ramos shoula kept a firm hand on that boy” (Parrish 12), but refuses to accept the blame for sending Bob to war, claiming that he made his own choice. Both Jeb’s father and Mr. Ramos blame themselves for the conditions of their sons, though neither admits it.

                The second is the manner in which the father’s choose to relieve themselves of their grief, thus adding to the parallel. Jeb’s father continuously cleans and works on the house, though Jeb insists there is nothing left to clean or work on. Mr. Ramos works on his car, starting it four times a day since his son went to prison, a sound Jeb continuously watches out for and takes comfort in. (This part is driving me crazy because I have so many theories on what it might mean but so little evidence). I believe these are both exemplary of the guilt of both of their fathers. Similarly, I believe this comes to light at the end when Mr. Ramos is trying to save his car and confronts Jeb’s father by asking “Who you think you are? You think you’re better than I am?” (Parrish 31), implying that, though his son went to prison and Jeb’s brother went to war, they are equal in the sense that they have both failed as fathers. For Jeb, this brings his father’s weaknesses to light, particularly when he has nothing to say after that scene in the garage. In that moment, he realizes the unfairness and inconsistency of the world, hating his father for being unable to control it in a way he previously thought he could. When his father held Mr. Ramos, he had seen the thread of weakness that tied them together. In that sense, this is a coming of age story for Jeb.