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. 

SQ

“So the Test Ban people couldn't do anything but shout about freedom and accuse Dr. Speakie and the Psychometric Bureau of trying to "turn the world into a huge insane asylum” (Le Guin 73).

I found Ursula K Le Guin’s “SQ” to be a comedic gem, whether its content is inspected literally or looked at through the lens of a critique on contemporary society (the latter being the route I am particularly fond of). In “SQ” a man by the name of Dr. Speakie develops a method of testing a person’s sanity. Should that person test under a 50, it means they are sane. However, should they test over a 50, it means they are insane, and should be institutionalized accordingly. Dr. Speakie and his statistically sane constituents also operate the asylums in which those who fail the test reside.  From the perspective of the reader, the test, perhaps counterintuitive to its purpose, does not seem to be an accurate way of determining the sanity of a person, because the majority of people who take the test fail. This would devalue any practical definition of the word “insane”. So many people fail that test that 60% of the remaining, sane population is used to operate the asylums to treat the 3.8 billion people institutionalized via the S.Q. As a result, the “universal application of the SQ test was eventually going to involve everybody either as Inmates or as Staff” (Le Guin 72).

At first, my contention with the story was the way in which they determined sanity. Although I know this is science fiction, I say this because there is no way of determining if a person is “insane”. Sanity is not even a psychological term, it is a legal term. By law, a person is insane only if they cannot distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. A person cannot be proven insane unless facing a charge in court of law, providing evidence to support such a claim. Similarly, the idea that “right” and “wrong” may change based on the opinion of the majority also helps to devalue the validity of the SQ, considering the majority test insane. However, I soon began to suspect that the legal definition of sanity may imply that our narrator, and in turn the SQ test, is unreliable. Such is evident when Mrs. Smith claims “The people who called him a power seeker were just the same people who used to say that Hitler was insane and Nixon was insane and all the world leaders were insane and the arms race was insane and our misuse of natural resources was insane and the whole world civilization was insane and suicidal” (Le Guin 69). No modern day sane person would believe that these things were not, to some degree, insane, at least in terms of right and wrong. In my eyes, her character was questionable from the beginning, as was the SQ test and Dr. Speaky.

The questionability of both her and Dr. Speakie’s characters serve a bigger purpose in my interpretation of the story. To that end, I believe “sanity” in terms of the story is to be taken with a grain of salt. I believe this measure of “sanity” is actually a comment on contemporary society and the dangers of conformity. In this case, “sane” would be representative of the word “normal”.  The skepticism the reader develops of Dr. Speakie and Mrs. Smith may function as the catalyst that helps pose the question “why would it be a good thing to be normal or 'sane', especially in the context of this story?” I believe the test more likely than not depicts a person’s deviation from normal behavior. Those who deviate too far are to be institutionalized. In an attempt to keep people from deviating too far, the rest of the population is forced to act as the “eternal vigilance” to help pay “the price of liberty” (Le Guin 73). In essence, if the world is divided into those who are insane and those who are not, (or those who are normal and those who are not) it would require that one look after the other to sustain their way of life. In an effort to create a world where no person should deviate too far from the spectrum of sane or “normal” in fear of criticism or ostracism, the world is turned “into a huge insane asylum”, assigning each individual the role of “Inmate” or “Staff”, thus devaluing Doctor Speakie’s innate belief that “Mental health is freedom” (Le Guin 73). 

An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge

“As Peyton Farquhar fell straight downward through the bridge he had lost consciousness and was, as one, already dead” (Bierce 3).

Bierce’s “An occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” is a story that uses extensive and carefully articulated detail to skew the concept of both time and reality, for both its protagonist and the reader. The story takes place during the civil war. The protagonist, Petyon Farquhar, was a planter of a respected family in Alabama. As such, he is a fan of the confederacy and an avid supporter of the confederate army, acting as “the character of a civilian who was, at heart a soldier” This description suggests that Farquhar would perhaps like to be a soldier, and seems himself as such. (Bierce 2). It is because of this that Farquhar decides to attempt to burn down Owl Creek Bridge, which is controlled by the federate army. He received a tip from a confederate soldier, who was actually a union spy. To that end, it should come as no shock that he is thwarted, captured, and sentenced to hang, the place in which our story both begins and ends.  

My favorite thing about this story is the way in which it is written. Bierce uses carefully constructed detail in order articulate disconnect between fantasy and reality, as well as skew the concept of time. The first piece of evidence that suggests to us that Farquhar may be slipping from reality is the description of his watch, where it states “the intervals of silence grew progressively longer; the delays became maddening. With their greater infrequency the sounds increased in strength and sharpness. They hurt his ear like the trust of a knife; he feared he would shriek. What he heard was the ticking of his watch” (Bierce 2). In this moment, Farquhar’s perception of time and reality is skewed, as is our own. Everything that follows takes place in a slow, distorted state of time, which is, in reality, the few seconds it takes for Farquhar to fall to his death. An escape is then described in beautiful detail, all of which turns out to be a product of Farquhar’s imagination, occurring within seconds. The entire vision Farquhar has of escaping his fate at Owl Creek Bridge is another representation of a split between reality and fiction. It is possible that the escape is demonstrative of the kind of person or soldier Farquhar would like to be. This is also the reason he attempted to burn the bridge in the first place.

However, there are a number of things, disguised in the language of the text, that imply a connection between reality and fiction. These connections serve to make the disconnections identifiable. The first would be the sensory details of the story. For example, when Farquhar falls and breaks free of the rope in his vision, he describes, in extraordinary detail, the pain in his neck. He states “Keen, poignant agonies seemed to shoot from his neck downward through every fiber of his body and limbs” (Bierce 3). (The whole passage is too long to use). The pain in his neck is a manifestation in his delusion of what is happening to his body in reality, though it is cleverly disguised as a sensory detail of the writing. Another detail that implies both a connection AND disconnection between reality and fiction is when his hands are described. It states “He was not conscious of the effort, but a sharp pain in his wrist appraised him that he was trying to free his hands. He gave the struggle his attention, as an idler might observe the feat of a juggler, without interest in the outcome” (Bierce 3). This statement demonstrates the way in which Farquhar is, in reality, not actually making an effort to free his hands. It is a subconscious disconnect between his thoughts and movements that suggest a disconnect between fantasy and reality. All of these details function to make the quote of the story I found most interesting.. well.. all the more interesting. In the very first line of part three, prior to his vision of escape, I believe it references the union of both Farquhar’s fantasy and reality (key words: as one). It states “As Peyton Farquhar fell straight downward through the bridge he had lost consciousness and was, as one, already dead” (Bierce 3). 

Saint Marie

Being one of the longer and more complex stories we have examined thus far, it should come as no surprise that there are many possible interpretations of Edrich’s “Saint Marie” as well as many different elements of the story on which to focus. The topic on which I wish to focus primarily is the devil or “the dark one” and what he may symbolize in the context of the story.

 Throughout the story, both Marie and Sister Leopolda refer to their ability to detect “the dark one”. They both seem to notice the dark one in the same places doing the same things. For argument sake and purposes of the story, this would rule out the possibility of the dark representing a symptom of any psychological disorder. In turn, this would mean that (assuming he doesn’t exist as an entity), the dark one is used symbolically or as a literary device. My theory is that “the dark one” exists for two reasons. First, it creates a common thread or link between Marie and Sister Leopolda. Following this thread, we can examine the way the dark one might illustrate the things Marie and Leopolda have in common, and what this might represent in terms of good, evil, and saintliness.

 In both the case of Marie and of Leopolda, there are (for lack of a better word) evil or sinful characteristics that serve to motivate either of the two. I say evil because, when contrasted with their end game, which is to become saints, the characteristics that motivate them are more similar to those of foreign dictators than those of saints. This is very interesting in the context of the story, especially because they never actually touch the notion of what characteristics might constitute or coincide with those of a saint. Marie is motivated by what seems to be pure spite. Her ambition is driven by a burning desire to prove herself to the white catholics and to be worshipped. Such is evident when she claims “And they never thought they’d have a girl from this reservation they’d have to kneel to. But they’d have me. And I’d be carved out of pure gold” (Edrich 43). Though she is truly ambitious to become a saint, the things that motivate her are, from a saints perspective, selfish and riddled with sin. This is the common thread that ties her to Leopolda. What motivates Leopolda is less clear. At face value, it may seem like ridding the world of the dark one and doing god’s work (or perhaps a very twisted version of gods work) is her motivation. However, I have no doubt that some part of her is motivated by pure sadism, evident by her stabbing of a 14 year old girl after pouring a kettle of boiling water in her ear. Like spite, sadism is not a trait that best compliments a saint. Because they both see the dark one, this might represent the bond they share with respect to what motivates them. As a result, it seems they are undoubtedly drawn to one another, while simultaneously harboring hatred for one another. Marie claims "Sometimes I wanted her heart in love and admiration. Sometimes. And sometimes I wanted her heart to roast on a black stick" (Edrich 49).

 As for what this might mean in terms of the story as a whole, I have two theories. The first is that those who are motivated to do gods work by selfishness and sin will receive no pardon in terms of their fate. Another type of Karma, if you will. Evidence to support this claim is found when we look to our characters at the end of the story. Leopolda, after stabbing Marie, was forced to lie and assist Marie in transcending to Sainthood. In layman’s terms, she “lost” to Marie. Similarly, Marie has now risen to sainthood, but receives no gratification. She uses the same terms in both the beginning and end of the story, describing her lips and hair, to articulate that how what was once golden in her vision was now dust in her life. She took no pleasure in spiting sister Leopolda, evident by the section where she whispered “Receive the dispensation of my sacred blood” and then followed that statement with “But there was no heart in it”. She then proceeded to explain how she even pitied sister Leopolda, even though spiting people like her was one of, if not her primary motivating factor. Second, tangential, and perhaps less rational, is the theory that (and I’m not sure why I’m so stuck on this) no light can exist without the dark. That is to say, good and evil fuel one another in a never-ending cycle that blurs the lines between right and wrong. This begs the question, though Marie has technically achieved sainthood, how can she ever truly be considered a saint? (I.e Saint Marie). If she was to lead and instruct others on the road to saintliness, would she not taint them with her selfish desires, lies, and deceit? I digress. In the end, I believe "the dark one" embodied the common thread that was the motivation of both Marie and sister Leopolda. This, in turn, bound them together and determined their fate.

(I’m very unhappy with this blog post, which is usually an indicator that I cannot settle on one interpretation. To that end, I will leave it as it is for now, in fear of making it any longer.)

God of Love

The film featured in today’s blog post is “God of Love”. I Believe the best scene to analyze is the scene where Ray realizes that his best friend, Fozzie, is actually in love with Kelly, the girl Ray also loves. Though Kelly does love Fozzie, Fozzie makes it painfully clearly that he has no interest in her (or rather, he does, but he does not want to feel as though he has betrayed Ray). To me, this scene seems to tie together and summarize all of the notions provided in the beginning and end of the film. Ray states “You can’t control who you love, you can’t control who loves you. You can’t control when it happens, where it happens, or why it happens. You can’t control any of that stuff”, a realization he came to during this scene, when he decides to use his last “love dart” on Fozzie, so that he may fall in love with Kelly, instead of Kelly so that she may fall in love with him. This act of selflessness best exemplifies what I found to be a central theme of this film, and perhaps the concept of love in general, which is control. From the beginning of the flashback, Ray seems very keen on controlling who he loves and who loves him. This is evident by the opening prayer, which is as follows: “Dear god, whose name I do not know, I pray to you in a time of personal crisis. As you know I’ve been praying to you in the assistance of winning the affections of one Kelly Moran, which I’ve made consistently clear is the only thing I’ve ever prayed for.. at all. Thus I remain surprised and confused that last month, you saw fit to have Kelly fall in love with my best friend Fozzie”. The prayer is demonstrative of Ray’s unwillingness to accept the limit to the control he has over certain aspects of love and life. Similarly, the skepticism with which it is riddled is demonstrative of his unwillingness to surrender his control to a God, perhaps because he might not believe in one, or perhaps because he does not want to surrender his control to anyone. He expressed similar obsession with controlling aspects he believe will help him win the affection of Kelly, such as serving chicken pot pie instead of seafood, or seeing “Romeo and Juliet” instead of “Black Swan”. In the end, I think the darts served as the tool that allowed him to see that even with divine intervention, there are certain things, like love, that he cannot control. Once he comes to the realization that “love doesn’t make any sense” and surrenders his control by assisting his friends (among others) with falling in love, he becomes the God of Love.