Something that really stood out to me in this film is the level of dedication from the Dreamers. Come to think of it, I find it pretty ironic how the very people the US is trying hard to push out are the people who embody the American Dream the most. The resilience and tenacity of the undocumented people was honestly something that really stuck out to me in this film.
On pg. 27 Erik is critiquing his daughters choice to move from Scranton. What I find interesting in this dialogue exchange are Erik’s personal views. Generally speaking, parents want for children to grow up, leave and make something of themselves. However, Erik scolds his daughters for moving away from the “slums” (as Brigid calls Scranton). Nonetheless, Erik defends his hometown urging his girls to have a bit more pride and respect for the place they come from. In a larger sense, we can see how this section of dialogue relates back to a lesson the author, Stephen Karam had to learn when he left his hometown to go to Brown University.
I really liked the subtleties weaved in throughout this play. I was waiting for some “cliche” dramatic moment like a death or for someone to announce they have cancer but what I received instead was a story about a family and their struggles. Built on these natural and seemingly simple moments, the play is really authentic and dynamic.
As another quick aside, I find it intriguing that Foy Chesire is always changing well know books and molding them to fit his purpose. Then he audaciously takes fully authorship of the new novel. Perhaps, in a larger context Beatty is speaking to the constant reusing of things already in existence.
I was reflecting on the book in its entirety and something that struck me as interesting is the fact that he never explicitly says Obama’s name. He is often referred to as that “black dude” (Closure) among other descriptors (all of which make it obvious who Beatty is talking about). What is Beatty trying to get at or accomplish by not saying Obama’s name?
Something our discussion in class made me think about is physical segregation, notably the white line that the narrator paints around “Dickens.” One thing I wanted to point out in particular was Marpessa’s reaction to the white line when she crossed it. She says, ” “soon as we crossed that white line you painted, it was like, you know, when you enter a banging-ass house party and shit’s bumping, and you get that thump in your chest and you be like, if I were to dies right now, I wouldn’t give a fuck. It was like that. Crossing the threshold (203).” This form of segregation is imaginative (the line doesn’t really mean anything), symbolic (the community gives it meaning- denotes Dickens), and physical. In particular, I find it interesting how when we associate meaning to something it takes on a whole other dimension. In reality it is just a white line but for Marpessa and the Dickens community, it becomes so significant and real to them. By crossing that barrier, Marpessa felt a kind of rush, a high. There’s power in what we give power to.
I think its interesting how successful segregation continues to be. In this section of reading, we see the effect the Wheaton school has had on the students performance. They have all become more dedicated. What does this say that it takes segregation to promote unity within minority populations, to increase performance and effort? Do you guys think segregation would take the same course in real life?
Though discussed briefly, Beatty does talk about how blackness is measured in Dickens. His sentiment, which is as follows, “everyone in Dickens, regardless of race, was black and you determined someone’s degree of blackness not by skin color but by whether they said “For all intents and purposes” or “For all intensive purposes” (164),” is contextually based after Sheila Clark accused a white boy of stealing on her “balls.” Beatty points out the “white” boy is actually latino. This got me thinking about how race is used in the novel. As noted with Charisma, she believes she is black and must be reminded when her mom comes to town of her Mexican heritage. What does it mean to be black? What does it mean to be white? Are these constructions fluid or fixed? Can a black person be white? and a white black? Is Beatty’s comment about who is black relevant and applicable in Bowdoin’s community and on a larger scale, American society? How does this hinder us from seeing other as equally relevant?
Something I found ironic as I was reading about Hominy is that fact that the most freeing he has every felt has been acquired by his becoming (or accepting?- i don’t know) his role as a slave. What is the statement Beatty is making with Hominy (which sounds like Harmony)? Push back on me if you disagree, but I’m willing to assert that Beatty is making a comment about black peoples perception of themselves in America. Perhaps Hominy feels so free because he recognized what he is in the world/ how the world views him.
I have to say reading this book has been quite a roller coster. Paul Beatty’s satire is amazing- I find that the messages that underline his stories are so much more powerful because of how he delivers them.
One prime example that sticks out to me is in the beginning of the book is when the woman says “some of my best friends are monkeys.” The comparison of black people to animals allows one to step back and assess how ridiculously racist and ignorant the real statement of “some of my best friends are black” sounds. The way he dug out his point was flawless. He has clearly establishes and gets the point across that many black people have tried to argue but that has generally fallen on death ears. Not only does the statement take on a fetishist tone, it also reveals the blatant justification people feel like they have because someone they know is black and are somehow in touched with what it means to be black in America.
This is just one of the many points in the books where the implicit message has so seamlessly be stitched out from the story.
Throughout the book, I have been very critical of Ehrenreich. However, as I finished the book, I must say that at the very least I applaud her for going out and doing the work in order to acquire a better understanding of low wage workers. While it does seem as though Ehrenreich went into her task with the answers she wanted (and therefore highlighting things that align with her prior preconceptions), I do think that what she found and looked at is very important. In particular, I liked reading her evaluation at the end of the book. I believe that it offers a plethora of information that Ehrenreich gathered on her journey. It also provides further insight into the problem she analyzed.
There are so many passages that I’ve highlighted as I finished the book that point to really uncomfortable statements made by Ehrenreich. I think comments like the following one point to her incapability to really grasp the full meaning of the work that she is doing. As we have found with the comment she made about prisoners of war, she likes to go straight for the gutter.
On page 100 she states:
“True, I don’t look so good by the end of the day and probably smell like eau de toilet and sweat, but it’s the brilliant green-and-yellow uniform that gives me away, like prison clothes on a fugitive. Maybe, it occurs to me, I’m getting a tiny glimpse of what it would be like to be black.”
Obviously I get her meaning, but the way she categorizes a group of people is poorly founded. For one she assumes that all black people must either feel like prisoners where ever they go or that many black people are indeed prisoners. Either way you look at it, it is wrong. Especially given her position, even in the low wage community as a white woman, she is not experiencing the worst of the worst which many black and latino/a populations are exposed to. So no, she is definitely not getting “a tiny glimpse of what it would be like to be black.”
“If you want to be fit, just fire your cleaning lady and do it yourself (90).”
This quote from the trainer speaks to the following:
1) the disposable nature of the working class (“just fire”)
2) irony- the cleaning ladies are sweating from dehydration and manual labor which they do to survive however the owner only sees the physical gains of the work
3) lack of regard for the job the maids do
I think the constant surveillance of low wage workers and the skepticism that follows their actions is a larger reflection of the belief associated with being in a lower class. It seems as though there is an assumption that minimum age workers are more likely to steal and wreck havoc in the work place. This manifests itself in the work place when freedoms like bathrooms breaks, standing around for two seconds, talking to other co-workers are restricted if granted at all. It reminds me of the School To Prison Pipeline where students feel as though they are entering a jail more than they are entering an learning environment.
The narrator’s use of his father in Anderson’s story really makes me think of Jay Gatsby. Both men tried to put on a performance to win over the affection of people, Daisy for Gatsby and the towns people for the narrator’s father. Nonetheless, both ultimately failed. Just how Daisy is a representation to Gatsby of money (success, fulfillment), so are the towns people to the narrator’s father. Coincidentally, both Daisy and the towns people are wealthier and more well off than their constituents. The disdain felt by both Daisy and the Joe Kane (he laughed at the narrator’s father attempt to entertain him) connects to their status and rubs in the lack of importance of both Gatsby and the narrator’s father.
I also think that the fact that the family remains nameless to us reinforces their unfortunate irrelevance in the grand scheme of things.
Then wear the gold hat, if that will move her;
If you can bounce high, bounce for her too,
Till she cry ‘Lover, gold-hatted, high-bouncing lover,
I must have you!’
-Thomas Parke D’Invilliers
This quote by Thomas Parke D’Invilliers not only represents the main character in Fitzgerald’s first book, This Side Of Paradise but it is also a pen name for Fitzgerald himself. This is important to understanding the novel because this quote talks about using material deception in order to win someone’s affection. This is precisely what Gatsby does to try and win over Daisy, he wears a “Gold Hat.” He is desperate for her to claim her unwavering love for him, so much so that he will put on an illusion, do whatever he must if it will make her notice.
Having just finished the novel (no worries, I won’t give anything away), I am curious to see what everyone thinks about Alexandra’s ending. Do you think it’s fair to say the American Dream worked in her favor, or against? I’m still processing all that I read and I can’t seem to come to a declarative answer.