Page 101, Deirdre: “What makes a person powerful and influential and wealthy is not growing up with power and influence and wealth. That what the e-mail, anyway… the gift of poverty is a… it’s not a myth,/ it’s a real thing, it can be a blessing…”
This is the first comment in our readings that finds a virtue in poverty, that perhaps the American Dream as focused on economic mobility is corrupt. Thoughts?
“Yea.. well.. what’s crazy is how you still mess up.. it’s crazy how you you still-” Erik makes this statement to Richard on page 86 while describing the horror that was experiencing 9/11. Later we find that this is a loaded comment, implicitly hinting at Erik’s unfaithfulness to Deirdre. However it also is linked to a conversation between Erik and Aimee later on page 90:
Erik: “Don’t you think surviving that day means something?”
Aimee: “Because for me- hey -hey-hey, I’m telling you what I think, I think it means the two of us were in New York on a terrible morning./ That’s all…”
Deirdre confirms Aimee’s response, however claiming that her faith in God to forge the right path assures her that this event was predestined. These two viewpoints, of attaching meaning to catastrophes or dismissing it as nothing more than consequence, are reflected in real life too. So many miraculous stories of human strength emerge after being victims to events like 9/11, the Boston Bombings or school shootings. These individuals become awaken to a new responsibility to contribute to something ‘more’- yet the events that are required to propagate these changes come at much higher costs. Why are we unable to reach these levels of social commitment prior to life lost?
But it’s also impossible to ignore that we are subject to personal faults no matter what event had ‘purified’ us. Erik addresses this internal conflict, how his survivor’s responsibility is fighting his imperfections which were present even before 9/11 occurred. How ‘life-changing’ can an event be? How much does a person truly change?
Also, found this relevant passage from the book “Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Predicting” by Tetlock and Gardner:
On page 148, Tetlock states that “among survivors of the 9/11 attacks, for example, those who saw meaning in the atrocity were less likely to suffer post-traumatic stress responses.”
On page 81, Aimee comments: “Maybe loving someone long-term is more about.. deciding whether to go through life unhappy alone or unhappy with someone else?” This assumption that life is composed of misery is echoed by sentiments from Erik later in the play. However, Aimee statements begs question into why people engage in relationships or families to begin with- is it to avoid social criticism? Do we engage in relationships out of the comfort of presence, not because of love? So that our actions do not feel as minuscule as they realistically are, but hold an impact over at least one other individual? Do we marry, have children, embark on ‘life’ because it is expected of us at a certain time? Does this theoretical timeline thereby give us purpose- that with having a family or partner, there is reason to strive?
This also reminded me of “Catcher in the Rye,” when Holden Caulfield remarks that, if he could, he would save all children before they fall off the ‘ledge’, before they become burdened with expectations and can act on a freedom based on blissful ignorance.
As soon as I saw that the family featured in the Humans hails from Scranton, the Office immediately came to mind. As I continued to read the play, I realized that the two works, The Humans the play and the Office the tv show, have more in common than at first glance. As Brenda mentioned in her post, the Humans focuses on the middle-class struggles troubling the family. The Office features the many branches of a paper company in Scranton, PA, none of which are exactly living luxuriously. Yet both works manage to achieve the similar aim of portraying life at this socioeconomic level, despite coming at it from the disparate sides of comedy and drama.
On page 273-274, Beatty acknowledges the lack of discussion regarding race in the US. He notices that it has disappeared both as a result of post-Civil Rights movement sentiments, that race isn’t an “issue anymore,” and because of sensitivity regarding race. It’s difficult to have an open conversation if one side refuses to acknowledge the problem or is unsure of how to go about talking about it. But likewise, in order move forward there must be discussion, whether it be right or wrong, so that a comprehensive view of race in the US is developed.
On page 214: “Who was I kidding? I’m a farmer and farmers are natural segregationists… I’m a farmer: we segregate in an effort to give every tree, every plant, every poor Mexican, every poor nigger, a chance for equal access to sunlight and water; we make sure each living organism has room to breathe.” Why is his argument false? In other words, if segregation provided equality, what are the faults of this type of system?
On page 167, the narrator’s father states that “you can’t force integration boy. People who want to integrate will integrate.” This reminds me of a contrast shown in my comp gov class between de facto and de justo states- de facto states uphold certain democratic values on paper, while de justo states support the constitutional promises through active investment. In the context of the book, this questions how effective the Civil Rights movement really was- did it just accomplish de facto changes but fail to enact societal mindset regarding race?
The Sellout has an unnamed narrator which suggests that the messages conveyed in the book may be universal- however, the satirical style contradicts this theory. By using satire to exaggerate and ridicule, The Sellout establishes an outrageous storyline pointed at fostering discussion about race. The narrator may not be reliable so the reader is forced to interpret situations under his own conscience.
I found Baldwin’s paper on American-European relations particularly interesting. His commentary on status, claiming that Americans place greater emphasis on status than Europeans, aligned with some points made in the Great Gatsby, like those regarding social mobility, old money versus new money, etc. However looking at his claim historically, I don’t understand the origin of the American importance on status. While European traditions with status originate from monarchial and feudalist systems, America is derived from anti-European traditions which rejected the ranking of individuals.
An American life is defined in the building blocks of the poverty measure, like systematized consumer baskets and family sizes. This bare-bones definition does not include social mobility, instrumental to the American Dream, as a building block which implies that social mobility is impossible for those at, or under the poverty measure. The economic perspective shows that when discussing a solution to poverty it is not only a measure of surviving financially in the United States, but also a picture of living in the United States.
Ehrenreich concluding two chapters focus largely on the affordable housing troubles the poor face in the economy today. For myself, I worked at a street newspaper called Spare Change News in Cambridge, MA which focused on the issues facing the homeless by writing on current affordable housing news. What was incredible about the organization was that it also employed the homeless as vendors and writers, so that as they bought a newspaper for 25 cents, they would sell it for a dollar and keep the difference as a method of income. By being exposed to these people without homes and listening to their real accounts, it allowed me to get a deeper understanding of Ehrenreich’s concerns regarding the minimum wage worker. The criminalizing and stigmatizing of America’s poor is terrible, true and omnipresent. It isn’t only legal action that is necessary for conditions to improve, but also the social mindset.
“I can’t help letting my mind wander to the implications of Alzheimer’s disease for the theory of an immortal soul. Who wants an afterlife if the immediate pre-afterlife is spent clutching the arms of a wheelchair, head bent back at forty-five degrees, eyes and mouth wide open and equally mute? Is the “soul” that lives forever the one we possess at the moment of death… or is it our personally best soul-say, the one that indwells in us at the height of our cognitive powers and moral aspirations?” (68)
This passage that Ehrenreich writes is intriguing in the context of her personal views. Previously she is known to have called herself, a “fourth generation atheist” which then leads the reader to wonder why she bothers with this consideration of the immortal soul at all if she doesn’t hold that faith. In fact she even criticizes the entire demonstration on page 69, “I got up to leave… and walk out to search for my car, half expecting to find Jesus out there in the dark, gagged and tethered to a tent pole.” To accept her claims with more veracity, I would like Ehrenreich to also address the reasons behind the poor’s reliance on religion as opposed to mocking their religious declarations.
In the first 60 pages of Nickel and Dimed, Ehrenreich introduces us to her experience working as a minimum wage waitress in two Florida restaurants. What struck me in this reading is how similar the storylines of her coworkers are to my own in Bowdoin dining. I work dishwashing at Moulton twice a week, and often overhear the concerns of Brunswick locals that are doing this job as a means of getting by. Health concerns, working two jobs, and horrible habits like alcoholism or smoking are common points between the Brunswick minimum wage reality and minimum wage in Florida.
I don’t know how familiar people are with Humans of New York, but it’s basically a blog from this man who spontaneously conducts interviews with people on the streets of New York. Right now, Stanton (the interviewer) is in Brazil doing the same thing, which is where he conducted this interview. I found this one particularly striking as a real life application of the Lame Shall Enter First, seeing as most people, myself included, found such a story very far from reality. The similarities between this man and O Connor’s fictional story further reflect the notion that literature is important as it can help us deal with realistic issues.
Flannery O’ Connor, in both of these short stories, demonstrates generational relationships unlike those that I’ve encountered before in literature. The child is traditionally considered the embodiment of the tabula rasa, or blank slate, one who is destined to become his or her future self from the effects of their environment and upbringing. The generic literary trope of the child is one of purity and moral innocence, however O’ Connor diverges sharply from this archetype by portraying three children as embodying some of the worst characteristics possible such as of greed, petulance and corrupt. Yet despite being horrible individuals, these characters still achieve the same effect as the trope- that is, reflecting the major faults of the main character. While I am at a loss for what these stories mean for the American dream, these two short stories changed my perception of the child.
There is a passage in the Egg that addresses that literature has become too hopeful, allowing for happy endings far too often. “IT is a hopeful literature and declares that much may be done by simple ambitious people who own a few hens. Do not be led astray by it.” Here, Anderson is reinforcing the tragic ending of Gatsby, that Gatsby’s simple ambition was insufficient to achieving his goal. To have wealth is not enough, but rather social acceptance as well.
On page 159, Wilson makes a reference to the eyes of Doctor T.J. Eckleberg, aliking them to the eyes of God. He is makes a comment directed at his cheating wife, Myrtle, that “God is always watching.” I found this passage curious as throughout the novel it seems like a faithless community- in many ways, wealth and social standing dictates actions more than morals as seen through the greed, cheating and scandal. Furthermore, we have discussed Wilson as being one of the only true representations of the blue collar working class. This leads to the question: Does Fitzgerald see religion as a uniquely a value of the lower social classes?
“He was balancing himself on the dashboard of his car with the resourcefulness of movement that is so peculiarly American- that comes, I suppose, with the absence of lifting work or rigid sitting in youth, and even more, with the formless grace of our nervous, sporadic games. This quality was continually breaking thorugh his punctilious manner in the shape of restlessness He was never quite still; there was always a tapping foot somewhere or the impatient opening and closing of a hand.” pg 64
This passage from the Gatsby reading struck me as strikingly similar to the same nervous energy expressed in the Turner article. Here, we see nervousness as a lack of physically demanding work and a result of ‘our’/American “nervous sporadic games.” In Turner’s piece, this “peculiarly American” quality was attributed to the pioneer mentality, one which is constantly moving, at work. These different interpretations of nervousness, yet both aligning it with American culture, begs the questions of: “What are American attributes?” and “Where do they come from?”
In McKay’s poem, “America”, she personifies the United States as this great, horrible, protecting beast. It is interesting to see the relationship between America and the voice of the poem, as at first it seems that the voice is being abused, but then welcomes this cultured threat as a test of his character. And yet despite all efforts, America’s ‘granite wonders’ sink like ‘priceless treasures sinking in the sand.’ This can be interpreted as the elusive American dream, or trying to attain the unattainable.
For me, this is the second time I’m reading the Great Gatsby and so far its much more enjoyable on this read. The subtlety with which Fitzgerald paints the various members of society- from those of wealth (Gatsby), to the masses wishing to feel like they are (those attending Gatsby’s parties as well as the apartment crew), to those of pedigree (the Buchanans and Jordan)- becomes much more apparent as the daily aimlessness of each group is addressed. However as the readers we are also forewarned in the beginnings of the novel that our narrator, while often dependable due to others’ confidability in him, is also guilty of reacting to these confidences. Despite this confession, Nick Carraway assures us that at least in regards to Gatsby he is removed from judgment.