Last Blog

When I first entered the exam room for AP Lit, I have to admit that I was really nervous. Although we prepared for the exam throughout the entire year, I was just hoping that my skills would reflect what I had learned, and I had learned so much. My desire for a 5 wasn’t because I was hoping for college credit or because I wanted to say that I earned a 5 on AP Literature. I was driven to do my best on the AP exam, so I could give justice to what Mrs. Clinch has done for our class and what she has done for me. While I wasn’t as successful in the poetry and prose passages as I hoped I would be, I actually enjoyed the exam, and I thank Mrs. Clinch for providing me with a new and exciting love for literature.

After first entering Mrs. Clinch’s AP Lit class, I had learned of certain horror stories about all the work that she gives. Still, I looked confidently through my summer reading annotations, thinking that I had at least scraped a low A. Upon received my low B, I was a little bit in shock. I wasn’t used to putting so much work into an assignment and getting a terrible grade out of it. I didn’t realize then that literature was so much more about hard work. Sure, I could have gotten average grades simply putting in effort into my assignments, but I think that I really started being successful in the class when I started enjoying reading, writing, and analyzing.

Honestly, I have always been more of a math and science person, always striving to solve logical problems that have definite answers. I think that before this class, I always did approach my timed writings through a certain logical lens. Now, I can’t honestly and truly say that I am in love with literature. I loved going to class every day and hearing all the brilliant theories in the class. I loved the ability to converse about a book that conveyed so much in so little words. I loved how we all had a teacher who cared so much that she opened up her mind and her heart so that we could appreciate literature just a little bit more.

I’m not the best at conveying emotions, and I really don’t like to show my sentimental side. Still, I think I can get pretty emotional, and sitting here writing this blog is making me sad. I’m not going to see most of the people in high school ever again, and I won’t get to have many more discussions in our amazing, tiny, intelligent, crazy, and wonderful lit class. In fact, I think it is now just hitting me that our lives are about to change. And I absolutely hate change. I hate that we all are going to move away, and as odd as it sounds, I am upset that I am leaving high school. I don’t feel like I am ready to move away, and I really wish that I could spend another four years in Alpharetta, Georgia. Still, I know that I need to move on one day, and it’s going to be really, really hard to let go of all the people in high school. Ms. Clinch, you have prepared so well for all the Lit classes that I am going to take, and I’ll be sure to try to “make the world more beautiful.” I can truly say that, at least for me, you have made literature so incredibly beautiful.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

Reading Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead has been a pleasure for the past few weeks. Amidst AP exam stresses and graduation problems, it’s nice to sit, read an interesting, appreciate its literary brilliance, and genuinely laugh at the Stoppard’s sheer comedic genius. I have to admit that I recently haven’t given the play the analysis or the appreciation that it deserves. However, I acknowledge that its publication was almost revolutionary and hope to be able to delve deeper into the more important elements of the play.

While reading this play, I wonder what absurdist theater really represents. Sure, it has its theoretical definition, which is the lack of meaning in a world of characters that are almost represented by puppets. However, Tom Stoppard must have a specific purpose in creating such a play. Beyond its obvious entertainment value, Stoppard’s portrayal of the two characters as ignorant fools conveys much about the values of our society. The two titular characters are actually complete opposites of Hamlet. While Hamlet is an intelligent, verbose man, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are, frankly, a little stupid. They seemingly don’t have any control over their actions and only follow the stage directions given to them. Is Tom Stoppard telling us that the lives of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern parallel the lives in the modern world? Are we all ignorant fools? On a deeper level, are we guided by an outward force, never in control of our actions? While Tom Stoppard’s questions aren’t unique or new, they are important. Even more, Stoppard presents his old questions in a new way. Perhaps, Tom Stoppard is criticizing modern society, but we can create our own stage directions and end our ignorance. Although I haven’t realized the play’s true message, I look forward to reading more and trying to raise some unanswered and most likely unanswerable questions.

My spell check (almost through fate) propelled me to consider another important issue within the play. When I wrote Rosencrantz and Guildenstern “are,” the spell check incorrectly prompted me to change the “are” to an “is.” It’s ironic because Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are actually almost like one. In class, we discussed distinguishing them, and unlike the characters in other novels, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern don’t have distinctive dialogue, and I wouldn’t be able to designate specific characteristics between the two. I think their unity represents a lack of identity especially characteristic in modern times. In fact, Fight Club brought up the same issue of the growing lack of identity. However in Palahniuk’s novel, there is one man composed of two very distinctive personalities. In Stoppard’s play, there are two men composed of one very similar personality. In essence, both works send messages on identity. I think that Tom Stoppard especially wanted to show the degeneration of people into one ignorant mass, represented by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Still, if the two characters are controlled by fate, can they ever really control their lack of identity and growing ignorance? Can we control any ignorance that we have? The play raises so many deep questions that I have a feeling I’m going to be left unsatisfied at the end.

Fight Club

I recently watched Fight Club after finishing the book, and I was surprised at how much I liked the movie. While the novel is definitely more detailed and has a clearer message, the movie captures the essence of the book well. One specific scene in the movie that I like was the chemical burn scene. Edward Norton plays out the scene with the same pain that the narrator of Fight Club shows. Even more, I thought that the movie captured the same fragmented style. For example, scenes were cut into the middle and the narrator’s random thoughts were interspersed throughout the entire novel. The main difference between the two occurs at the end. There is no hospital scene, and the ending is less ambiguous in the film. In the epilogue of the novel, there actually seems to be the possibility that Tyler Durden will return. People are waiting for Tyler Durden. However, the shot in the movie is the final end of Tyler Durden. In addition, the movie makes it more obvious that the shot ends Tyler. In the novel, the impact of the shot is up for interpretation.

Fight Club was an interesting read, and although scholars debate its literary merit, I think that the themes and devices used in the novel are clever and significant. In terms of merit, I wonder if modern authors don’t get the credit they deserve simply because the novels are different and don’t follow any of the normal conventions. What makes a novel have literary merit? For Fight Club, Palahniuk uses symbolism, figurative language, and his distinctive style to convey his message. His incorporation of Tyler Durden successfully conveys main motifs of redemption and sacrifice. On top of that, his novel is well-written and has many layers to it. I believe that a novel’s merit is determined by the message and way the author conveys the message. I hope that the debate over Fight Club isn’t simply a result of its recent publication and mass appeal.

I recently used Fight Club for the open question timed writing on the practice AP exam, and I though it fit extremely well with the question asked. The prompt asked about the importance of a mentor and how that mentor shapes the main character’s view of the world. In the entire novel, Tyler Durden shapes the narrator. Durden discusses his views about the world (“you must hit bottom in order to be successful”) and implicitly makes the narrator stronger. At the end, the narrator becomes strong enough to kill off Tyler Durden himself. The whole question worked so well because the entire novel was about Durden as the mentor and views about the world.

Now that we are starting Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, I actually see many of the same elements in both works. Both have a fragmented style and ignorant characters. Even more, there is a search for meaning, which is never really there. Just as the narrator is lost in his own world, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are lost.

Battle Royal

After preparing for our seminar, I realized how many connections there are between the battle royal and the rest of the novel. The white men around the narrator are similar to the brotherhood. In fact, the two words I noticed that surrounded both of them were “responsibility” and “equality.” While the white men in the battle royal frown at the mention of equality, the brotherhood initially seems to espouse such equality. However, towards the end, the brotherhood seems to be less interested in equality and more interested in power. In the same way, the white men try to control the black boys by making them participate in the humiliating act of the battle royal. The “big shots,” by showing a sexualized white woman, could control the black boys because they are forbidden to look at white women but are also attracted to the naked lady. This sense of control continues on to when the narrator and other boys participate in the battle royal. However, both the narrator and the woman are trapped and belittled by the white men. By recognizing the woman’s fear, the narrator learns more of the evils produced by white men. Another important connection I saw was between the gold coins and the Negro bank that was in Mary’s room. In the novel, the bank stays with the narrator in the briefcase. The gold coins connect to the Negro bank, as “it was choking, filled to the throat with coins.” Ellison seems to say that money can be a violent force because, in both cases, the scramble for money causes some sort of violent action. These gold coins also connect to the fact that the Brotherhood is giving the narrator money. By the end, the narrator’s participation in the Brotherhood leads to his own downfall, and he seems to be choking. In addition, another important motif in the entire chapter and the entire novel is the circus imagery. In fact, the dream the narrator has at the end is about a circus. The nude woman is described as a “circus kewpie dolls.” Even one of the boys is described as a vulnerable circus seal. After researching the importance of such imagery, I learned that Ellison incorporates circus images because it shows the unpredictable nature of the world. In addition, in a circus, everything is controlled, and the narrator and the other boys are controlled in the battle royal scene. The brotherhood can also be considered as a circus because they try to control in order to execute a perfect, scientific plan. Connected to the circus imagery is all the animal imagery. In the beginning, Bledsoe also forms his hand into cages. If the narrator is seen as a wild animal, Bledsoe is the one to trap and tame the narrator. At the end of the novel, it seems as if the ones in power are also described as an animal. Brother Jack is a Cyclops and a bull terrier. Mr. Norton is a frightened animal in the epilogue. One possible interpretation for the incorporation of animal imagery is that Ellison is trying to show that everyone is trapped. In the end, the narrator seems to trap Mr. Norton as he mocks Mr. Norton’s previous concept of fate.

Power-hungry Characters

After participating in the seminar today, I noticed many interesting connections in the novel. First of all, Dr. Bledsoe connected well to the grandfather’s advice. The grandfather says, “Live with your head in the lion’s mouth. I want you to overcome ’em with yeses, undermine ’em with grins, agree ’em to death and destruction, let ’em swoller you till they vomit or bust wide open.” A major component of the discussion was whether or not Dr. Bledsoe was a representation of the grandfather’s advice. If he is, then Bledsoe is basically living with his “head in the lion’s mouth.” While I believe that Bledsoe is trying to undermine white authority, I am not sure about his attitude towards the whites. I thought that the grandfather’s advice was an important metaphor. When the grandfather says, “live with your head in the lion’s mouth,” the lion represents the whites. Therefore, the whites are dangerous, but the blacks should live with the white mentality as their “head,” or way of thinking, is in their mouth. One important line that shows that Bledsoe is potentially taking the grandfather’s advice is when he says “Why, the dumbest black bastard in the cotton patch knows that the only way to please a white man is to tell him a lie!” Obviously, Bledsoe wants to please the white men. His attitude begs the question—why does he want to please the white man? I think that is more about power. Much of the novel revolves around power-hungry characters. Both the Founder and Ras the Destroyer are kings and need power. Even Mr. Norton seeks power as he supposedly controls the fate of others. Bledsoe, involved in this power struggle, participates in making the black people feel inferior and in need of control by somebody else.

One significant part of the novel that we touched briefly upon in class was the narrator’s discussion with the veteran. From their entire conversation, I thought the most important quotation was when the veteran says, “He believes in you as he believes in the beat of his heart. He believes that great false wisdom taught slaves and pragmatists alike, that white is right. I can tell you his destiny. He’ll do your bidding, and for that his blindness is his chief asset.” Firstly, the incorporation of “white is right” connects well to the later liberty paint scene (which is our next discussion). “White is right” is part of the company’s slogan. Since another meaning of right is pure or moral, the quotation, as the veteran mentions “false” wisdom, shows that white truly isn’t right. Just as the white paint is tainted, the white wisdom is false. It is also interesting that the veteran mentions “blindness,” which appear almost everywhere throughout the whole novel. The narrator is “blind” in that he doesn’t realize that Mr. Norton wants to be powerful through the narrator. For Mr. Norton, the narrator is just part of a scorecard. As the novel progresses, I think that the narrator seems to lose some of his blindness, especially when he encounters Mr. Norton again at the end.

Fight Club is very different than what I expected it to be like. One important part of the novel is the relationship between the narrator and Tyler Durden. I noticed that Durden is always the more powerful character. In the first chapter, Durden is the one pushing the gun in the narrator’s mouth and seems to be forcing the destruction. In addition, the fact that both characters are on a tower is very significant. It shows that they, at least Durden, feels the need to be above everyone. The narrator even describes the people below them to be a shag carpet. As a shag carpet, Palahniuk shows that Durden wants to exhibit control over a mass of people and Durden doesn’t even seem to distinguish each person. It isn’t surprising that, later on, Durden proclaims that the world is his now. The power-hungry Durden gives an explanation for the fight club revealed later on.

Another important character is Marla Singer. I looked up the meaning of her name and thought it was pretty significant. For example, it is a variant of singe, which means “to burn.” In fact, throughout the entire novel, there are many images of burning. Marla burns the cigarette against her arm, and the narrator’s apartment just burns to shreds. I think that all the burning, especially in regards to Marla, shows that Marla is figuratively burning the narrator and Tyler Durden. She flirts with both men, but I think that Marla likes the narrator more. She is more flirtatious towards him, and the narrator, although unreliable, says at the beginning that Marla Singer wants him. Thus, Marla’s attitude foreshadows that there will be some conflict between Durden and the narrator because of Marla.

I had a hard time trying to figure out what the fight club really means. The narrator seems to engage in the therapy sessions and the fight club because he needs comfort. The narrator says that, in the fight club, he is more alive than ever. The fight club and the fighting is almost a rebirth. By fighting, the narrator is resurrected. He gains a sense of himself and his own body. In the same way, the therapy sessions allow the narrator gets a sense of himself. Compared to Bob, the narrator feels like more of a man. It is significant that Bob has testicular cancer because Bob feels like less of a man. I wonder if the narrator gains a sense of manhood by going to the particular Sunday night therapy session.

I also wonder why the narrator is unnamed. I think it shows that Tyler Durden is the more prominent one. It also shows that the narrator’s own insecurities can generalize to everyone. The narrator is like the narrator of Invisible Man in that they are both unnamed. Compared to Durden, the narrator does seem invisible. I am excited to find out why the narrator says that Durden and he used to be friends in the beginning. I am also waiting for more information on what the fight club means to the narrator.

The Invisibility of the Invisible Man

I finally finished reading Invisible Man last night and, once the action started picking up, it turned out to be an interesting book. However, I still think that the narrator could have condensed his story into 200 fewer pages. Although I was reading the novel closely, I had a hard time understanding the narrator’s theories. What did he really mean when he said he was invisible? When first realizes his invisibility (after the Tod Clifton funeral), the narrator says that he is going to lie to both sides—the Brotherhood and the black people of Harlem. Still, how does that make him invisible? Perhaps, he is trying to say that no one really cares about what he does and his actions won’t affect the people of Harlem. Or maybe he realizes that he is actually outside history because he is just a pawn in the Brotherhood game. The narrator keeps repeating that he is invisible, but I don’t have a full grasp on what he means. Hopefully, our five seminars will clear up some of my confusion.

Towards the end, the narrator reminded me a lot of Frankenstein in that there was a duality to his character. More specifically, the narrator says that he is both the victim and the victimizer. While he is lying to the black people of Harlem (the victims), he is also hurt by his own lying. Just like Frankenstein, the narrator is creating something, albeit intangible, that is destroying himself. The only difference is that the narrator knows what he is doing. I wonder whether this victimization and duality of character lead the narrator to have angry feelings to the white people in particular. In one section, he says that all the white peoples he encountered (Bledsoe and Mr. Norton and Brother Jack) because one big entity. What does he feel towards that entity? Does he feel like Ras the Destroyer who hates all white people? Or does he simply feel like white interests will always prevail? I think that the narrator does have a negative view especially after he discovered that Jack wrote the letter that he was going “too fast.” I think the reason that he goes into the whole was to hide from all the people that are seeking to use him. In fact, I think that the narrator was afraid.

In the epilogue, I thought the most significant scene was between Mr. Norton and the narrator. It was ironic that Mr. Norton doesn’t even remember his destiny now, showing that Mr. Norton never really cared about the welfare of the black college student. Their interaction reminds me of Brer Rabbit, where the narrator is the rabbit, or slave. As the rabbit or slave, the narrator seems to trick Mr. Norton, a sly fox, out of making the narrator part of his scorecard. The end still brings up important questions. Does this mean that the narrator is successful at the end? Has the narrator truly and happily “plunged out of history”? Is he representative of the entire black race?