We All Had Stuffed Animals

In class discussion (and a few blog comments) I’ve noticed that lots of people don’t really understand Jack’s attachment to inanimate objects. After some light research, I found the name of this behavior. Its anthropomorphism, which I though was largely human characteristics applied to animals, but turns out it can be used on objects too.

We’ve all anthropomorphized before, most often with our pets, stuffed animals, or the animals in documentary videos. I think what throws everyone off is that Jack finds this connection mostly in objects. This is basically because the only other person in the room is Ma, and she only lets him watch TV (which also has people) for a limited amount of time. But as I looked back at Jack talking about the things in his room, I found that the way Jack talks about and treats his objects is the same way he talks to people (or the characters in his books, the closest Jack has to the real thing). This makes sense, because as I was researching, I found out that when people are anthropomorphizing, they use similar brain regions to those used when they think about the behavior of other people.

I think that for some people in our class, it’s hard to understand the connections Jack makes, because these objects don’t have a “face,” or anything that makes it seem more human and conveys emotion. Indeed, the articles I read showed that most people exercise selectivity when anthropomorphizing; that is, they tend to interact more with objects that appear similar to humans. It’s one thing to say a teddy bear looks “friendly”; it’s another to read the emotions and intentions of Rug.

But one of the driving reasons behind anthropomorphism, according to my readings, is a search for social connection. I’m sure we can all think back to times when we were very young, or lonely, and played with stuffed animals or toys because everyone else was busy. Now Ma has done a great job of raising Jack, and they are always together, but having just one “social connection” is not enough for any human, especially a young child. All children anthropomorphize, and more so than adults, but Ma encourages Jack to exercise this ability to the utmost.

A major part of the reason that Ma can keep Jack entertained in Room, is because she helps him make friends from all the objects they have, and give them personalities and backstories. Not just that, but Jack has been in Room long enough to kind of watch these “characters” evolve. He knows the stories of their various scars and imperfections, such as the stain on Bed or the hole in Floor. When I first started reading Room, I remember being struck by the detail of all these personalities and backstories, maybe even a tiny bit in awe/jealous of Jack’s abilities? These object stories were way ahead of anything I did when I was five, and honestly pretty impressive, especially given the circumstances.

The story behind the refinement of Jack’s story-building abilities is heartbreaking, but Donoghue deals with it in a really touching way throughout the novel. Often people like to focus on the darkness of situations, or abhor everything that came from an impure source, if that makes any sense. This happens especially often with mental illness; it’s still pretty controversial to talk about strength or certain abilities learned through the struggle, because the gut reaction of many people (even though often unexpressed) is judgement that the person had the problem, or a kind of disbelief that they actually gained anything from it. The embodiment of this is how the TV interviewer tries to characterize Jack, as another horror coming from Nick. But for Ma, Jack is what gave her a reason to live.

I guess what I’m trying to say here, moving away from a lot of dark rambling, is that I really appreciated how Donoghue just showed us Jack’s skills at making friends from what there was in Room. Since we saw everything from Jack’s perspective, we were more inclined by nature to be impressed by everything he could do, and had to work to step back and figure out what was going on. For me, it kind of felt like regarding Jack’s ability to make friends and be entertained by random objects as a gift, I really appreciated that this wasn’t treated as just another aspect of “the freakshow.” ~Fin

Persia vs. Iran

A tension that Marji struggles with throughout Persepolis is what is truly ‘Persian’ and what is ‘Iranian.’ It seems that Marji views things Persian as the true identity of the country, and things Iranian as a recent construct. It’s telling that she titles her book Persepolis, the capital city of the First Persian Empire, and the tone of her introduction gives us an idea of how she views Iran’s history. As I read this introduction (again), I was surprised to learn that ‘Iran’ is a name that actually originated around the 3rd century with the rulers of Iran, referring to the people of the empire, despite Marji generally treating the term as foreign. ‘Persia’ was actually used by the ancient Greeks beginning around 500 BCE, to refer to Cyrus the Great’s empire.

And yet Persia is the name that stuck, and that Marji associates with the “strong culture” of Iran, which goes beyond its modern association with “fundamentalism, fanaticism, and terrorism.” We’ve seen before in Persepolis that for a time Marji’s view of political issues (especially the Iraq/Iran war) was largely framed in a big-picture historical context. In page 90, Marji presents her project, titled “The Arab Conquest and Our War” which argues that “...This war is the same as the one 1,400 years ago.”

Going out on a limb, I know that often in post-colonial countries there’s an effort to remake their image and leave behind everything colonial, to bring back the ‘old and true’ image of the country. But often in doing so, the country’s history is grossly oversimplified, aspects of it are glossed over altogether, and customs actually observed by the populace can be discredited because they ‘aren’t original.’ This process has been going on since the shah took power, largely to bring legitimacy to his rule. The lower left panel of page 32 makes the point clear: “All the country’s money went into ridiculous celebrations of the 2,500 years of dynasty and other frivolities… all of this to impress heads of state; the population couldn’t have cared less.”

This conversation is one of the first major lessons teaching Marji to look beyond what everyone tells her and to know what’s really going on. Given that Marji’s family is very educated and politically aware, it makes sense that they would help teach her to view history through a wider lense. Marji’s confusion over what the ‘real’ history of her country is intensifies and takes a new direction under the Islamic regime, starting with the ‘editing’ of schoolbooks on first two panels of page 48: “After all this joy, a major misfortune took place: the schools closed during this period, reopened, and… ‘Children, tear out all the photos of the shah from your books.’ ‘But she was the one who told us that the shah was chosen by god!’”

The search by many government for various countries “true” history continues, and I appreciated this look into how someone living there actually feels about it. Often one wonders how people of a country simply “accept” things their government tells them, and Persepolis shows us how the confusion affects everyone -- and how sometimes other things and life just get in the way. For the adults of the society, the government story isn’t accepted or believed so much as ignored, among everything else that needs to be worried about it.

The Old Man

One 'episode' that really stuck out to me from Persepolis was the story of the old man's funeral at the protest. It started with a funeral for a younger man who was actually killed in the violence – and then the crowd begins parading another old man from the hospital, who turns out to just be a cancer victim. The man’s widow first protests, then joins the demonstration.

Everyone hearing the story laughs, except for Marjane. We’ve discussed in class how she tends to see things in black and white, and is still working to learn the nuances of situations. The old man’s funeral celebration is a key example of this. All Marjane seems to see is that someone has died, and she doesn’t understand why people are laughing about it. The real irony here is that the old man didn't die fighting the shah like the young man, but they are both praised equally. The old man’s inclusion shows how adults too can put on ‘black and white lenses’ when they’re wound up enough, binding everything that happens in life as somehow related to the revolution.

Marjane’s family laughs because of the contrast here between the reactions of people under pressure and reactions of normal people. Perhaps also because it shows how strong the revolutionary will is. But Marjane is still left missing all the nuances. She’s too young to understand what’s going on, and so far her personality searches for clear cut, easy to understand distinctions. I really noticed another parallel here with Marjane and the demonstrators (besides, you know, dressing up like Fidel Castro and marching around her yard). In her search for easy, clear answers, I could potentially see Marjane in the mob, celebrating the old man as well. She and the revolutionaries both have a simple view of the world, and the more symbols for the revolution, the better. 

Grant: Should I Stay or Should I Go? (*guitar riff*)

From the beginning we’ve known that Grant dislikes the town he lives in, and is torn by wanting to leave. He even had the chance, when he visited his parents in California, but then he came back. I never really understood why he still felt so strongly about his town until the Christmas show.

Throughout A Lesson Before Dying, Grant has been cynical, feeling trapped and powerless, and for good reason. Many times he’s alluded to the cycle, or really cycles, that the community and its people are stuck in, that keep them trapped in a hard life. I could understand how and why Grant became so cynical, but I didn’t understand why he came home, if it depressed him and made him feel that he could not make a change. Speaking of feelings, I was pretty indifferent to Grant at first, because he seemed so apathetic or angry at everything (except for Vivian). I was almost as frustrated as Grant because I couldn’t understand why he was here if he had a chance to leave and hated it. He never really showed any affection for his hometown in the present.

But during the Christmas show, despite his best efforts to stay detached through anger, there were a few moments that still touched Grant (and through him, me). I had to reread the passages a few times to be sure, since Gaines (as any writer should be) is a master of ‘show don’t tell.’ All that signaled to me that these moments meant anything to Grant were the extra details he gave us while describing them. He described in detail the recitation of “‘Twas the Night Before Christmas,” the children’s efforts to buy Jefferson a present, and the food one of Grant’s student brought to him.

I think these moments affected Grant so much because they represent a surprise, something new in the routine. He can see in a way, however small, that there are people in his community who are talented. And this renewed sensitivity to people carried over in Grant’s interactions with Jefferson. He seems to really start caring about what happens to Jefferson, and not feel put up to this crazy task by Miss Emma and his aunt. Later when Grant goes to see Vivian after talking to Jefferson, he doesn't just complain about having no idea of what to do. He acknowledges that success and change are also up to Jefferson, and opens up more to about his own feelings. By Grant realizing and taking for himself a manning in working to help Jefferson, he seems so far to be doing the same with helping his community. Maybe through the effort to “make Jefferson a man,” Grant will realize that staying in his hometown doesn't make him any less of a man.

Addie’s Death is More of a Reward than a Tragedy?

I for one started out this novel with a general view of “oh no their mom is dying, that’s so sad!” And Addie’s death definitely causes an emotional crisis within some of the Bundrens; Darl and Vardaman are the most visibly disturbed. But as I looked back on Addie’s actual death seen (as narrated chapter), she seemed to view it as finally getting a chance to rest. “...[Addie] pulled the covers up and shut her eyes. ‘You all will have to look out for pa the best you can,’ she said. ‘I'm tired.’” It sounds here like Addie is going to bed, not laying down to die. I also found it odd that all she said was that she was tired, and nothing about being sick. In fact, when Anse asks her, she outright denies it. "’Are you sick, Addie?’ I said. ‘I am not sick,’ she said. ‘You lay you down and rest you,’ I said. ‘I knowed you are not sick. You're just tired.’”  This is why the rest of the Bundren’s are so confused about the seriousness of Addie condition, and why Anse put off calling Peabody for so long (besides being a cheapskate).

I noticed that in As I Lay Dying, people tried hard to fulfill various ‘social contracts,’ imagined or not, in an attempt to look strong and respectable to others. Addie’s refusal to acknowledge her illness seems to be part of this, and on par with Anse’s “I don’t want to be beholden” philosophy. Perhaps she doesn’t want anyone to call her weak, and perhaps she doesn’t want Anse to blame her for calling the doctor. But looking at Addie’s death as a reward shows this behavior in a more understandable light (especially because we know Addie doesn’t care about Anse). Possibly Addie doesn’t want the doctor to come -- at least not too soon -- because she wants to die, and is afraid he could actually make her better. Peabody thinks along the same lines when Anse finally calls him: “...and at first I would not go because there might be something I could do and I would have to haul her back, by God.” Peabody understands what a hard life Addie’s had, and sympathizes for her in some odd way. When Peabody actually gets to Addie’s room, she even directly communicates that she wants to die. “She watches me: I can feel her eyes. It's like she was shoving at me with them. I have seen it before… [they] drive from the room them coming with sympathy and... actual help.”

When Cora and Vernon learn about Addie’s death, their immediate thoughts barely center around Addie. In fact, all Cora expresses about Addie directly is: “‘It's Addie Bundren. She's gone at last.’” Afterwards Vernon starts thinking about Vardaman, and how weird Darl is, and how sad that this tragedy would strike the Bundren family and leave them without a mother. There’s an unspoken kind of agreement that Addie’s death is for the best, and a kind of release for her -- largely from the hardship of being married to Anse.

And finally, Addie herself more or less views death as a way out. In her only narrative chapter, she mentioned what her father told her about death: “the reason for living was to get ready to stay dead a long time. And when I would have to look at [the children] day after day, each with his and her secret and selfish thought... that this seemed to be the only way I could get ready to stay dead, I would hate my father for having ever planted me.” In this passage it sounds like Addie views her responsibilities as a wife and mother simply as a duty expected of her, what one has to do and work hard at the be meritorious of the rest of death, eventually. She hates that she has to go through this, but it’s part of the required, unspoken social contract. Women who did not get married were likely considered outcasts, and had a hard time socially. Addie wants to avoid disgrace, which is why I think she married Anse -- in the end she’ll need a husband, why not marry this man? After we hear about the soul-killing monotony of her marriage with Anse (and subsequent affair with the preacher), we get additional confirmation that Addie’s life has largely been continual, grinding unhappiness. When she gets sick, she ‘decides’ not to fight it and to finally accept her ‘reward;’ both the rest of death, and the final separation from Anse by being buried in Jefferson. Addie will get to return to her (hopefully, possibly happier) original family, and leave behind the Bundren family she hardly cares for.

Unpopular Opinion: Old Yeller had a Better Life than Argos

So after finishing the entire Odyssey, the character I felt for the most was surprisingly not the title character, but his dog. The main characters waiting at home for Odysseus are all exceedingly loyal (see Penelope, Telemachus) but Argos’s loyalty matters no less just because he’s an animal. Odysseus and Argos reunion was one of the most emotional for me, unspoiled by any kind of scheme. Penelope and Odysseus’s reunion was certainly dramatic, but there was too much scheming and distrust and need for proof that when it actually happened my thoughts were just “FINALLY….. Could have been more emotional.”

Speaking of emotion, meeting Argos is the first time Odysseus really shows emotion in Ithaca without being prompted by someone (Athena) that it’s ok to do so. When Odysseus sees Argos, weakly wagging his tail and on the verge of death, he literally sheds a few tears and has to try and straight face it to Eumaeus. During most of Odysseus’s time in Ithaca so far he’s been super stoic, sticking to the deceit, enduring the abuse, and honestly not showing as much emotion as I thought he would/should. The most charged moment it seems is his reunion with Telemachus. But even that is kinda spoiled, because Odysseus is in disguise, Telemachus doesn’t know who he his, and Odysseus has to make small talk until Athena allows him to reveal himself. Then they have a nice tearful father-son reunion for a while, but this too is marred by a quick switch to planning the death of 99 men. The transition is just too grizzly, and there was too much emotional holdback.

Odysseus also had to suppress his emotions when he sees Argos, but it was forced by the situation. Also, both parties reacted immediately in some manner, if not the one they wanted. Odysseus literally sheds a few involuntary tears when he sees his dog; when he sees his son, he just kinda stares at him. Holding back from Argos was the biggest tragedy for me because with humans there will be always be qualms in this situation (i.e. do I know you anymore) but there’s none of that with Argos. Here is the dog that Odysseus raised and trained since he was a puppy, lying neglected and nearly dead on the dung heap by his master’s palace. Odysseus can’t comfort his dog at all by scratching him on the ears or letting Argos lick his hand, etc. He just has to keep walking into the palace. At least with Telemachus Odysseus got to hug im and cry before they fought the suitors, and Odysseus got to talk with Penelope (in disguise) and encourage her that he was coming back.

The most frustratingly heart rending part of Argos’s situation for me was that after Odysseus has taken back his palace and “restored justice,” Argos gets none of the rewards. Fagles translation makes it sound as though Argos died basically immediately after he saw Odysseus had returned. So his only reward, after 20 years of waiting, is to see his master cry a little bit and walk on by. Fagle also doesn’t make clear if Odysseus saw Argos die or not….. So there’s this gaping hole if Argos died after Odysseus walked on, or if Odysseus watched him collapse and couldn’t do anything. Ultimate angst (no I’m not crying).

So I’ll finish rambling explication with my final inflammatory claim, is that Argos’s story is sadder than Old Yeller’s, our friend from the title. Old Yeller was happy for most of the story before he got shot, but Argos spent his life on that dung heap, waiting for Odysseus, and suffering.  

Your fave is problematic: Odysseus

• Cheats repeatedly
• Excessively proud
• Overly reckless

So for years I’ve been hearing about how great The Odyssey is, and what a Cool Guy™ Odysseus is -- and now that I’ve read (half) of the epic, and I can mostly agree. But as I was reading Odysseus’s exploits I was growing more and more uncomfortable with “the man of twists and turns.” I understand that heroes often have a fatal flaw (or two or three), but usually someone points them out along the course of the story, and helps to outline/bring attention to what they are. That doesn’t happen to any great extent in the Odyssey, except for Poseidon being angered by Odysseus’s pride, demonstrated in blinding and then taunting Polyphemus.

Heroes in general tend to be reckless, that’s what gives them some of the courage to take their risks. But Odysseus crosses the line between bravery and stupidity way to often, and it takes the lives of his (now non-existent) crew. He invited himself into Polyphemus’s cave to steal cool guest gifts, and only gets out after several of his men are eaten (although Odysseus is the one to get them out). Although I understand he was stuck between a cliff and a hard place, he goes by Scylla’s cave without letting his men know what’s going to happen. And when he reaches Circe’s island, he sends his men ahead to go party without asking them to scout first, to report if the owners are friendly or hostile. After his experience with Polyphemus, I feel that he should have known better.

But then again, if Odysseus wasn’t such a wild guy, we’d have no story. The qualities that lead to these blunders, the pride and the recklessness, can in different circumstances be courage and a self-confidence which inspires obedience/help from others. But no matter what I think of Odysseus’s flaws, it seems that the gods -- or at least Athena -- like them. As mentioned in class, their interaction seemed to be that of equals conspiring. So Odysseus, flaws included, is almost like a god.

Which brings me to the actual gods…. I could do a whole other “callout post” for them. The flaws that in Odysseus that irked me and contributed to his crew members’ deaths, actually bring him *closer* to the gods. Yet by now we know the gos are not necessarily (not even usually) benevolent -- they like to interact with the mortals for their entertainment. The lives of regular people are like a reality show to the gods, and they love stirring up trouble -- as well as defending the power of their name. Sure Odysseus was “overly proud” when he gave Polyphemus his home address after blinding him, but it really doesn’t compare to Poseidon, who gets so (pardon my French) butthurt after the Phaeacians “disrespect” him that he destroys their harbor……. Their entire livelihood.

So I’ll end with a kind of “out there” theory. Clearly the Greeks are not a fan of the gods’ attributes that lead to “mountains around your harbor” and eternal psychological abuse, but they never really criticize the gods outright. There’s always a search for a reason why Zeus or Poseidon or Hades is mad, and never just anger at the gods or “the system” for kinda being generally “rigged” and cruel. But there is definitely criticism of Odysseus, even at that time -- the way Homer seems to shore the character up, and spend effort justifying some of Odysseus’s mistakes, seems to be evidence. Maybe Odysseus, with his god-like qualities but problematic episodes, acts as a stand-in for the actual gods, but one within criticism.