I forgot to say something... i think that that film was one of the most eye opening films for me. It makes you realize that these people are no different from the average person they just choose to use their body in a different way and if everyone used their body in the same way the earth would be a very boring place. ok i think that that wraps it up
Cheers,
Hope everyone has a good next semester and good luck on finals

So i dont know how many blogs we are suppose to have done but i noticed that i never commented on paris is burning. I thought that the movie was really interesting, though i dont think that if i saw it in a movie store i would ever pick it up and rent it for myself but after seeing im can say im glad i have watched it. What is even more interesting is in my public health class last week a transgender came in a spoke to the class, the topic of the class was sexuality. He talked about his life as a women and his current life as a man. Though it is a little different then what we say in the film i still thought it was interesting to have a first hand account. He didnt talk about the balls or anything but he talked abou this struggles with telling his family, and friends and his stuggles that he still faces today.

Some make-ups

Maus II should have been on the curriculum to accompany Maus I. Reading only Maus I is like eating plain white bread only. Maus II the Wonderbread, the jelly, the peanut butter, the banana. There was so much more depth in the second one.

I find it weird how Vladek is racist against African American people. Like come on. You’d think that losing your family and almost dying would open his eyes or something. Perhaps it’s because of his glass eye that hinders his sight and perception. What does that mean? No idea. Well, I found an article online where Art Spiegelman reveals his inner racist. It’s quite interesting. He used to have a lot of close African American friends until he was put into the mental institution. He couldn’t control his bladder and had to keep bothering the guard, who happened to be African American, throughout the night. After a while, the guard got mad so he wouldn’t let Art out of his little cell thing. So he had to resort to uhm.. going to the bathroom in the crack at the door. He was “degraded” and called him the n-word. Then the guard came and punched him in the stomach for calling him that. After Art was released, he has friends who are African American, but he never had close relationships with them. He was affected by that event. My story telling skills are awesome. But anyways, it made me reflect upon the whole racism, prejudice thing. I wished we lived in a utopian world. Why do we have to judge people based on their looks? Why can’t we judge them based on their characters? Humans are too complex to understand. Stop Global Warming!

-Tran

Blog #2:

It could be interesting to study fairy tales in this class. See how they have changed over the course of the years. Say for instance, Sleeping Beauty. Before her tale got Disneyfied, she was actually raped by the prince. He abandoned her afterwards. In her coma, she delivered baby twins, and the magical woodland fairies came to help her. The only reason she woke up was because one of her babies was sucking on her finger, and the splinter that caused her to sleep came out. Then the evil queen wanted to eat the babies, and made Sleeping Beauty strip before cooking her. While she was demoralizing herself in front of the whole kingdom, the prince came and killed his mom for her evil deeds. Then they all realized that the babies were still alive and happily ever after. Compare that to Disney. The significance of the original Sleeping Beauty pertained to the time period in which it was written to have society learn a lesson. Pinocchio was murdered in the streets. Little Red Riding Hood shanked the wolf.

-Tran

Blog # 3:

“Love is an action.” – Bell Hooks.

I say, “Love is the movement. So move.” Actually, I didn’t come up with that. I wish I had the creativity to come up with neat little quotes. Let’s recap.

“Living as a grown up baby is difficult.”

“You killed me when you made me.”

“Happy, happy ever after.”

So speaking of writing on bathroom stalls, people have too much times on their hands. My first encounter with bathroom blogs (or should I say, bathroom clogs)was about a typical female topic: weight. Like gosh, love who you are. So the conversation went something like this:

“I’m so fat. My boyfriend doesn’t love me. I’m so ugly and unhappy.”

While there were some negative comments which I think are too vulgar to post in a blog, here is one that is appropriate for a blog.

“Well duh your boyfriend isn’t happy. Who would want to keep seeing the blob every day?”

On the other hand, there were also some inspirational ones.

“Don’t worry, just exercise and not eat.”

“When things aren’t going good, just remember Christina Aguilera’s words: You are beautiful, no matter what they say. Words can’t bring you down.”

-Tran

Blog # 4:

So…since I’m in my blogging frenzy, let’s talk about the short story that we were supposed to read in the beginning of the semester: “Sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong.” It’s really interesting. I don’t know why Talissa didn’t make us read it in the beginning. At first, I thought it was going to be a cute little story about love, a great way to start off the semester. It’s like Heart of Darkness, Frankenstein, and the Holocaust all rolled into one. I didn’t recognize “Song Tra Bong.” I actually thought it was a song, but when I realized it was about the Vietnam War, I was able to see it “through my Vietnamese eyes.” I realized it was the name of a river in Vietnam. I don’t to give the story away. So READ IT. For fun. =]

-Tran

Blog # 5:

So I’m all blogged out. Now I will say my thank yous. Thank you to everyone in this class for making this class enjoyable. Thank you Talissa for being the first instructor at Berkeley who has given me hope that I will survive here. Shaunt, every time I see a little orange thing, I will try to put the peels back together. Tony, if I ever see you, I’ll give you a smiley sticker. Patrick, thank you for being my buddy haha. Jeannie, your photographs are beautiful. I never mastered black-and-white photography. I like to sepia tone everything to hide the lint marks. Lashika, hahah “just deal with it.” Kunal, live life, and continue being awesome. Tiffany, good luck on ESPM finals. Good luck to everyone on their finals. Yay almost done with first semester. Adios ya’ll!!

My Third Attempting at Posting/Blogspot hates me today.

Fortunately, I didn't have to sit through another set of Blade Runner movie clips or a historical perspective on it, as I was expecting. But I admit I was a little disappointed since, maybe, if I had a deeper understanding of what the hell Ridley Scott was trying to achieve in his film, I would have a greater appreciation for it. Then again, I'd probably fall asleep through my professor's lecture. Two o'clock in the afternoon has been proven to be high time for my power naps, despite the professor's thoroughly strange take on history. Sitting in a darkened lecture hall would make things much, much worse. In any case, a happy coincidence happened. Instead of analysis on Blade Runner, we learned about the emergence of sexual deviation: homosexuality, transgenderism, and the like. As I checked the syllabus online (https://webfiles.berkeley.edu/~mgalvan/Schedule.html), the talk was entitled "The Queer Frontier." It made me think of our class and all the images from Paris Is Burning, which then made me homesick for our class in Wheeler. It also goes to show how everything's connected. As I may have mentioned before, my history class started with Blade Runner, as our English class did (I consider Philip K. Dick's book the start of our class since I have nearly erased all memory of Frankenstein). It's funny how two classes can parallel each other so much, beginning and ending on the same subjects.

After watching Paris Is Burning, I was rather shocked by how tragic it was. I was discussing the film with a friend and she brought up the topic of Thai ladyboys, Japanese new halfs as well as how often transgenders and transsexuals show up in Asian media, that I realized why I was so shocked by Paris is Burning. I recall listening to the Korean transgender pop star, Harisu, when I was younger. A few friends of mine also watched a Taiwanese TV drama back in high school featuring Harisu as the female supporting role competing for the leading man’s love against the leading female. My friends didn’t even realize that she was transsexual given that most of transsexuals featured in Asian media tend to look completely female. Personally, from the one episode I saw while I was at her house, I also think it might have been since Harisu was more physically attractive and effeminate than the female lead. Apparently, after Googling her just now, Harisu has also married recently to a male rap star. Though I’d heard the term, ladyboy, used previously, I didn’t know too much about Thai ladyboys and so I looked it up online. Though I knew they were accepted in mainstream culture, I didn’t expect them to be as visible as they are. There are apparently several popular models, singers and movie stars that are ladyboys. Newspapers print female and ladyboy beauty contest winners side-by-side and they’ve become an international tourist attraction amongst heterosexual men. Many also marry heterosexual men and have normal lives. It makes me wonder if it’s since they just physically look like pretty women that makes them more accepted or if it has more to do with culture and how the culture perceives masculinity. Yet even if it were cultural, it wouldn’t make sense for them to be so popular internationally to the point of being a tourist attraction. I’m just baffled by it all.

I’m missing 2 posts I believe and so am blogging now. In regards to the theme of the course, I actually watched a Japanese science fiction film rendition of Pinocchio a while back. It was entitled Hinokio, and though the film itself wasn’t that impressive, I thought the concept was rather neat. For starters, it emulates the original Pinocchio story in regards to how the main character progressively learns to become human (though in this scenario, perhaps relearning would be more accurate). Rather than having a magically animated wooden marionette, the main character is an elementary school student named Satoru, whom in a recent accident, has become wheel-chair ridden as well as lost his mother in a recent accident. Due to the recent trauma, he has secluded himself from the world and thus his father designs a remote controlled robot for Satoru so that the robot can go to school in his place. I find it interesting since Satoru essentially learns to interact with others and live normally again through the humanoid robot. Thus, though he still exists in his original human form within his room, it’s no longer really his physical form given that he’s for the most part projecting his thoughts and actions through the robot and receiving senses such as pain from the robot in turn. Yet, would you then classify him as a human or android given that his physical form through which he lives is essentially that of a robot? It got me questioning whether he’d be more or less human had he been fully paralyzed rather than just temporarily partially paralyzed and thus had no control over his human body whatsoever. However, similar to the original Pinocchio, it wasn’t really his physical form that ultimately defined him as being a real boy and so I thought how he’s already regained his life through the robot prior to actually living again as a human was a nice touch.

-Kathy

fin

I decided that just in case I missed a blog entry that I might as well do another one since I want to take a productive break from studying and this is the perfect opportunity. Theres a new movie out, "The Golden Compass," and I've wanted to watch it since i first heard it was turned into a movie. I really enjoyed the books, actually that's an understatement, I adored the books they were so though-out and amazing. It's all about religion, so obviously some people are upset. their main beef, God is apparently murdered in the series, this is not what happens at all. In the book what is defeated is not God, and no where in there is God ever seen nor does anyone know he exist. Instead what is defeated is the corrupt immoral institution that creates their own ideas and labels them as God's. Now it seems that religion is the bad guy in the book, but thats not true either. The idea is not to defeat religion or God but defeat the "bad" God, the one that kills and that creates misery.

all this is taking me way too deep into the pool that is the infinite.

Hybrid Books

Ok, since I might need one or two more blog posts, I figure here's a chance to give some feedback.
One, in terms of books to recommend, Wicked would be pretty good. But really, what I'd like to see is some 'Choose Your Own Adventure' type books. What better way to deal with hybrid themes than to have hybrid stories. 'Now wait a second Shaunt,' you'll say, 'Aren't choose your own adventure books childish and not worthy of literary critique?' To this I can simply answer NO! Weren't science fiction books once held to that same regard? Aren't comic books just now coming to age within the literary world? If I were a writer today (and I probably shouldn't write this because it's such a sweet idea, but at least I'll know if anyone of you guys snaked me and demand royalties) I would write a serious choose your own adventure book. The non-linear openendedness of the book would really draw the reader into the story and make them feel more connected to the actions of the characters and have a deeper respect of the consequences. And, I don't think that it would be hard to market either. Following the example of Spiegelman, I would simply write a couple in some Avant-Gard publications, only for people to soon feel nostalgia for their 4th grade class when they read dungeons and dragons 'secret of the fire mountain.' Bam, instant success.

The Wicked soundtrack is apparently not bringing inspiration. Instead, all I can think of is how I can’t believe the semester is already over. I guess I’ll reflect on some of my favorite random memories/thoughts/lessons from this past semester: An egg shell skeleton can be art. Frankenstein likes to whine a lot. Austin Grossman is AWESOME. Does the goat really represent everything? Really? Lashika’s cheeriness makes me happy. Kudos to Tony for always being so willing to share his thoughts (and everyone else too! sorry I’m so quiet… I do enjoy listening though :] ) Outdoor lectures are nice as long as it’s a warm day. Every decision can be made with a vote. And lastly, don’t listen to rumors, which is why I should turn my paper in right about now. Thanks for a wonderful semester, Talissa!

If I were to choose a book with hybrid characters to add to the course syllabus, I think Wicked, by Gregory Maguire, would be a fun read. While it is a modern book written to entertain, it does make some great social, political, and ethical commentary on the issue of good versus evil. The main hybrid character would be Elphaba, better known later as the Wicked Witch of the West. Born green with some other eccentric features (sharp teeth? Yikes!), the novel follows her journey to find her place in the political order of Oz. The Animal vs. animal controversy that drives the political struggle in the book is also reminiscent of our Frankenstein and Equiano characters. Animals (with a capital A) are intelligible creatures capable of speech, but have the form of normal animals. One view argues that Animals have more in common with humans than animals because they are possess higher thinking. The tyrant Wizard of Oz, however, is creating social standards discriminating against Animals. As the recurring theme during this course, the novel brings up the issue of how society determined the definition of what is human and how education, indicating higher learning, plays a role in integrating. Plus, the musical is awesome, though of course a lot less dark and political. But who doesn’t like a good tune? I think I’ll listen to the soundtrack as I contemplate my last post…

While doing my business today in the Dwinelle’s downstairs women’s restroom, I was pleasantly surprised to decipher from the graffitied walls the following quote, “Love is an action- bell hooks.” I’m not sure from what context it originated, but on its own and from my literal interpretation, I think I can agree with Hooks this time around. Love isn’t just a feeling or a thought. In order for you to love someone else or even yourself, it’s necessary to show it. In her life, I guess she shows her love by fighting on behalf of the people she cares about through her writing. Lesson of the day: you CAN learn stuff from the mostly emo/crude/random gibberish written on bathroom stalls. Who knew.

On the same, but different (ha), note, I went home this past weekend and told my mom about “Paris is Burning”. This led to a discussion about an Oprah episode. I swear Oprah does everything. Whatever you’re talking about, somehow Oprah has covered it. Kind of like the Simpsons…but less stupid, right? Is it just me or is there a Simpsons joke for just about every situation? Okay, end of tangent. SO, Oprah apparently did an episode about an Asian couple: married a few years, live in the suburbs, two kids. Then one day, the husband tells his wife that he feels like he should have been born a woman and wants a sex change. Surprisingly (or perhaps not), the wife decided stay with her partner. I was amused by my mom’s comment, “He was a good looking guy too! It’s such a pity.” Although she said this half jokingly, it still made me wonder how race plays a role in different stereotypes about transvestites. The documentary was about African Americans and Latinos, but what if there had also been Asian characters. Would there have been a different response? My mom would definitely say so. Hmm… I don’t quite know what to make of this, and I know this will probably be one of the last posts, but any thoughts?

To make my complete circle, the wife definitely displays Bell Hooks insight. =)

When asked about the blogs a few weeks ago, Talissa told us to basically “make it happen”. Sooo… a few weeks later, I’m making it happen...with 4 consecutive blogs. =)

I found “Paris is Burning” to be very interesting and, sorry Bell Hooks, quite entertaining. I think I would have been one of those movie-goers that she seems to despise so much, the ones that left the theater exclaiming how insightful and enlightening the documentary is. While I don’t want to come off as closed-minded or sheltered, I never knew such a community existed. Since I have no oppositions to homosexuals/heterosexuals cross-dressing, the documentary served as an amusing introduction to a previously unknown world. There’s no doubt that a white patriarchal prejudice still exists in today’s society, so I cannot argue that Bell Hook’s feminist and racial concerns are completely unfounded. Nonetheless, I don’t believe Hook’s concerns approach the major issues transvestites confront on a daily basis. Her battle is minor in the larger scheme of things. I doubt Venus Xtravaganza was murdered because she was conforming to an illusion of a weak white female dominated by male society. The real battle transvestites have to face is finding acceptance into a disapproving society so that they can live safe, normal lives outside of poverty. Once that has been accomplished then maybe Hook’s concerns won’t seem as trivial. As for now, I think she’s focusing on the wrong issues.

Sorry for the rant...

Here's my problem with today's educational system. The emotion behind all of it is never encouraged. We read a book about slavery and we read a book about the holocaust and we are told to make arguments. We read a book about the holocaust and we are supposed to analytically take it apart and be smart about it. I certainly understand the value in the ability to do this, and i certainly don't expect this particular class to be the front-runner to where I think schooling should be (I think Talissa is wonderful and I almost always enjoy class... though maybe that's just because i'm loud), but there's also a dire necessity for emotions. It's not like they're not there anyway, they're just partitioned away in the corner. You can't ARGUE about someone's emotional reaction to a book (well you can, but you'd be wrong... and a jerk). You can't satisfy people's desires to EXPLAIN everything through taking a thoughtful and honest look at how a book makes you feel--I mean, you can, but you better not turn it in because you'll get a C.

I think it has to do with our culture's tendency to want EVERYthing IMMEDIATELY, ALL THE TIME. Why consider how a book changes you emotionally over time when you can pull apart details and form them into a mildly-amusing, skill-building paper that demonstrates your ability to express your thoughts coherently? Who needs emotions when you have a FIERY INTELLECT?!?!?!!!?

Of course the reason we don't express ourselves emotionally in the world of academics to satiate our desire to fit in. Plus we get to feel superior if other people express emotions as equally important as fancy theses.

Ok. That was getting a little too skeptical. I mean, i had to write something! Did everyone know that the nazis created a new way to speak (which roughly translates to bureaucratese) in which nobody had to take responsibility for anything they did since it was always because of orders? That way everyone could be blameless for committing atrocities: just say someone else made you do it.

and Tran, again:

My friendship bracelet broke. Is that a sign?? As I sit here next to my dorm room's window, staring into the darkness, I am reminded of the novella Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. My English teacher made my class read that book because she said that it is powerful and we will encounter it again in college. I didn't take her word for it, but here we are, reading (or read past tense) Equiano. Theory Toolbox even dedicates two three paragraphs to Conrad and his novella in the "Differences" chapter. For a story less than 100 pages, it has some pretty complicated ideas that confuzzled us all. I don't know if any of you guys and gals have read it yet, but I would still like to discuss it. There's basically a summary in Theory Toolbox pages 161-162... but... anyways so Conrad was a "white man" during the time that Africa was being colonized by the Europeans. Maybe it was his word choice or something, but people called him a racist. I dont' think he was racist because he wrote it to expose the evils of colonization and how the Europeans became corrupted, but Chinua Achebe wrote Things Fall Apart in response to Conrad. He showed that Africans had a culture, and they were civilized and content. Until the Europeans came along and then their lives began to fall apart. (good book btw) What I noticed was that in Things Fall Apart, the style was very simple, with some cultural words, and easy to read. It had the effect that Achebe wanted. I compared this to Equiano, which was lengthy and, excuse me, boring. Halfway through writing this blog, I realized I shouldn't be comparing the two because they were written in different time periods. They are both effective in helping the authors' cause. Now I lost my train of thought. It's funny how I get riled up about something, then I fall flat on my face. So... no, Equiano is not the greatest possibility of our times. But that phrase itself is ambiguous. Now I'm confused.

uh-oh. I forgot to post Tran's last blog entry. My bad.

I hate blogging because I don't get the thrill of seeing my name as the person who posted the blog. Darn google for its complicated ways. So... my building played a game called "Erhmanopordy" (a hybrid between the game Jeapordy and the building's name) which pitted each floor against one another. Reminded me of that first page in Maus when Vladek mentioned something about locking friends up together for weeks without food. The floors were playing for free Gypsy's pizza, and dang, did it turn foul. The extent some people go to for some free food and to win... tsk tsk. Whatever happened to being friendly neighbors? Anywho, Pinky and the Brain... awww I am forever in their debt. Because of them, I memorized the different parts of the brain and the nervous systerm and got extra credit for Physiology in high school.

I don't think I will ever get tired of talking about Maus. Instead of pouring our ideas onto an essay, I say we share them to enlighten one another. I always like hearing about other people's opinions. There's so much more to interpret! I'm being optimistic =] I really want to read Maus II. I went to the Cal student store on my way back to my dorm to look for it. I spent an hour wandering around. Why didn't I just ask the information desk? I don't know. Instead, I ended up reading a book about Dr. Seuss and his "Seussisms." Oh, the places I will go... It was pretty inspirational.

At 2 in the morning, I remember how I used to be afraid of every little noise I hear back at home if I stayed up this late. I was especially afraid after reading "All Quiet on the Western Front" and watching "Schindler's List." Anything that is borderline horror-ish or mentions anything of that sort makes me nervous. I was scared of that one old Nickalodeon cartoon "AHHH Real Monsters!" So it was interesting for me to discover that Maus isn't giving me any nightmares. (I probably jinxed myself and end up having nightmares tonight. If I do, I shall inform the class tomorrow, or today.) I think I fooled myself with the images into thinking that yea, this is just a story that happened to animals. I know that this was reality, but I just can't fathom the truth. It's too scary for me. I prefer to live in a bubble.

This is in response to Shaunt's post about nervous ticks:

I also noticed Grossman's habit of pushing up his glasses. It was something about the precise way he pushed them up so delicately that caught my attention. It just shows that something so simple and everyday can be a beautiful movement. I think its beauty comes from the fact that it was not intended to be performed in any way. In my modern dance class we spend one day working on a gesture exercise. We had around twelve everyday gestures (like waving at someone or eating food) and we performed them rhythmically in beat to create movement. It was interesting because everyone had their own particular way of gesturing. Once these gestures were performed in class they did not seem like everyday gestures anymore, but part of choreography instead.

Shaunt's remark about pushing up the glasses reminded me of a photograph I once took of my friend. I took him to the photography studio in Wurster and snapped a roll of film entirely dedicated to him and one of them caught him in the act of pushing his glasses up. Of all thirty eight pictures, this was the one photograph I decided to print. It captures him in his natural state, frozen in a moment of time where he is completely himself. If you guys want to see it, you can view is on my very incomplete website with very poor photo-quality: http://jeannie.art.googlepages.com/mainportraits.html

look at me, im so pretty

Burning Down Paris, freaking awesome. I’ve heard the name before and I’ve heard about the 80’s black drag queen movies, but never realized they were the same thing. I was particularly moved by the one guy who was always doing his makeup in the mirror. One of the old-school guys. He really seemed upset that the balls were changing and becoming something new. Reminiscing about the old days in the 60’s and 70’s where they dressed as Vegas showgirls and made their own costumes, he spoke quite poorly about the new state of the balls. Focus on designer clothing, too many categories, too many people, too much change. But with that, I could help but see him as a little hypocritical. He’s afraid and upset by change? That should be what every drag queen wants. Change of society’s mentality about them hopefully even gaining acceptance. But maybe that’s exactly what it’s not about. He doesn’t want acceptance. Dressing in drag would be no fun if it didn’t elicit a response. This is why I strongly disagree with that article we read. Drag-queens aren’t trying to emulate woman in order to hide and feel powerless, it’s done for that show, that “look at me! Don’t you think I’m crazy!!?”

Has anyone read today's SF Chronicle? I myself haven't, but I did glance at the headlines since a lone yellow Chronicle kiosk sits by my morning bus stop. At the top left hand corner of the front page I saw a feature about a "new cut" of Blade Runner. When will that movie ever leave me alone? We watched the opening scenes of it in my history class, and I my professor's having yet another lecture on it for me to look forward to in the very near future. Right before finals! Oh, joy. I'm sorry, but I think one fast-forwarded and one real-time viewing of that Ridley Scott movie is all I can take, let alone critical analysis on it. While making up my own dialogue to it would be fun, I must admit the few bits of dialogue are inadvertently hilarious. However, the wait for that hilarity to happen is too long for me, as I am much too impatient. And I still can't get over the scene when _________ (the weird replicant who almost kills Deckard [why did they have to change all the characters' names?]) smashes Tyrell's head in with his fingers. What's worse is that dove flying away in slow-mo. What the hell? Wasn't that symbolism already overused by the '80s? All I can say is at least I don't have to be subjected to Ichi the Killer film history criticism.

I know i have two consecutive blogs but i think that i needed an extra one from some previous week. I was reflecting on this class in particular as i was trying to procrastinate this upcoming paper. The theme of this class really made it appealing. Though some books were not a favorite of mine, Blade Runner and Frankenstein, everything really came together in the end and i understand why we read all of these books. I think that my favorite book was by far Maus and i think that when i get through with finals i will read Maus 2. The other thing is that i wanted to thank you Talissa for all the help throughout the semester and being so good with emails and just always being available.
I learned so much more in this class than i did in my R1A class and i had a lot more fun doing it. Im still going to say that im one of those science people but i can more confidently say that i can now write a decent paper, analyze text and clearly get my thoughts across in written words.

I cant believe that the school semester is coming to an end so fast. With the end of the semester apporaching i find myself bogged down with numerous papers. In terms of this last R1B paper im kinda excited. Its way better than Frankenstein. Maus has presented a way of conveying literature to the public. I know i talked about comics and literature in my last blog but i thinking a little. If we presented great works of literature in the same way that Art Speigelman presented a story about the Holocaust would be have a more educated, aware society? By presenting text with pictures would we be able to get kids to read more? I dont want to take away from the importance of reading and vocabulary but in terms of literature awareness i think we would see a much bigger interest. If an author is able to covey a story about one of the most tragic events in our World's history and still be taken seriously then why cant more authors do the same?

My shame is unspeakable

I really should stop working on blog nights. After I lapse into the Zen state necessary for masterful card-swiping, I quickly forget all about my homework. These blog posts aren't the only thing I forgot about tonight—it's really nothing personal, Hybrid Writing Blog! Please take me back! No answer... that hurts. Before I convince whoever happens to read this that I've completely lost my mind (I haven't), I'd like to say that I haven't gotten a full night's sleep in about a week and I'm currently reeling from some baaaad sushi. If whoever reads this (read: Talissa) takes nothing else from this muddy stream of consciousness, please take this most earnest exhortation: don't eat at Tako Sushi. The last time I ate there I came out unscathed, but the time before that was very nearly murder by Poke Roll. I like to think the proprietors are involved in a vast and intricate conspiracy to assassinate me, but I don't have enough paranoia to keep that idea afloat. Also, it just seems more logical that they're simply unscrupulous and more interested in profiting on students' strong stomachs and weak culinary standards. After all, they print "God Bless You!" at the bottom of their receipts! How bad could they be? Very, it turns out. I thought I'd play it safe tonight by avoiding rolls with raw fish, but it didn't matter. The soft-shelled crab in my Spider Roll must've died on its own, and well before I was born.

So with that elaborate and unnecessarily detailed explanation of why I'm not at my absolute best right now, I proceed to the rest of the post. After all, I'm not here to make excuses; I'm here to make a freeform prose composition at least loosely related to the class. Well I referenced the blog title earlier in this post, and I'm sure that counts. And if not, whatever. Frankly, I'm sick of talking about Maus. I like it and have come to respect it as a work of art and storytelling, but enough is enough. Eight to ten pages and several class discussions have given me a bit of a Maus overdose. Then again, I may be unfairly channeling my weariness and mild food poisoning at Maus. If so, sorry Maus. In any case, I'd rather talk about something else. But now I've painted myself into a corner because I've already written about every other work we've read, and would actually sooner Maus than any of them. Fine, talk about Maus I will.

I don't think that all of Spiegelman's animal metaphors are as well thought out as they could've been. I like the use of mice to represent Jews because it's provocative, subversive, and effective. Having Germans be cats and Americans be dogs follows pretty logically from that and also gives a clever nod to the power hierarchy of the era. But what of the other representations? Poles as pigs? I'm not even sure I understand what Spiegelman is going for there, but I feel like it should offend me. Is he saying that Poles are greedy? Dirty? Delicious for gentiles but off-limits to Jews? The metaphor just doesn't quite hold up. Pigs are also renowned—among domesticated beasts, at least—for their intelligence. Surely Spiegelman isn't attempting to compliment the people who sold his people out. Then what? I can't really think of any other obvious pig associations, and something obscure would defeat the purpose of having such a heavy-handed metaphor in the first place. French frogs and Swedish moose? I call that giving up. Making the French into frogs is just making an ethnic slur literal. Not impressive. Swedish moose? Well, what other animal lives in Sweden? The strangest of all are the British fish. Is that some kind of nod to their naval power? Their drinking culture? Did Speigelman even mean for it to have any symbolism? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that the pressure to represent every nationality with a different animal must've forced Spiegelman to make these somewhat iffy decisions. Metaphors don't come for free, it seems.

On the Issues of Essays

Well I'm not sure if we were given a topic or whether we are supposed to write an entry, but just in case:

In class we spent most of the time editing essays so I'll devote this to other essays i have edited. My skills in creatively coming up with a topic for this week seem very lacking, whatever. My cousin is sending in her college applications this week and she asked me to go over them with her. I am probably the worst person to do this with since I know nothing about parallel structure, verb agreement, or where commas are supposed, to, go. But I hoped to try and help her with the big picture and reading her essay I was 1) very jealous that she was a better writer than me and 2) surprised about the content in her essay, she revealed something that I had not known about her. That got me thinking how much of anyone do we actually know? I think people make it seem like we are all similarly confident but behind that veneer lies a still more conforming person who is unsure whether or not everything they do is right. Who knows what's inside each person that deeply affected their past and now their present selves and how little we know...but these are all Berkeley thoughts. Deep thoughts from the deep: sri sri kunal...aaauuummmmmm

So I must agree with Patrick on the “intellectual” papers about Maus. I’m still trying to clean the vomit out of my laptop. Yea, the first one is great, hell, maybe even the second if you’re lucky. The story goes like this, there are two types of Maus papers found in the 90’s. a)OMG!!! It’s not a history of the Holocaust, it’s a history of the recording of the history of the Holocaust. OMGOMG (I feel that this type of writing is permissible as we are writing in a weB LOG, also, note the number of OMG’s, this will make itself evident for later) Art is upset with his father? But he was in the Holocaust, how could you be upset with him? I mean he suffered so much for you! Are you ungrateful? YES, get over it. The second type is flattering to Art’s style of drawing, which is totally cool. Different size frames, continuous pictures crossing frames, etc. But again, how many papers can be written on the same thing? I mean, don’t literary journals have referees? Ok, so as I’m scooping up the vomit, I’ve been reading the critiques in chronological order, starting from those closest to the release of Maus I, then BAM 9/11. Ok, big day, lots of suffering etc. Art writes a book about his experience during 9/11 (did I mention he lives in lower Manhattan?). The academic community proceeds to set its death grip on the subject. OMGOMGOMGOMG Art has a traumatic experience he can finally call his own! Aren’t we all happy? Let’s write a million papers on it.
Which brings me to my point… If the academic community has such a hard time coming up with fresh and original ideas about the subject, where do we stand? Good luck everyone.
*Disclaimer*
I must apologize to those who have or ever will contribute to literary journals. This post was made merely in jest and I assure you that the scientific community is no better (if not worse) at publishing copy after copy of the same boring drivel.

weird picture maus II

Ok, so I don’t know if you guys have read Maus II (you really should, it’s good, and, it’s where it’s at… I mean, most my paper is based on that one) but on the third to last page, Art includes a picture of Vladek. But get this… He’s wearing the striped Auschwitz prison uniform! Vladek tells us that he passed a photo shop that had a prison uniform that people could get their pictures taken in as a souvenir. How FREAKING WEIRD is that. Now, I’m all for getting your picture from Splash-Mountain. But if Splash-Mountain gas, shot, murdered, raped, maimed, (the list goes on) millions of your brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children, friends, countrymen (the list goes on) would you buy a picture? Wouldn’t the ID tattoo and the indelible memories of pain and suffering be enough of a souvenir? Now, I’m all for remembering the Holocaust so that such atrocities will never be repeated, but Vladek looks quite stoic and, dare I say? Proud to be wearing the uniform. The whole idea kind of goes against the scene where art talks to his therapist about how if surviving is honorable, then is dying dishonorable? Personally, I’m a bit outraged.


shaunt

darn biased stories

First off, I can't help but wonder how much of Maus is true. It's not the comic presentation that causes me to question is authenticity of the text, but rather the way that Spiegelman himself tells the story. There are many points in the book where it seems like IF this story is represented as it occurred, that Vladek seemed to tailor his story more to what Art was looking for to write his comic book than to really just tell his own story. And you wonder if this was a kind gesture on Vladek's part or a hinderance to the actual Holocaust narrative. It kind of reminds me of how a movie based on a book would go. Yeah sure, you get the overall plot going on still and it's BASICALLY the same thing, but a lot of little things are cut out in order to make the movie a hit and sensational. There could be a parallel drawn in this to the way that Maus is formulated. For all we know, Vladek as well as Art could have been editing or "tweaking" the story as need be to make it more appealing to readers and make it a better selling product. True, the fundamental story may still be there, but the way that things are emphasized and also as importantly, DE-emphasized may skew the way that the story is received by readers. I feel like the comic book form, because you get visual images as well as the layered narrative, is getting at the idea that this story is not really all so much another Holocaust narrative to be shared with the world but rather a story that's rooted at a much deeper and personal level in relation to Spiegelman himself.

Hmm, seems like I'm well on my way to sounding like many of the other literary criticisms already out on Maus.

nervous ticks

Nervous ticks…
In Maus, Art depicts himself as constantly smoking cigarettes while writing. This obviously must be very important to him. Rarely there is a scene of him drawing without one in his mouth. On a slightly hilarious parallel, Austin Grossman seemed to have quite the tick of his own. About every two seconds, he would push his glasses up. Even multiple times in a row. Now, as a person who wears glasses, I quickly took note of this interesting habit. I myself at a younger and insecure portion of my life tried to change the way that I pushe up my glasses. I went for a cooler, hipper thumb and middle finger on the two sides rather than the seemingly geeky index on the nose bridge approach. But I simply could not maintain the ‘cool’ style. I would always revert back to my natural motion. This of course, makes me think that Austin doesn’t even realize what he is doing, nor does Spiegelman realize that he is smoking. What is it about writing that brings out these nervous ticks. Be it a toe-tap, glasses push, cigarette (probably not so many of us anymore), or whatever. Is our body simply uncomfortable while writing? Implying that the activity is quite unnatural and we are subcounciously trying to jump out of our skin? Or perhaps these ticks are important to develop a proper rhythm in our writing. As I sit here, in the deepest basement of moffit, I can see people sniffing, twisting their hair, biting their nails, cracking their necks, each person with a movement and style as individual as their writing voice. I call upon all of us, develop a unique tick, make it work, and most importantly, make it your own!

Two post-scripts

I. First, I apologize for making anyone who reads this schitzophrenic and selfconcious of every body-movement made while writing… and…
II. How rad the austin’s glasses push is. I think someday he’ll figure out a way to fight crime with it.

shaunt

I'm still stunned by that anyone would think Maus to be a piece of anti-Semitic work. There's just no way people should think this way. Spiegelman, a Jewish man living in New York City with a wife who converted to his religion, a man whose parents barely survived the Holocaust, could not possibly be anti-Semitic. It just doesn't make sense. Sure, the epigraph at the beginning of Maus is a quote from Hitler, but the rest of the story rejects and effectively disproves that outrageous, alarming Hitler tried to make to justify his onslaught of terror. I can't even think of words to describe anything close to what the Holocaust was like and how destructive and far-reaching and inhumane it was. For Spiegelman himself to have that Nazi mentality while putting on the Jewish mask would not only make him hypocritical but also evidently make him one hell of an illusionist. If he were living a double life as a Jewish man who created one of the most moving Holocaust stories only to be covering his self-hating anti-Jewish mentality, then he must be incredibly gifted in the arts of ruse. Or, we as a group unfortunately suffer from gullibility. Are we too trusting? I think not, but I also believe we want to see the good in people. In some people, it's easier to see the good than in others. After all, Hitler, however dire the consequences, was a brilliant orator. He was able to sway the masses. Some people just have charm more disarming and more powerful than one's deep-seated beliefs. Just a few weeks ago, one of my friends mentioned how much she despises Mike Huckabee's political platform, yet hearing him speak makes it impossible to hate him. This, coming from a political science major and uber liberal, simply baffles her good sense. While it baffles me that Maus could be read as anti-Jewish material, it baffles me that I might be playing into the hands of a guy who's outcharmed my better judgment.

Ok, so over the break I watched at least 12 hours of Seinfeld DVD's, therfore this post will be done as if it were taking place in the booth at Monks with Jerry, George, and Elaine.

Badibadib bawn bown bi bown

Jerry: So what’s the deal with all these bribes in the holocaust? I mean, why do you need a gold watch in Auschwitz? Are you trying to find a new girlfriend?

Kramer: You never know (funny face/head bobble).

George: It couldn’t have been that bad there. I could really see myself in Auschwitz. You don’t have to decide what to wear everyday, the Germans give you something to do, and you never have to see your parents. Talk about heaven.

Elaine: You know George, you might be right. With all the starvation, suffering, and misery, you’d be a real catch.

Ok, running the risk of becoming even more offensive, I’ll stop the Seinfeld dialogue.

But seriously, What’s the deal with the bribes in Auschwitz? When so many people have so little left to live for, how do ‘valuables’ still hold any value? An argument could be that they can be used to bribe the guards. But this doesn’t hold up since the guards would seemingly kill you and take your gold as soon as you offer it to them. Why would the guard risk helping a Jew if they could simply steal their valuables. And if one could not bribe the guards, then what do other inmates want with the money? I can’t believe that people would be saving this stuff for when they get out. ‘ohhh, if I play my cards right, then I’ll totally have this sweet watch when I get out of Auschwitz.” Yea right.

vladek=jerk v. 2

But on a continuation of my previous post, if Vladek is such an ass, then why does Mala stick around? Vladek treats her like dirt, constantly tires to control her, and what does she get out of the situation? Monetary support. Perhaps she has no other choice. Too old to work she most likely cannot support herself. But what happened to her previous husband (I think that it should be safe to assume that she at one point in the past was married to someone. Perhaps he died in the Holocaust?) But even more strangely, Art thanks Mala in the Thanks section of the book. ‘Thanks to Mala Spiegelman for her help in translating Polish books and documents, and for wanting Maus to happen.’ Strange, Mala even took Vladek’s name. I know that the older generation is more traditional, but from the portrayal we get, Mala and Vladek hardly seem like a married couple. Vladek is even buried next to Anja, as seen in the final image of Maus II. Where does that leave poor, poor Mala? Nowhere. It’s from this that I begin to wonder how much Art exaggerates the asshole nature of his father. Perhaps he laid the caricature on thick. I don’t think that he has ever claimed that his book is realistic and cartoons generally don’t play much with subtlety, rather the characters are big and bold and have well defined traits.

Vladek=Jerk

What’s the deal with Vladek? Why is he such an asshole? All the time... It really starts from the beginning. What happened to Lucia Greenburg? Vladek was going out for three or four years. That seems like a pretty long time (especially back then [didn’t people get married right quick?]). On page 15, she even tells Vladek that they should get engaged; he pretends to ignore her and says he should take her home. Now that is a pretty big slap in the face. Especially considering that Lucia is in her nightgown and Vladek is putting his clothes back on! Scandalous!!!!!!!!!! But he doesn’t stop there. A small text square (indicating Vladek’s contemporary voice) say that ‘her family was nice, but had no money, even for a dowry.’ How could be such a jerk? I first wondered maybe this was his current misery mind putting a spin on his past, but the fact is that he didn’t marry this girl for three or four years! Obviously he had some trepidations and the only one Art shows us is how his father didn’t want to marry into her poor family. But, at the drop of a hat, he has no reservations about marrying Anja in order to get to her rich parents. I don’t think that the holocaust caused the issues with money that Vladek has. Perhaps it exacerbated them a little bit, but they’ve been there all along.

Maus and Pinky and the Brain

Don’t read if you like the cartoon strip Cathy

OK, this might be a stretch but... did any one else used to religiously follow pinky and the brain? I have no finer memories than when I used to come home from school, make myself a huge bowl of Coco Puffs and plop down in front of the TV to watch not only the infamous Brain try to take over the world with his hilariously gentle minded cohort Pinky, but also Beast Wars (a newer generation Transformers show (all computer generated graphics) where the characters are robots that can transform into various animals). But let us not forget Animaniacs, Garfield, Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers, and countless other animal based cartoon shows that populated the Saturday morning lineup. In fact, every single cartoon I used to watch as a kid involved animals except those based on pre-existing superhero books. I wonder what has stemmed this fascination with animal cartoons. But, finishing my daily post-school afternoon cartoons, my sugar rush unsatiated by only two meager half hour shows, I would religiously read the comic section in the newspaper. Strangely enough, nearly all of these feature human characters and not animals. It makes me wonder what causes the divide. I guess it must do with the target audience. Do children love animals more than adults? Since I’ve learned everything I know about the working world from Office Space, I’ll assume that comics in the newspaper don’t feature animals because a fat, ugly, cat annoying named Cathy, who is perpetuating her fatness, ugliness, and annoying tendencies by screaming about her fatness while eating carton after carton of ice-cream wouldn’t look as nice pinned up on one’s cubicle as a real human version of the aforementioned.

(ps. Yes, this devolved into an anti-Cathy rant, but rightfully so! There are too many bad comics in the newspaper. Pinky and the Brain even had an episode denouncing Family Circus! Such genius and wit)

mice or men?

One thing that stuck out at me was the very human-like hand of the spirit of Vladek's dead grandfather on p57. The dead grandfather is rendered as a mouse, but it has an abnormally large human hand protruding from the folds of his robe. And what on earth is that square thing on it'd head. Is it part of its hat?

Anyways, after this observation of the hand, I began noticing that the mice in Maus are not really mice. It is true that they have mouse heads but the rest of their body is pretty much human. They all have hands with five fingers instead of claws. Their bodies are shaped like humans too. On p15, Lucia is depicted in a sexy nightgown where we can see her ample cleavage and voluptuous womanly body. I don't think female mice can have cleavage. Also, not many of the mouse pictures depict the characters with tails. The only one I could find was on p17 where you can see Anja's tail in her photograph. Do the mice walk around with their tails stuffed inside of their pants? I imagine that it would be very uncomfortable.

So what does this mean? That mice with tails are not attractive? Maybe it's Spiegelman's way of humanizing the mice so that we do not forget that in the real Holocaust, real people died. Perhaps he wanted to introduce his concept of depicting his characters as mice and cats, but he still wanted an element of humanness to exist to evoke sympathy from human readers. Or maybe Spiegelman thought it was just easier to draw human bodies doing things instead of mouse bodies.

Wow. I haven't blogged for a really long time. Perhaps I should respond to each of Patrick's posts to make up all of the blog entries. But I think it'd be much easier to create my own entries. Besides, I like Maus so I will probably make all of my entries on it. I think the reason why I enjoyed it was because I am completely a visual person. I learn visually and I think feel more strongly through visuals as well. The whole time when I was reading Maus I felt like I was watching a movie because the angles kept changing as a video camera would and sometimes the frames will zoom in or zoom out, creating the illusion of motion. However, although I do enjoy the visuals in a graphic novel, I also do like the freedom of reading a novel without pictures so that while I read I can make up my own pictures and interpretations in my head. I think graphic novels are interesting because you can visualize what the illustrator sees which is especially very cool if the illustrator has interesting concepts and details. For example, I thought it was awesome when Spiegelman drew his Jewish characters with pig-masks. I like how on p155 the way the Germans catch Vladek and Anja is by taking off their masks.

I know someone said in class that he/she did not like the illustrations. I actually like them a lot. I don't think they are realistic. It's not something that I would frame and put on my wall for fifty years, but the point of the drawings is not just to look pretty. I think the drawing style is expressive and has character which allows it to convey ideas to the viewer more efficiently.

Nov 14 - Maus

I thought i would take this opportunity to talk about my philosophy on english papers about fiction novels (or graphic novels, for that matter).

There seems no better way to dislike a book i initially liked than to have to write a 10 page paper about it. Five pages, well. That seems reasonable. I mean there's definitely something to be said for expressing ideas and making arguments (plus i really like the idea of having multiple evolving thesis in a paper instead of the 5 paragraph intro, body, supporting evidence, conclusion paper with nice transitions and topic sentences).

However, the more i read the academic papers about Maus, the more i throw up all over my keyboard. They're SO intellectual! I mean, of course they will be since they're academic, but it blows my mind to read some of these things. Elaborate frameworks dedicated to describing how different structures in Maus play out. I mean, they're probably true, and it makes sense to write it out if you're interested, but to have paper after paper after paper about this same stuff constantly making arguments...

I'm really not sure what i'm supposed to write. There are definitely parts that i think very interesting (i liked the book)... but what i took most from it was the emotional impact of reading and seeing a story about someone's experience in the holocaust. What the book did most for me was made me gawk when i walked into a convenience store at how luxurious and easy everything around me is. Just having a matress. or even a blanket. THat's the power of the book.

I could talk about the various ways in which Spiegelman did this. I'm glad he thought about it because he made a great product. But i'm most interested in exploring my reaction to the book, not how the book illicited this reaction.

Of course it's an english class. And i get into the thesis writing once i've started. It's just so difficult (especially with a graphic novel) to come up with an interesting topic and thesis that can be 10 pages long while also keeping my interest. I hope it goes well.

Nov 7 - is Equiano the greatest possibility of our times?

No way. i don't believe in the framing of the question to begin with. I don't believe a single person can be the greatest possibility of our times, no matter what they stand for. The second buddha is said to be community... now there's something to think about.

Our society is so focused on individuals. Blindly focused. We don't even see that works like equianos are certainly team efforts. YOu can stick a name at the top for communication purposes, but really there are hundreds and thousands of people who are actively and indirectly supporting work like this.

It's a skewed vision of the world if we only see the charismatic leaders at the top as people who make change. It's disempowering, and more than that, it's so far from the truth. Yes it's helpful to have a gifted leader, but a gifted leader needs many more gifted followers in order to make any sort of change happen.

I'm a big fan of: Ghandi, MLK, Jesus, the Buddha, Patanjali, Avram Davis, Echkart Tolle. Whatever. But i'm not pinning the hopes of "our times" onto a single person. Please. It's so insulting to the supporting staff that really make something work.

Oct 31 - Equiano

Equiano. I'll be the first to admit that i exaggerate and make unfair and negative comments about the books and authors in this class. Now that i've got that off my chest, i'd like to defend Equiano and the validity of his book. In class we talked about whether the book was "true" or not, which is a different question than is the book "valid." However the two became very linked in our discussion. Whether equiano was born in africa or whether he was born a slave, or whether he had been a free black man his entire life it somewhat inconsequential to me. His story stands in for an experience of life at the time that was not being represented to the masses. THere were probably a lot of stories that were unrepresented to the masses, but probably none quite as important as a slave narrative.

THe issues were real and his book was a powerful tool. I really liked the short piece we read about how he is a DJ--using different samples from different mediums to create a synthesis that reflects his own vision.

The whole discussion of what "true" is (in this context) makes me think about how people agree on anything. It's basically just a majority rules system in which the people with the most power get to say what is true. In retrospect slavery is obviously terrible and immoral and all these other things... but certainly this was not so clear to white slave-oweners at the time. I would be really interested to learn about the process by which something that is obvious (slave owning is OK) goes to being confusing (is owning slaves ok?) to being obvious the other way (of course owning slaves is one of the worst practices of human kind).

The idea of slavery physically creeps me out.

Oct 24 - Blade Runner (the movie)

Happy Birthday Talissa!

I was pretty shocked at Blade Runner. It was so BAD! and so Violent!! Who would would have thought? Ridley Scott is one helluva guy.

He basically took out all of the intellectual stuff and put in more romance, strippers, fight scenes, blood, and violence. I think making the opera singer into an exotic dancer is perfectly characteristic of how the book was converted into a movie. Or perhaps how the Rachel Rosen model was converte from just a regular model (in the book) to a PLEASURE ANDROID (in the movie). I'll give him a little credit to his name because it was the 80s and I was one of the few good things to come out of the 80s (besides parachute pants, of course).

I do understand that a lot of the book had to be taken out because the book itself didn't make any sense, let alone trying to make sense of mercerism to a pop-culture movie audience during a feature length film. That would have been a REAL nightmare. I did like the actor who played Roy Baty, however, i think is only because i thought he was a pretty convincing android. He just looked slightly inhuman. The end when he was running around in his underpants like a crazed animal was entertaining in the same way that people create traffic jams as they slow down to look at car accidents. I thought the decision to have the android save Harrison Ford at the end also seemed a little silly--kinda hollywood. I mean... he's an android. what does he care about saving the life of a human? especially if he can feel vengeance (since he got angry when rachel was killed).

Perhaps the best part was the very end when that dude said: "SHE WON'T LAST LONG.... BUT THEN AGAIN, WHO DOES?" I mean. it was worth watching the entire movie just for THAT.

Word.

Oct 17 - Grossman Lecture

Let's be honest. Austin Grossman is insane. I don't think he looked up for a cumulative 1 minute during the entire 90 minute class period.

Ok. I'm glad we got that out of the way.

I really did appreciate how he introduced his topic of "are comics literature" with the initial question of "who cares?" Because I certainly couldn't think of a reason to care. I think he mentioned stuff about funding, which was the only real reason i could think of to care... i mean, otherwise it's just a bunch of people having stuff intellectual and academic discussions that are both totally boring (to me) and totally pointless (to the rest of the world). But I suppose if comics were officially delegated as literature than they would be better financially supported and i'm in favor of that. I Think the genre as a whole has a lot to offer. Pictures are pretty sweet. Some say that pictures tell a thousand words. Well i don't know about that, but I know that they can definitely tell a more convincing story... of course books are pretty good too and i have a feeling that nobody will ever read what i'm writing on this blog, especially if i put iti n the middle of a paragraph. And this reminds me of a story in which my brother had two write 3 papers in a class about "pragmatics" in which the lowest grade on one of the paper would be dropped and so he got As on the first two papers so on his third paper he simply writes, "being pragmatic, i'm not going to write this third paper because there's no point." Of course the professor gives him an A and asks him to meet him in his office. "Nobody's ever BEAT me at my own game like this... what's your major son?" and my brother responded "film." and the professor looked a little disappointed. ANd Grossman really knows how to put together a story of superheroes though i think that his idea that most books need to be more "awesome" seems to be a little simoplistic. One man's awesome is another man's total bummer.

Oct 3 - Invincible

I really enjoyed reading this book, though I think at points it definitely dragged along. I can see how the first chapter was definitely written as a solo piece and then got expanded to an entire book. I think the premise of hearing the scared and self-conscious inner-dialogue of superheroes and supervillains is funny, but does it really merit an entire book? I guess so, considering it is an entire book and that I liked it. But it's a question that came up.

Also, I found that i didn't care about Fatale at all. Whenever books twist with different storylines I always gravitate pretty strongly towards one of them. If it's a good book then i am stuck to whichever one i am reading and don't want to switch at the next chapter but then become engrossed immediately.

But there's something about dr impossible that is much more compelling than Fatale. HE just has so much more going on... i mean he is the smartest person the planet. And as much as it is a cheap trick, i always thought it was funny when he referred to past incidents like freezing the moon or impersonating the pope--classic. Fatale was so low-energy. She seemed pretty depressed. And i suppose like most superheroes her sole purpose in life is in reaction to other people. Superheroes are mostly reactionary not proactive. IT just seems like a really unfulfilling way to go about life. I think life's already got enough downers in it to read about some depressed cyborg. Clearly the only thing she truly has to live for is some weird identity of who she should be, but it just seems so hollow.

Sept 26 - Androids

I enjoyed reading Androids, though i don't think i would recommend the book to anyone i cared about (life is too short, no?)

I'm all for robots. Plus i really like Dick's short stories. The book just seemed so dry to me.

The book brought up a few interesting ideas, i guess. I mean would rather read it than Frankenstein.

Ok.

The idea of having animals as status symbols is at least somewhat interesting. It's the manifestation of a the idea of capitalism and individualism mixed with this world in which the new scarce commodity to have are animals. It's really not so different than today, though it certainly looks weird from the outset. Of course, I would say having an animal around has more intrinsic value than owning a $300 pair of jeans anyway. I suppose Dick is making the point that what we assign monetary and emotional value to as humans is quite arbitray to its utility to us, and more on how people (at least in the US) tend to gravitate towards modes of expression that distinguish our success and monetary worth.

Which is somewhat odd considering that in this world people have a switch that will allow them to feel any emotion they want. Again, it's the logical projection of all the various drugs that influence people's moods--anxiety, anti-depression, ADD, OCD, etc. I think Doctor's proscribe these drugs with good intentions and that people who take them obviously find some amount of short-term relief, but in the long run it seems like a complete suppression of authenticity and denial of problems. In the future, they can flip a dial. Now we can take drugs. Obviously (to me), the problem is not that people who are anxious need to be fixed, it's that our society is structured in such a way that large amounts of people are constantly in need of emotional balance and have no resources.

Phew.

Sept 5, Frankenstein

Frankenstein. Ah yes.
I remember this book. I wanted to have my thesis for this paper be "Mary Shelley is extremely" ugly. I eventually chickened out on this thesis because of Talissa's authoritarian view on what "english" papers should "be."

Anyway, the basic idea was that Mary Shelley was basically using the Monster as a projection of herself. She gives the Monster a lot of sympathy through the plotline--it's this charming creature that just so happens to be hideously ugly the the point that it scares off everyone it sees. Even when it is doing heroic deeds like rescuing a child from a river it still is scorned by all of humankind because of it's disgusting face--of course this situation was cleverly crafted by Shelley. She thinks of herself as extremely heroic and simply the butt-end of a cynical and superficial society. Her pitying tone in which the mosnter constantly decries the vices of the evil society that scorns it based on its appearances is what initially tipped me off.

But then i did some research on wikipedia and found that Mary Shelley was constantly being abandoned--her mother died when she was little and then her nanny left because she was having sex with some dude. And then percy shelley, her husband was a total asshole and kept wanting to sleep with other women. So it was an ongoing issue.

Finally, I used google image to find a picture of her, and sure enough, she was ugly. I mean, she wasn't THAT ugly... but it was a PAINTING. Meaning that whoever painted it obviously made her much better looking than she actually was. Plus i was trying to prove that she was ugly, and this fit my thesis.

And here my troubles began...

OK. My plan is to make up the 9 weeks in which I didn't post a blog and everyone did. And I'm going to respond to what people were responding to then. Like a medley. Hopefully it will look like some kind of relay-race, or maybe I'll throw a postmodern twist on it and try to hybridize my responses about this hybrid-writing class.

Maus was one of my favorite book that we have read in class. It was interesting to have a different type of literature. I remember we had a disscussion with Austin about cominc books being real literature and in the poll i said that comics could not be real literature. After reading Maus i have changed my mind. Maus was able to capture the seriousness of the Holocaust despite the cartoon images. I also think that the images in Maus helped display the emotion expereinced. You were able to feel the characters pain. I felt a lot more involved in the Story than any other Holocaust story i have read.

blog post post-haste!

Sorry I didn't post yesterday as is customary, Talissa. I thought I could get a freebie for the week since I did an extra blog posting last Wednesday. Anyway, I feel very weird about writing recently, even more so than I have before. It must be the ultra-cool progressive essays we did recently. My mind's rather divergent, which is mostly a curse when it comes to me trying to piece a paper together, but I still had trouble wrapping my paper up. However, that may have been for other reasons, such as staying up on Halloween, fueled by Twix and turtle ice cream. It was delicious and I was surrounded by my awesome friend and her roommates, who are, might I add, also awesome, yet I always lose steam when I'm about to finish a paper. This time will be different. I know, it's a little late for making resolutions/early since it's nearing the end of the year. In any case, I'm going to do my best at working on this final paper as often as possible until the afternoon it's due.

And to work on that paper, I first need to find an argument I'm not ashamed of. I was thinking of writing about the dysfunctional-family aspect of Maus, but that has been done. --In every single article I looked at. It's all about Richieu being the one perfect child in Vladek's life and Art doesn't measure up to the perfect memory of that dear little boy. It's just that every scene with Vladek and Art talking reminded me of my mom and how she and Vladek are pretty much kindred spirits. I doubt they'd actually get along, though. They'd kill each other first. Now, I'm leaning towards immigrant parents and growing up in a household as first generation American-born. In high school, I used to talk to my club adviser about how screwed up my family is, and she, being used to--as much as humanly possible--her crazy Asian mom, knew that although my mom moved to the United States, she was still intractably an Asian immigrant in the worst way possible. But I'll leave the details for my paper.

So late the party has ended and I've spent all this time dressing up for nothing.

So I'm not sure what I should be saying. I'm not a brilliant conversationalist when it comes to blogging. However, I do wonder what direction this daunting final paper of mine will head. No offense to Equiano, but I am adamantly opposed to devoting an 8-10 page paper to narrative that seems often to cater more to the masses than telling the story how it is. Then again, the trouble with Maus is just... where to begin? It's at times difficult enough just working words, but pictures are another story. Like the old saying goes, "A picture is worth a thousand words," and boy I hope so, what with an 8 page paper (minimum) staring at me in the face. But in these thousand words, what am I to say? Actually, back up. What point am I even going for? Looking through the criticisms of Maus, they all eventually seem to end up saying the same things over and over: Holocaust and the aftermath, the past vs. the present, and the funky relationship between Art and Vladek. Honestly, that's the best I could probably come up with as well, much less something that is interesting and refreshing. I suppose the fact that Maus is a comic book makes it that much harder to begin; words, I'm used to when writing a paper since that's what my paper consists of. But pictures? And extracting an exact meaning from something so expansive and full of possibilities? Now that's just tricky... tricky indeed. I'm wondering if a picture is acceptable for the abstract then. What about a comic strip response to Maus? I promise it'll be 8-10 pages long!

Fashionably late

Ack! I forgot again! Sorry Talissa! I work Wednesday nights but given the nature of my job (cardswipe), that's hardly an excuse. So, onto my thoughts for this week. (I promise they're the same ones I had last night.)

I'm finding it hard to come up with an argument based on a graphic novel. It's strange that a medium that was so dear to me when I was younger now strikes me as foreign and critically impenetrable. I confess that I don't know how to close-read a comic book—I've never learned how. I don't even know what's fair game for analysis in Maus. I can't decide whether Spiegelman's visual style is deceptively simple or just simple. There's rarely very much to look at, which forces me to analyze the words—his father's story. But critically? Wouldn't that make me kind of a dick? OK, that was facetious, but still, my point is that since neither the drawings nor the text have much meat beyond their obvious meanings, then my last resort is to look at the interaction between word and image. I could trot out a lot of academic vocabulary at this point, but I don't want to tread water. The fact is that the relationship between the text and the pictures is pretty linear. Art's drawings are loyal to his father's narration; he never tries for ironic juxtapositions between what his father recounts and what he himself thinks. It is, after all, his father's story. Art is just the medium. Polysemy like whoa! But by God, I'm going to find something to write about. I'd sooner write ten pages about the significance of the scene with the rat in the basement than five pages on Equiano. Really.

When I read a comic book, I sort of read at a fast pace because I feel like the action is non-stop. The action flows from one panel to another, and I have to read fast in order to keep up with the pace of the comic (or the pace I set for myself actually). However, this is a different type of comic that I have never read before. I used to read Sailor Moon, and most of the story is told through the pictures, with the occasional outbursts of dialogue and action words (i.e. POW). So it's kind of hard for me to keep up because there is so much information to absorb.

I found it interesting how Vladek disguised himself as a Pole by wearing a pig mask. I find it ironic because in reality, humans are the same species, yet people find differences and divide us into more categories. Just a thought.

Oh, and at the end of chapter 4, it was nice to hear a bit from Mala's story after hearing Vladek complain about her all the time. I can't wait to discover how they met and why they got married.

It seems that Vladek is not proud of Artie. Vladek lived through so much, and he barely escaped death so many times by using his resources. Later on, Artie had a better life in America, where he didn't have to go through suck evils as the Holocaust.

Yup, random thoughts for the week.

--tran

SO... I was thinking about the whole story-within-a-story bit and it reminded me (unfortunately) about the whole story-within-stories in Frankenstein. However, I think the two serve totally different purposes. In Frankenstein, I personally think that it was set up that way simply so that the reader could see the creature's reaction to Frankenstein's death, and give his agonizing 10-page monologue on how he has resolved to kill himself. However, in Maus, I think that Artie's story is just as important as Vladek's account, not matter how nearly non-existent it is.

Between Vladek's survivorship tale, we get little snippets of Artie's story, which are mostly about his awkward relationship with his father. Even the little into-comic before the first chapter tells us a little about their relationship: Vladek doesn't seem to really care that his son is crying, and asks him to hold the board tighter. He then teaches young Artie that the world is friendless, and that you can't put your trust in such "friends." Now that's what I call a healthy father-son bond.

Anyways, I think that Vladek is greatly neurotic towards Artie, as if as much as Artie succeeds it could never amount to all the Vladek had to endure (and I'm not saying that's not a bad thing), but also that anything Artie does, Vladek thinks that he can do it better. For example, he won't let him count his pills, being so stubborn that he does it himself saying, "You don't know counting pills...I'm an expert for this" (30). And then Vladek decides that Artie's jacket is just "Such an old shabby coat" and not to his tastes, and proceeds to throw it away. Vladek's controlling parenting screams for Artie to be able to break free from it, although he can only express himself through his relation to his father. Thus, this whole story-within-a-story is the only way that Artie can get his voice through, not just his father's controlling narrative.

As a kid I hated reading. I always would rather "read," or rather "look", at a picture book than read a novel. I think reading a bunch of words was tiring while looking at pictures was simple. As i read Maus, I tend to think the other way now. I would rather read straight text than read some dialogue and look at pictures. I find graphic novels harder because the flow is interrupted everytime i spend some time looking at the pictures. Rather than reading text and letting my imagination play it all out as I read, I have to read the text, look at the pictures, and tie the two together. But there are many advantages to graphic novels. They're easier to read, much less draining on the eyes, and shorter. Yet there is something valuable in reading novels and allowing your imagination to run wild with the words you read.

I feel as if words can better convey the situation than a graphic novel. With graphic novels, it is primarily dialogue with a few narratives here and there. The rest of the situation you are suppose to get from the pictures. In the case of Maus, the pictures dont tell me too much. So far, I feel like the pictures havent enhanced my understanding of the story except for a few frames. It could be his style of drawing though.

I wonder what Maus would be like if it was a novel...surely Art Spiegelman would have to directly say the species of animals that represents whatever ethnicity. Doing that could detract and result in an awkward novel. i.e. when vladik sneaks onto the train. it would be weird to say that the mouse took off a fake pig mask.

Equiano isnt the greatest mind of our time but of his own time. I think it was revolultionary to stand up against the idea of slavery. Slavery was the norm of that time, and to have a man stand against it is huge. Its big to suggest another idea...the idea of labor in africa. though this isnt the best idea due to the fact of possible exploitation of labor but its definetly a step up from slavery. But at the same time if you want to suggest a higher form of larbor, then why suggest the that you would put your ear to a book in hopes of learning something. Equiano seems to contradicy himself.
Heather

Unfortunately, I did not have the chance to finish the Equiano reading until recently. I know Equiano is known for playing a leading role in the abolition of the British slave trade, but I feel as if his intentions shifted by the end of the narrative. The moral issues surrounding slavery involve the idea that the slave owner possesses the individual and has the right to impose his own beliefs, unquestioned, onto that person. Free Equiano in the beginning of the book – a simplistic life in Africa, dependent on the earth and governed by superstition- stands in stark contrast to free Equiano at the conclusion of the book- a European civilian devoted to Christianity. It seems that Equiano’s freedom was dependent on the condition that he was converted into European religion. While Equiano appears to have whole-heartedly accepted the teachings of Christianity, he has lost the freedom of thought he once possessed. Even though Equiano fights for the physical release of the Africans, he shares the same sense of moral superiority that the Europeans used to justify enslaving the Africans in the first place. Granted, accepting Christianity humanized the Africans according to Europeans standards. For a white reader, Equiano’s narrative is convincing of a proper and moral individual, deserving of freedom. However, if I were a member of Equiano’s native village, his fight for freedom would still seem a betrayal to his origins.

Equinano: giving V 2.0 of the truth

Is Equiano the greatest possibility of our time? I want to go into more depth about the final idea Equiano had regarding slave trade, as discussed in class, I understand he wanted, instead of people trading people it would be people trading the things people were forced to make. I wholeheartedly disagree with this idea. It would not solve the problem of slavery but make it different in a way that would eliminate chances of improvement. Europeans would keep it out of sight and thus out of mind also now since its not "slavery" there would be no moral objections to it, when it is in fact morally object. Now Africans would be stuck in this place with hardly a chance for change and in an only slightly better place than before. Another reason for my disagreement would be because Equiano, as his main point of argument uses economics and money to solve the problem, when the problem isn't monetary it's moral. Europeans should not ban slaves because it is economically smart, which would not change the views of Africans as inferior, but be persuaded to do so by showing how morally unacceptable it is. So is Equiano the greatest possibility of our time? No. Equiano's muddled version of the truth is written so intently for the English that I can't tell whether it's the truth or the exaggeration that I'm reading. Back then, however I understand this narrative made a big impact on the direction of the abolitionist movement, but reading it now to gain understanding of that time seems hard to do with so many clear untruths. Who has heard of Equiano anyway?

I was kind of late in starting the Equiano reading, but as I was reading through the chapters, especially the first two or three, it felt more like an ethnography from an anthropologist, rather than some exciting narrative/autobiography-that-isn't-really-autobiographical (assuming he wasn't originally from Africa). The whole thing seemed too structured, too matter-of-fact-ly. Plus, assuming he was born in Africa like he supposedly said he was, his English seemed incredibly immaculate. The whole thing gave off a sense of being very objective and scientific... well, as scientific-ly sounding as anthropology can get.

So he's not really African born...? So he really didn't experience his sister getting torn from his arms, he didn't really suffer the exchange from one master to the next? Then it just makes his whole story seem even MORE objective. Keeping his origin in mind, I couldn't get a sense of truth behind his supposed emotions, his gaining and losing of friendships, his dumbstruck fear of a painting that seemed to always watch him, his paranoia of being eaten by the white folks. It seemed to kind of mock the trials and tribulations of the slaves that were pillaged from their villages and put to agonizing work against their will. Yes, his descriptions of the treatment of slaves was horrific, and yes, it was shocking, but it was more like from the eyes of a witness rather than a participator. I just didn't get a sense of legitimacy, and it's probably because an autobiography that isn't autobiographical just loses its credibility with me.

I TOTALLY don't mean that the whole slavery ordeal is nonsensical. I just feel like his story was falsely advertised.

So... I'm just here, in my friend's suite alone. I don't even live in this city, and I'm watching The X-Files and Alias and listening to KALX and also doing anything but my physics homework, which includes blogging. Good stuff. Other good stuff: Equiano being the "grandest possibility of our time." I still do not understand how that could be so. While it is certainly noble that Equiano was able to make a name for himself through pure ingenuity, gain freedom, though it was threatened many times, and even rise up to be a person with enough authority to join the abolitionsit cause, he seems to be taking on a purely white European stance. Even on my edition of the book (I don't have the Classic Slave Narratives-- only Equiano's story), he has a powdered wig (only slightly gray) and he's wearing the English dress. But, that's only superficial. Clothes don't make the man, of course. It's Equiano's actions that count. He did go against the popular opinion by attempting to trade slavery with nonhuman trade, and I do admire him for promoting complete freedom for all people, but the "grandest possibility of our time" is one mighty title. For all that he did for the abolitionist movement, I feel he should have done something more than write a book of his life. Galvanizing more people to achieve a wider slavery ban would probably do it. But, at that time, he still didn't have enough authority to successfully motivate those who were entirely in agreement with slave owners and those involved with the slave trade. In any case, anyone who has been through hell only to come back alive, and on top, truly deserves recognition. Just making it against all odds merits grandness.

BLOG!

I feel like Equiano was not as great of a figure as many of the writings about him make him appear to be. I just wonder how effect he is able to communicate the argument for the emancipation of slaves when much of his writings seems to cater to his British audience. Though his work can be interpreted in many different ways and arguments can be made both for and against his writings as a valid and definitive piece for "Afro-Futurism," Equiano may have tried too hard or been even too naive in his arguments for it to do slaves justice. The whole argument that we went over in class in which he suggests viewing Africans more as consumers than commodities seemed just a tad too ideal. Given that he is indeed and master stylist, he must have had enough smarts to know the improbability of such a drastic change occurring. People generally don't like changing something that is bringing benefits to them, especially if it means an effort on their part to make the new adjustment. Overall though, I get the feeling that this is all leading back to a giant question mark just like Androids. Are we to assume that everything Equiano wrote, including the more ridiculous or romanticized portions are all intentional? Or did he write it in an seriousness, which would greatly affect the argument for his work as a true champion for the cause of slavery since some of it seems to play directly into supporting the opposing side. With so many dimensions and possibilities, it seems like Equiano's work in the end is more like a work that is left unfinished, leaving the final message to be taken away up to the reader's own interpretation of the book. Or maybe I'm just confused. Either seems to be a strong argument.

haha...it seems like a good majority of us forgot to blog because we're too busy revising...i'm guilty as well since i'm posting after the deadline.

For the sake of argument...
If Equiano is truly not born from Africa, then his whole narrative is discredited which means that there is no reason to read his book.

Equiano states that the narrative is essentially his autobiography. He claims that he experienced everything written in the book. Therefore we expect the story to be his own story. But if he was not from Africa, then he could not have possibly experienced all that he claimed since he claims to have been born in Africa. This would make him a liar.

Now if he didn't really experience all that, then what did he experience? Also, is there any validity in saying that some other African slave experienced what he described? If he does not try to preserve the integrity of his story then everything should be disregarded because how can you divide actual first hand experience from second hand or perhaps even fabricated experiences?

If he said that it was a compilation of slave stories woven together into the life a of a fictional African then great, lets keep reading. But if he claims first hand experience yet puts in other accounts then he is actively deceiving the reader and there is no point in reading it for the sake of truth and history. If we want to read it with our fiction/entertainment lenses, then go for it...you can read just about anything with that perspective.

I mentioned a fraud Native American novel previously during class, that was nominated for a variety of literary awards. I have now found the Time article regarding how an actual Native American writer feels about this fake autobiography: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1154221,00.html

Perhaps I feel that this is such a personal issue since throughout my entire life, I've been bombarded with various Asian actors being used to represent any Asian role in American cinema and TV. Whether it's Zhang ZiYi and Gong Li speaking their painfully Chinese-accented Japanese and English while playing the leads of Memoirs of a Geisha, or James Kyson Lee speaking his poor Japanese in the popular TV show, Heroes, what it comes down to is simply an insult to those whom are from that background and speak the language. Not only is it heavily inaccurate, the message people are left with is that as long as Americans can't tell the difference, it doesn't matter which Asian or Asian American is used to tell the story. They're all the same.

In that aspect, I'm somewhat happy that novels are taken on a more critical level regarding authenticity. Though you can't hear the wrong accents that you do in film or TV, there's definitely an innate accent in terms of how the story is told. Without authenticity, the story is fake and insulting to those whom actually experienced it. As stated by Alexie in the Time article, the fake writer has never experienced the real suffering, the real injustices committed against the real people. Without having personally experienced such a traumatic event, one can only imagine based upon what they know. Can imagination then be treated on par with another's account of true suffering? I couldn't possibly imagine someone attempting to claim to have written an autobiography of being a Holocaust surviver and never having stepped foot out of America. Apart from how insulting that is to real survivors, the experience just can't be truthfully conveyed and it's doubtful anyone would take it seriously. Just because Equiano's text is older, I don't see why the same standards shouldn't be held.


-Kathy

This year, everyone gets "trick."

I have to confess that I don't feel fully qualified to write about The Life of Gustavus Vassa until I finish it, but if I have to write the words "Doctor Impossible" ever again, I'm going to go crazy. So here goes.

Paul Youngquist's essay on Gustavus Vassa's (interesting) narrative raises a good point, namely that most of us take for granted that we assess the truth of things—or at least their claims to genre—based on European protocols. But Youngquist pitches this as an ideological battle between Western imperialism and its casualties, in this case the (black) Atlantic laborer. As far as I know, where you're from (as in where you were born) is an even more important determinant of identity in other cultures. No matter how far you've come, or how little time you spent in your hometown, people will judge you by what they know of it. America has the greatest possible mobility, the greatest possible hybridity (bonus points for using the "h" word?) in the world in this respect. If you want to renounce your birthplace because of a spiritual connection to your ancestral homeland, that's OK. But regardless of your spiritual connection to a place, if you weren't born there then you weren't born there.

It's tempting to take Youngquist to task for the awkward juxtaposition of an art form defined by its vernacular roots and a writing style defined by its remoteness from the vernacular, but that would be missing the point. Youngquist definitely tries in this essay, but I'm still not convinced of his argument's validity. His hip hop references aren't especially surefooted and most of them feel a bit contrived. A case in point: Kool Keith, who allegedly "acknowledges identity to be an effect of practices like hip hop rather than their origin." Actually, he's just a really creative surrealistic rapper who likes themed albums. I don't deny KK his intellectual chops, but I don't think it's quite honest of Youngquist to conflate the idea of the heteronym with Vassa's biographic liberties. Kool Keith doesn't mix identities; he's either Black Elvis or Dr. Octagon (or one of his dozen or so other mic personalities), but never both. And at the end of the day he admits that he's Keith Thornton from New York. In other words, pretending to be Dr. Dooom or Black Elvis (and thereby forming an openly fictional heteronym) isn't the same thing as claiming to be from Africa. Youngquist wants to let Vassa have it both ways, which is fine as long as Vassa's narrative is no longer categorized as biography or, gasp, nonfiction, because it clearly isn't.

And let's define our terms. Hip hop isn't just mixing and remixing—it's not only an art form that recombines (to use Youngquist's favorite verb) existing elements to make new ones. Youngquist cites rappers when he should be talking about DJs—the two split years ago and have since pursued radically different paths. Rappers have taken over the mainstream because mainstream tastes need a catchy chorus (think 50 or Kanye or anyone popular) and can't deal with the challenging, not-quite-musical sounds of modern turntablism (as practiced by Cut Chemist and Prefuse 73, to name two).

Remixed music is a useful metaphor to have at hand when discussing identity production, but let's please not take it too far, or worse, strip it of its own complexities and subdivisions to make an academic argument. Hip hop—either rapping or scratching—is not primarily concerned with subverting the Western protocols of Western identity-production. Regardless of its diasporic origins, it's basically a Western genre and, as Youngquist admits, subject to Western values, particularly capitalism. Rappers want to make money so badly that most of their songs are about making money (Lumbajack, anybody?) and DJs want to make people dance. Hip hop's global reach can't and shouldn't be disassociated from the global reach of the American empire where hip hop emerged. Hip hop is an American export and it's bigger and more important than the European Romantic Review. Fact.

I hope he can at least smile at the irony of writing about "recombinant mixology" and "the counter-esthetics of hip hop" in the European Romantic Review, sure to be read by exactly 0 people engaged in said counter-esthetics. That's academia for you... (No offense intended, Talissa.)

P.S. Happy Halloween everyone!
P.P.S. KitKats are like crack.

Reading for the Cynics

I love how interconnected my classes become. Over the summer, I read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and got uber excited because Philip K. Dick named his freaking mood organ after Mr. W. Penfield. (Oh, MCB 61, I miss you.) And just yesterday, I was going to interject on the subject of the (in)significance of Equiano lying about his "identity" because we talked about reliable sources in my history class. The general consensus in America is that museums are the most reliable source when it comes to history, followed by a grandparent or relative who was there. Rounding out the bottom of the totem pole are someone/anyone who was there, a high school teacher, college professor, and movies! Except for movies, Americans' opinion on who to trust is utterly incredible. While I can see why museums would be thought of as more reliable since they seem to be unbiased, many artifacts can be omitted or left out of displays; evidence can easily be hidden. As for professors and high school teachers, they rely on multiple sources and their research must at least try to be trustworthy to gain support in the academic world. As for first-person narratives, people must be very wary. When it comes to one person's memory, there's inherent fallibility on the narrator's part. So my first thought on the matter of Equiano's identity was that his origin made no difference to the story since his narration should be read with a bit of skepticism because of the innately false recollections of incidences, no matter how soon after the event is written about. Plus, his ultimate goal was to abolish slavery. Then, I thought about whether or not the text would be read differently if he said he was born in Africa versus America. In my opinion, the text would still retain most of the meat of what people in England would take away from it. Really, would anyone think Equiano any less black if he were born in South Carolina? We established that his "African" identity was born in America, not Africa. And if he had never landed in America, than he wouldn't be qualified as "African." In Africa he was not categorized as such, so in any matter, he would have had to be connected to the United States somehow. In this twisted mess, Africanism depends on American labels. Consequently, Equiano could have been born anywhere without affecting his "identity."