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.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
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.
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
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
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
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
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?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
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 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.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
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
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.
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."
I'm blogging before I forget
Hi all. I am making an attempt at this blog now before I completely forget once the day begins anew. Honestly, the more I was attempting to analyze Grossman's novel for this paper (due in a day or so), the more I found a pattern similar to that in Dick's novel: there's this cyclic blur of distinction between superhero and supervillain, just as there is between android and human. It seems as though the more you think you know about them, the less you truly do, especially in the case of the supervillains (and their reasoning for being such villainous individuals). I found it a headache and a half to make that clear cut distinction anymore besides the fact that they were slapped with a label that they eventually followed through with. It's as if they were evil because they were told they were supposed to be, and therefore were committing crimes in order to fulfill the role assigned to them.
Anyways, back to the current novel at hand. When reading Equiano's account of his "home country," it definitely did feel romanticized. Everything was so perfect, so right, as if bathed in a pool of glorious ideality... the utopia of Africa. I now change my vote (kind of late I know) to the side that the authenticity of his story matters. Although there is the tradeoff between interpreting the story of the silent masses in order to actually even get the story out there, I feel like the fact he concealed the origin of his stories somewhat negates any positive impact he may have had on his audience. There's always emphasis placed on the legitimacy of a text, and to go so far as to claim it to be true without any disclaimers may even have the opposite effect that Equiano was aiming for: his dishonesty may lead any readers who would have otherwise been moved to change their views based on reading his story to see himself and everyone he is representing (the slave population) in an even more negative light: as liars who will use any means necessary, even dishonesty (which is a big no-no in the Christian/Puritan world) to achieve their ultimate goal. In the end, it may hurt the cause of the slaves.
My apologies if you actually read this probably incoherent rambling. Good luck to all on the papers!
Anyways, back to the current novel at hand. When reading Equiano's account of his "home country," it definitely did feel romanticized. Everything was so perfect, so right, as if bathed in a pool of glorious ideality... the utopia of Africa. I now change my vote (kind of late I know) to the side that the authenticity of his story matters. Although there is the tradeoff between interpreting the story of the silent masses in order to actually even get the story out there, I feel like the fact he concealed the origin of his stories somewhat negates any positive impact he may have had on his audience. There's always emphasis placed on the legitimacy of a text, and to go so far as to claim it to be true without any disclaimers may even have the opposite effect that Equiano was aiming for: his dishonesty may lead any readers who would have otherwise been moved to change their views based on reading his story to see himself and everyone he is representing (the slave population) in an even more negative light: as liars who will use any means necessary, even dishonesty (which is a big no-no in the Christian/Puritan world) to achieve their ultimate goal. In the end, it may hurt the cause of the slaves.
My apologies if you actually read this probably incoherent rambling. Good luck to all on the papers!
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Happy Birthday Talissa!
I need to make this short and sweet cause i have a midterm and another paper due tomorrow but that movie that we watched was aweful. I was hoping it would give me some insight to the book since i thought that the book was confusing but the movie was probably more confusing than the book. Its a pity that harrison ford had to do something so shitty, i wonder if he knew what was going on during the course of the movie. I think that the movie managed to confuse me even more and now im definetly not writing on Bladerunner.
I need to make this short and sweet cause i have a midterm and another paper due tomorrow but that movie that we watched was aweful. I was hoping it would give me some insight to the book since i thought that the book was confusing but the movie was probably more confusing than the book. Its a pity that harrison ford had to do something so shitty, i wonder if he knew what was going on during the course of the movie. I think that the movie managed to confuse me even more and now im definetly not writing on Bladerunner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)