Two Tribes

Okay, Junior's class is awesome.

It was incredibly uplifting for me when his ENTIRE class dropped their textbooks and walked out when the teacher made clearly uncalled-for comments. As a non-white person living in a white community, I could feel the tremendous amount of elation that flowed out of the pages (or screen in my case). Perhaps the same would apply to any person under similar circumstances but this is huge for anyone of minority.

But as was mentioned last discussion, some people found it difficult to like Junior. But I liked him roght off the bat and his story resonated with my own of struggle in a world that was to promote the American dream: of leaving your roots and finding your destiny. Sure, leaving your culture, abandoning it, betraying it, are all ways of lookig at it. But I see it as merely adding onto what already exists.

Hydrophilia

The narrator is so very frank. 

You almost get a Holden Caufield type of vibe from him, with the story of a boy trying to get through life (and all of its side routes and whatnot). Just toss on the red hat and you have a pseudo-Holden. And he admits stuff. 

The narrator is awfully frank. Did I mention that yet?

But regarding that Arnold (Junior) feels like an incredibly relatable character to me at least. Some social anxiety mixed with extenuating circumstances. I wonder what it would've been like had I been to a school like his. And then the Reardan one. 

The style of writing actually somewhat fits into how I normally think. Short comments here and there and maybe a phrase that leaks into my writing. The conversational type. As a protagonist, Arnold (Junior) is quick to gain the reader's sympathies and empathies and so forth but those people have to be the type who reads this type of literature. Or the type to take AP Lit. 

How would Roger react to this book should he read it?

You are the protagonist

Sonder 

n. the realization that each random passerby is living a life as vivid and complex as your own—populated with their own ambitions, friends, routines, worries and inherited craziness—an epic story that continues invisibly around you like an anthill sprawling deep underground, with elaborate passageways to thousands of other lives that you’ll never know existed, in which you might appear only once, as an extra sipping coffee in the background, as a blur of traffic passing on the highway, as a lighted window at dusk. (From the dictionaryofobscuresorrows.com)

A select many characters in The Bluest Eye are given in-depth backgrounds worthy of a protagonist of a usual novel. Some, like Cholly, are introduced as near-one dimensional character as merely the one who burned the Breedlove's house down. To the reader, Cholly is just the person who committed arson and was sentenced to jail...among other things. But we aren't to see him like that. His story is fully fleshed out with his childhood life with Aunt Jimmy and onwards to his marriage with Pauline. Like Cholly, Pauline is another character who has a life and has the right to be the protagonist of her own life. 

These are but two examples and though The Bluest Eye doesn't explore the lives of every single character, it is a substantial amount as compared to many, many other novels. The relation of bringing sonder as an element helps permit the novel to reflect reality. Everyone has a story. This portrayal is extremely important in actually showing someone the world apart from what they see for themselves, from the usual standpoint of "the protagonist." Perhaps there are too many with this sort of thinking and need a wake up call.

The only way to win is not to play

The world is inherently unfair. And many times, you can't discuss these issues concerning religion, race, or gender / sex without being drawn into a pointless exchange of rage and accusations.

Everyone has their own ideals and for many, these are unshakable. Naomi Wolf outlines her such ideals on the belief that beauty is hardly just an innocent appreciation for the aesthetic. My take on beauty is that it surely has gone to extremes within the United States as Wolf mentions. Appealing appearance being a more desired goal than probably more practical ones has definitely shown itself, like Wolf says, in the market of cosmetics, etc. These social pressures are pervasive force that pressures inhabitants to follow certain guidelines with extreme prejudice.

Since the United States has somewhat moved past utter poverty and have allowed more luxuries to become widespread, people are given the opportunity to compete with the usually more advantaged folk; one front is the beauty factor. Given the standard of living the country has, we have more time available to make efforts into those purposes until those purposes become standard themselves. Looking at how ingained the "normal" concept of beauty is into our society, just how much rehaul would it take to equalize?

-Title Censored-

Jumping into this book knowing it was banned and that its content easily made people uncomfortable was sort of exciting. Not the kind of excitement of doing something fun (I mean, reading is fun, but I don't exactly have a habit of reading controversy for the enjoyment) but rather the excitement of learning something someone somewhere decided was not for the eyes of highschoolers. Books, banned because prostitutes (Catcher in the Rye), rape (Kite Runner, [apparently] The Bluest Eye), and so forth, are supposed to portray a message of sorts. Graphic scenes are the kind of stuff that happens behind closed doors and don't happen in "reality" or whatever overprotective people decide to call their existences. 

Sure, the descriptions are probably graphic but labeling them for a part of the book rather than as a whole is doing the literary world a disservice. This is exactly what occurs within the first ten pages of The Bluest Eye with the narrator's experience with dolls. An ideal that seems harmless or does away with "harm" is forced upon unwillingly participants in what is called life. 

On another note, addressed to the schooling system: please invest more resources on educating more rather than on educating less.

To be

I must confess that I find confessing noncathartic.

We all have done something we're probably not proud of and coming to terms with it is probably rather difficult. Wronging someone is probably the easiest, as forgiving others is, in my opinion, easier than forgiving yourself. But making mistakes you can't revert can only fill you with regret.

We spend our time panicking over a decision already made and waste time hesitating or repeating the scenario to yourself with different outcomes. Maybe hoping for a miracle. This time used to worry and fret over something we cannot alter anymore can probably be better off used doing something else to offset it.

My personal philosophy for regret or making a mistake is simply to accept it and move on. Very lackadaisical. But I never mistake it for an excuse not to remedy a situation but something like scoring low on a test or forgetting homework, I simply not fret and work harder next time.

Blood Ran Thin

Family is a very sensitive subject. They are to maintain to relationships and when they fall apart, the pain and regret amount far higher than losing a friend. Why is it so troublesome?

Eugene already rejects his father as a pagan, which caused a separation between himself and his sister. The two siblings are on opposite spectrums of the economic scale and the familial loyalty instilled in Eugene has him do...nothing. Not even the most basic of assistances of giving financial aid. Eugene's actions are thus far "justified" by religion, his faith in Catholicism. He is very unforgiving (in a religion that preaches forgiveness, no less) and makes no exception for family. This almost crazed adherence to his beliefs over his family poses some concerns among his blood ties.

Famiy should look out for one another. Family should be willing to help whenever help is requested. But falling outs have their devastations magnified. Are we right to cal, Eugene wrong?

Yams Again

Even as time passes and a culture evolves, many elements remain from pre-European contact to present day in Nigeria, the unsuitable umbrella term that it is.

Within the city, Christianity is fully installed as the primary religion of choice, as presented in Purple Hibiscus, and European style schooling and et cetera is found more often than trees in a forest. However, a remnant of Igbo culture still remains steadfastedly intact: the value of strength. Though the definition and traits of strength have changed, physical to more academic, it is still the defining characteristic when considering community influence. The self-made man is also of praise. A man is not judged by his father's worth, something both Okonkwo and Kambili's father know and have a history of viewing their own fathers with disdain. The result is their own harsher treatment of their respective children, wanting for them to avoid the misfortunes they experienced. 

In both cases, outside forces have been set in motion, likely in direct competition with both men. Invasion by the white man and coup d'etat are outside the realm of control of practically anyone. Will history rear its head and decide to repeat itself?

There Can Only Be One

Religion is peculiar. How exactly were those of faith convinced to believe in something based on word alone, especially something supposedly beyond comprehension as the Christian deity. 

I just find the whole deal illogical, mostly because of the explaination for the phenomena we have now. Not to say that scientist are not allowed to be religious, as science could be explained by how their deity built the world. But how does it lead to some people rejecting evolution and other such "blasphemies?" 

And then to call another religion's god(s) false on essentially the same basis that one's own is true is beyond me. It boils down to just "you're wrong, I'm right so I don't need proof." The conversion of others is usually through force or the appeal of an accepting society to those worse off.

I am not against religion, nor those who choose to partake in it. Rather, I'm curious as to why.

Things

"'That is very bad,' said Obierika's eldest brother. 'But what is good in one place is bad in another place.'"

The idea of tolerance is a very valiant one, aiming to accept those who are different. This, in theory, should include those who are intolerant. If one is to accept all humans, no matter their worldview, what would accepting someone with a worldview contrary to everything one stands for mean? Forcing our own ideals on others even if those ideals are good is still a hypocritical act. It's almost as if the world requires evil to erase other evils.

We do not live in a perfect society. We have exactly every type of prejudice in existence living and breathing the same air as the most unassuming of us. The main difference is that we recognize them as prejudices rather than as staples of our culture. For a very long time, subjugation of others for who they were was very common place, but it was accepted because it was tradition, it was how it was, because they knew no different. Erasing those "traditions" have done a good for bigger picture.

It seems the route of hypocrisy is preferable to the route of dehumanization.

Fall

Renowned writers, by default, are treated with respect for their thinking and their writing by default. There is undeniably a degree of status placing import on writings by a big name in literature and that status lasts. Chinua Achebe seeks to take aim at Joseph Conrad and his Heart of Darkness, making note of the unbounded racism found within.

It is well known that it is easier to follow or ignore an immoral crowd than it is to refute it. The innate racism that was commonplace during the publication of Heart of Darkness was what allowed the racism facet to not have affected its literary merit, which probably is not an excuse for slandering any portion of the human population. For now, I will refrain from further judgement on this basis as I have not read it.

However, the contents of the essay hold dark implications that accepted works (or really anything thay cna convey ideas) can easily be hiding in our everyday lives that share a message that is more conducive of evil than of the well being of humanity. If even something as tough as the literary community has had trouble calling out a novel for its blatant racism, how many other seemingly benign outlets of information convey a harmful message?

Apart

I will first surmise that some of the blogs my classmates will write will probably be about absolutely despising Okonkwo. 

Frankly, I myself am not far off but one has to factor in the difference in culture and circumstance. The major factor to contend with is his father's habits. Having borrowed unto debt and providing near nothing for his family, Unoka gives Okonkwo no pride of being his son. Okonkwo has no shame in ensuring that he, essentially a self-made man, retains all that he has built and, quite understandably, has no patience for those who've not expended the effort he has to reach where they are (measured by titles and so forth). However, this, according to the current prevailing view on such matters, does nor forgive beating his wives nor inciting violence and insults on others. 

But it is this cutthroat nature of his that allowed him to rise to the position he has from almost literally nothing. His social prowess and physical ability earned him many favors and fame for his efforts. He made his way on lack of sympathy, himself having had none during his childhood. The nature of his way of life simply saw unjust actions and far harsher, which is enunciated in his own arrogance, an unfortunate side effect of his intensive work to make himself who he his. He is not the philospher type to ponder moralities but the practical type to be in control.