I think one thing we can all agree on at this point is that Holden isn't okay. From a drinking habit that could rival that of seasoned party goer to a seemingly mobsteresque smoking habit. Both of these aren't what anyone would expect from a 16 year old boy, granted the story takes place in the 1950s. However, these are all just coping mechanisms.

More than he lets on, Holden is cracking under the loss of his little brother Allie. Everyone handles death of a sibling differently, and it is no small ordeal. Sleepless nights, overwhelming guilt, and depression are just some of the things that follow. People resort to whatever they believe will help them feel better, even if others tell them its not good for them. I think that most people would agree that smoking is harmful for you, even if you are a smoker. But telling a smoker that what they are doing is bad to them in the long run won't do very much for them, because odds are they probably know this. This may be where most people had trouble on the prompt "What would you tell Holden?", because there is the fact that our words might do little to change his self-destructive behavior. It's hard to really get through to someone who is greiving, and Holden with all his faux confidence is no different.

Stephen's Ressurection

I think we can all agree that Mr. Daedalus as a character features plenty of unlikable qualities. From his seeming obsession with being a dark and mysterious main character to creepy obsession with this romanticized idea of love, he just doesn't seem like that enjoyable of a person to be around. It is for reasons like these that I first denounced Stephen as a character in my last blog post. However reaching the conclusion of the book, I can say that I see him in a much better light.

I'm reluctant to say I associate with this character on some level, no matter how little I do. That said, his idea of escaping his hometown to pursue himself as an individual is a concept I've considered many times, so to see someone go ahead and just do it gets my (begrudging) respect. But besides that, why is it that I don't hate Stephen like I used to? Well the simple answer is that having a story narrated by the main character's older self allows a lot more insight into the MC's thoughts in the present as well as in hindsight. I think the additional language we get from Joyce in the form of descriptions and irony as well as explanation help paint Stephen in a more understandable light. Even if I disagree with Stephen, I can't help but say hes definitely on his way to becoming a damn good artist.

Daedelus is dead to me

If I didn't make it clear enough through discussions in class, I dislike Stephen. While it may be a tad bit unjust to have such strong feelings against him, I can't help it. Especially as the book progresses. In the beginning of the book, Stephen is a questioning, innocent kid, and its all very wholesome and I felt pretty positively about him. Where it starts going wrong is when Stephen leaves Clongos. This period of Stephen being in Dublin is constantly described as moody, with Stephen repeatedly saying he is "restless". It's at this point where Stephen starts to "come of age", particularly too fast for my tastes.
One disconnect that I feel while reading the book is that Stephen's thought process has almost no correlation with his actual age. Especially during Stephen's first engagement with a prostitute. This could be due to Joyce narrating over Stephen's life, which explains the sophisticated vocabulary and descriptions. However, I feel that the extremity to which Stephen's brooding nature and self-martyrdom go is unnecessary (extra, if you will). It's this extra-ness that I dislike dealing with, both in books and in person. However, the real question is: Is Joyce's narration the cause of this extra-ness?

Sorry but I'm Bothered

Sorry to Bother You has to be one of the most memorable movie experiences I've had. From its interesting humor to the simplicity of its production and shooting (in the sense that there are for the most part no elaborate effects, making it easy to visualize this in the context of our world), the movie was really interesting to me. I'm sure the odd personalities of the chars as well as the whirlwind that was the final ~30 minutes of the movie were interesting... But that's not my point, while I enjoyed the movie a great deal, I have some things to say.

There's no way the a comparison between Get Out and Sorry to Bother You can't be made. There are so many similarities it hurts. Both movies center around a young black man getting caught up in a scheme created by a white system to control him for their gain. Both movies intended to use the main character for monetary gain too, except in Get Out they were going to sell him as labor, whereas Sorry to Bother You saw Cassius being used as a leader to keep labor flowing consistently. There's something also eerie about this concept of whiteness and how its presented in the context of black people. (Spoilers ahead, if you don't want them then skip to the next paragraph) In Get Out, we saw black characters being put under hypnosis and being forced to speak and act in a unnaturally posh, stereotypical white way.

In Sorry to Bother You, Cassius had to use his white voice to sell products in his telemarketing business, and by choosing to abandon himself and take on this white persona was able to sell way more than he would otherwise be able to. Cassius success after adopting his "white voice" is not a coincidence, especially when his talent leads him to the tops of Regalview where he gets exposed to the immoral practices of Steve Lift & Co. In both cases the characters, after being faced with what this whiteness does to other characters, realizes their need to escape the system. I can think of so much more, but all I'm saying is that there is no possible way that the 2 movies aren't connected.

Cynical Minstrelism

We have discussed the minstrel-esque qualities of Beatty's portrayal of Gunnar's LA life. From the places to the people, there are ever-present comedic exaggerations. From the humorous descriptions of the people he encounters in his day-to-day adventures to the vulgar, comedic, and expressive dialogue Beatty presents us with, everything seems a caricature of what it should be, but slightly off. For example, the gangsters wearing all Blue are hard, but they aren't the crips. Dialogue between Gunnar and Co. almost always involves forms of sarcasm, irony, or general humor. The book itself keeps its comedic sense, even if the humor takes on a more cynical tone as the book progresses.

Unlike the Eatonville residents, almost every character fits some stereotype. Nick is a really good basketball player, which fits the stereotype about black men and basketball we all know of. That said, the thuggish boy we are first presented with is an avid jazz fan, something that might've caught a lot of people off guard. Gunnar, an avid fan of poetry and poet himself, falls under the same category. I think these ironic character twists do a really good job of subverting stereotypes we may or may not believe, however this doesn't seem to affect character to character interactions as much, giving a minstrel feel. However, I think because we as the perceived audience see what makes these characters unique beyond first impressions is what distinguishes the humor in White boy shuffle from another minstrel-like show.

Is Beloved Really a Ghost?

I think no one can deny the incredibly obvious connection between Sethe's dead child and the mysterious character of the young women Beloved. From her baby-like smooth skin, to her age being comparable to what the age of the dead child would have been had she been alive. There is even a line explaining how after seeing her, Sethe has an urge to pee resembling her water-breaking. As Mr. Mitchell said, the birth imagery is simply undeniable.
          Because we as readers are given all this birth-imagery, we are able to draw connections between Beloved and the ghost of the house. However, the characters in the book are unable to make the same connections. To be fair, it makes sense when viewed from a non-reader perspective. For example, Beloved is nothing like a ghost. For one, she has a physical body, and has to walk (or shuffle) around like a normal person. While her voice, the way that she struggles to hold her head up, and the 3 marks on her forehead (which are noted to resemble baby hair, more birth imagery) may be weird, at the end of the day she isn't exactly a ghost. Or atleast, she doesn't exactly fit the depiction of a ghost that one might expect. Could she be classified as something different? Maybe a Morrisonian Ghost? Who knows? It has already been shown that Sethe and Denver feel an attraction to her for some reason, as well as Denver having suspicions of her supernatural abilities, so maybe she strikes a balance between normal living person and infantile poltergeist that makes her fit in so well.

Where is the Proto in Janie?

Something that struck me, as it must have struck most people were our first impressions of Janie as a character. For starters, Janie is the first female main character of any of the novels we've read in class so far. Besides that, she is seen in the first chapter taking harsh comments from the entirety of Eatonville in stride. If we thought she was strong then, she only appears stronger once we finish the book. Dealing with having to murder the love of your life as they try to do the same to you isn't something anyone can do. Along with surviving a hurricane and having to bury dead associates, you truly appreciate why Janie's overalls are dirty at the end of the book.

Earlier in class, we referred to Janie as a proto-feminist character. When regarding proto-feminism as the feminism before feminism, its not hard to see that this is true for Janie's character. Unlike most other female characters in literature at the time, Janie is the main focus of the entire book, with most if not all events being told more so through her perspective (its literally a frame narrative of Janie's experiences). Alongside this, she is shown being independent in and outside of her relationships, she doesn't match the clingy damsel-in-distress motif at all. Even though she spends the book looking for love, she doesn't let her marriages control or define her. Even at the end of the book, she retires to her room a wealthy, independent and content woman. She certainly is successful, but at the same time why is she considered proto-feminist?

I think that perhaps this is because she is a black character. Keep in mind that at the time the black and white feminist movements would be separate, with the white feminist movement being already much more established. Janie is only considered a proto-feminist character because she existed before the concept of strong black female leads, white feminism had already explored the strong female lead in books such as Mrs. Dalloway.