The Real Protagonist?

In the last chapter of David Mitchell's Black Swan Green, we get a pretty conclusive ending, with Jason visiting some of his old haunts with a different perspective from the past. However, we've talked enough about Jason, I'd rather focus on a different, but equally as interesting character, Julia. One interesting (slightly meta) comment made by Dr. Mitchell that really intrigued me was the fact that Julia does "get the last word". Besides that, Julia does seem to have an exceptional amount of influence, not just over Jason but her mother as well in the form of support for her reentering the working world. Where does she get this surprising amount of narrative power? From her apparent wit, or its use in conjunction with her strong opinions, who knows.

One thing I do know is that Julia seems like such a strong and confident character because of our narrative point of view. Think about how differently events around their house would be described from Julia's point of view. We would see less of her biting remarks and more of the insecurity that plagues most if not all of us at around Julia's age. I think the act that Julia rarely lets on to us/Jason that she is unsure is what makes Julia such a great figure to Jason. It's just interesting to think about Julia's take on the Black Swan Green era of her life.

Hugo's moral alignment(?)

Upon first meeting Hugo, Jason descriptions and obsession with him had placed my standards pretty high. The way his cool nerd-ness was described reminded me of an British Nic Scoby from White Boy Shuffle. However, unlike Nic, Hugo is just a jerk. His manipulative capabilities and personality, as well as his apparent charisma and obvious malicious use of his talents reminds me of a sociopath.
However, viewing Hugo linearly as a "villain" or an evil character isn't right, simply because 1. he's been present for little of the book, 2. generally characters have more depth than just "good" or "bad".

Despite all the bad things I've said about him, I feel like his presence as a model for Jason as he comes of age would be important, at least from Jason's point of view. They both have interests in literature, with Jason having charisma and wit he dreams of having. Jason even says he dreams of becoming Jason, so he asserts his influence over Jason's ideals for the person he wants to become. I think personally Jason has the ability to become a version of Hugo that's less of an asshole, especially after seeing how strongly empathetic he is in "rocks". But, the biggest question is will Hugo actually appear in the book again? If I'm going to be honest, I truly doubt it but I also am hoping to see him for some reason.

Rational Thinking in an Irrational Era

One thing that has always struck me about both the character of Esther as well as our discussions of her as a character is the thought of her rationality. A point I remember striking me was when Mr. Mitchell said "Her irrationality is rational". There's a weird train of thought in which we can more or less understand Esther's actions from a distant perspective.

Esther handles her multiple attempts at suicide with a certain rationality. While there is a general lack of emotion in these chapters, we see her end goal, and how she plans on getting there. For example, during her first attempt she describes her process of trying to hang herself, however because of her houses construction, she wasn't able to find a place to hang herself. So she moves on to the next step, pulling the cord herself, however her body fights against it so she moves on to the next attempt. There is an obvious trial and error process which Esther follows, and while awful to read, it definitely seems that she is thinking through the process.

That said, is she really that rational? At the end of the day these are suicide attempts, and that isn't considered rational. Could it just be a side-effect of Esther's determination to be out of this life? Maybe not, as in a later section as she drives along a bridge, she notes that she wouldn't have jumped even if her family hadn't have been there to stop her. Like most other matters centered around Esther, its never as simple as one would think.

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.