Jack's Developments and His Parental Figures

            At this point in the story I think the Grandparents have been more effective at parenting Jack. We must give credit to Ma for her work in a terrible situation, but while she is at the clinic in an unhealthy state, the grandparents were major in the parenting of Jack. From Jack’s narration, it seems like he decently likes Leo and the Grandma, and he seems to learn a ton of new things. As Grandma says on page 259, “You’re breathing and walking and talking and sleeping without your Ma, aren’t you? So, I bet you can eat without her too.” Although these are regular things for most people. Jack is a crazy exception, any growth at all is very important for his development. At the clinic, Jack makes development, but not as much as I expected. He can’t really learn, and even when he wanted to go outside again, Ma hinders that. I think the Grandparent’s house was a great environment for Jack to learn. He spent a lot of time outside, Leo and Grandma both seem very nice and caring for him, and Grandma has experience being a parent. Multiple occurrences, like going the play structure, and to the mall, are parenting things that Grandma can teach better than Ma.      

            To me it also seems like Ma is not in a good condition to care for Jack right now. She tried to kill herself about a week ago, and she seems barely healthy. As we mentioned in class, this all happens over a relatively short amount of time. I personally think it would be better for both Ma and Jack to be apart. Jack is learning to live with new people, and Ma is returning to a healthy mental state.

            Another thing that shows Jack’s development to me, is how he doesn’t mention everything in the narration. He just mentions in passing that he did go to the natural history museum, and I thought that would be a big scene in the narrative. I think this shows as the more things Jack sees, the less he feels the need to talk about everything he does.     

            We also talked in class about Jack didn’t capitalize “the door” on the last page of the book. This is another part of his development over a short period. I think he really needs all the diversity he can in his life, while he is still young and Grandma and Steppa can provide that for him. Did anyone else feel like they did a better job than Ma? Or at least they did a good job at the time?

Doubting Room's Narrative and The Mind of a 5 Year Old

So far, I have been really enjoying “Room.” The plot and premise are very interesting, and the choice of Jack being the narrator makes the narrative that much more powerful. However, there are quite a few parts where I find myself questioning the likelihood of the narrative. While I enjoy the book, I question quote a few of the events. Mainly, the situations with the skylight. Towards the end of “The Unlying” Jack sees differences in the skylight. On page 86, Jack narrates, “Skylight’s different today. She’s got a black bit like an eye. ‘Look, ma.’ She stares up and grins. ‘It’s a leaf.’ ‘Why?’ ‘The wind must have blown it off a tree onto the glass.’ ‘An actual tree in Outside?’ ‘Yeah. See? That proves it. The whole world is out there.’” At this point Jack still doesn’t really understand the concept of outside. But I still find it weird how he’s never noticed anything over the skylight before. I suppose he may only notice different things on Skylight now that he has a concept of a real Outside, but it still seems a bit weird to me. If I were in Jack’s situation, the skylight would be one of the most interesting parts of the room, as it is always changing. After reading this, I wondered how Ma explained clouds or rain, or the other parts of outside that also occur in TV.  Considering a leaf fell on the skylight close to April, there must have been more in the Fall. There was also the situation with the airplane. Jack narrates, “’I saw it, it was a real airplane only tiny.’ ‘That’s just because it’s far away,’ she says all smiling. ‘I bet if you saw it up close it would actually be huge.’” This distracted me, as if there was an airplane going over now, that must mean that airplanes have a pattern of going over the Skylight. This is the first time he sees a real airplane, and it seems too convenient seeming he just learned about the real world. This airplane situation made me think about the possibility of other things going over skylight. It seems like it would be hard to describe to a child watching the news about the current weather looking up and seeing exactly that, and not understanding it was the same. I suppose Jack could have seen these things before, and assumed like the outside world was just imaginary and everything was there. But, if he had seen leaves on skylight before he wouldn’t have been so excited by the leaf. Another example of the weirdness of the skylight, is just a few pages earlier. Jack talks about the skylight saying, “It’s all black now except Skylight has a dark kind of brightness. Ma says in a city there’s always some light from the streetlights and the lamps in the buildings.”  Either Jack just noticed the light for the first time, which seems weird as the way she describes it, it should happen every night, or he’s always known about the light coming from the city. Always knowing doesn’t make sense because he only just recently learned it was real, and just now learning doesn’t make sense because it has been the same every night, and the way he describes it, the light darkness seems new. These situations make the read a little bit unbelievable, but I am still greatly enjoying the book. These situations could easily be explained by a five year-old not noticing the holes in the picture Ma has painted for Jack over these years. It’s hard to try and see into the head of a five year-old, but that is what makes this novel so powerful. I think these weirdness’s are my own doubting of how a five year-old thinks, but did anyone else find the whole narration a bit unbelievable? 

Marji's Maturity, and Writing Based On Her Childhood

Up to this point in the story, one of my favorite parts is how Marji knows a lot, but understands so little. Marji is deeply invested into issues that mostly concern adults, but doesn’t understand some basic situations. As some other blogs have pointed out, there is the major example of the death of the old man. She doesn’t understand what is so humorous about the situation even though to the reader we see how comical the story was.

               To me, one of the most interesting thing is how I understand the logic of the situation, but not the physical situation, and for Marji it is the exact opposite. I think this contrast is what makes the book so readable, as the reader makes connection Marji doesn’t, as well as Marji giving a historical context the reader may not necessarily know. I know this connection wouldn’t work for people who know a lot about The Islamic Revolution in Iran, in 1980, but for our class It seems to work well.

               Another cool thing is how Marji not only knows a lot of historical context. You may say that since this book is written from a future voice about Marji when she was 10, that’s where she knows the information from. However, on page 12, Marji talks about how she was kept interested by books and learned all about people like Fidel Castro, and the young Vietnamese. Another interesting thing I noticed was how she says her favorite book was a comic, and not only was it a comic, but a comic about philosophers. To me this is kind of strange, but also significant imagery. Like Marji’s character, the comic book about philosophers is like a kid’s version of the deeper and more adult things in life. The philosophers joking around is like Marji’s lack of understanding for nuance and irony.

               Not only do the comic philosophers represent Marji at a young age, but also the philosophical comic idea translates exactly to the format of the book. This book has a deceptively simple comic style, with deep themes. Marji’s character has an interesting relationship with the reader with seemingly alternate senses of the situation. At least this seems to be true for most readers, who don’t already know about Iran and its political history. I think her having a favorite book which is a deep comic is self-relating to the style of the book that she writes when she’s older and she looks back on these times. I think these things make the book more interesting, and deep. Do you guys think that the connection of her favorite book is a bit too far? I think it is plausible, but I think we would need to have read the full story to back up all claims. 

Vivian's Major Role Throughout A Lesson Before Dying

               Vivian is a major character in the story, as Grant says multiple times that she is the reason he is willing to go see Jefferson.  On page 130, Jefferson provokes Grant, to which he responds, “That’s a lady you spoke of boy. That’s a lady. Because it’s she who keeps me coming here. Not your nannan, not my aunt. Vivian. If I didn’t have Vivian, I wouldn’t be in this damn hole.” Grant cares a lot about Vivian and will not let anyone disrespect her. He also takes everything she says seriously and will do it. Grant complains to Vivian on page 141 saying, “I’m not doing any good up there, Vivian. Nothing is changing.” To which she replies, “Something is.” Grant will listen to Vivian because he loves her so much, and without her words of support, the entire mission of Jefferson becoming a man could become abandoned.  

               In fact, Vivian is the one who convinces Grant to go to the jail in the first place. The two are at the rainbow Bar and Grant is explaining how his Aunt wants him to go visit. On page 32, Vivian says, “I want you to go up there. If they say yes, I want you to go for me. For us, Grant.”  Vivian knows Grant must do this, and when Grant is worried about it, she says, “I’ll be here.” This shows Vivian’s major role in Grant’s original choice to attempt to help Jefferson.

               In the newest part of the reading, Vivian has a major role. Vivian comes to Grant after Grant gets into the fight with the mixed men in the bar. She is “disgusted” by Grant’s actions. Grant is again showing his seemingly adolescent behavior. She takes Grant to a hotel, and Vivian must ruin everything for herself to take care of Grant. She ran out of her teaching job, and everyone knows where she went. Because of this, now the whole town knows for sure. She must take care of him while is he too injured to move, or drive himself home. If Grant had just controlled himself, he wouldn’t have had to deal with all of this.

               We also hear about Vivian’s actual husband wanting to see the kids on weekends. I blame Grant for this, as he didn’t take the incognito meeting with Vivian seriously enough.  He let enough people know about him and Vivian that the real husband decided to want to see the kids on the weekend, so they couldn’t run away with the children. I think Grant ruined things for Vivian and himself, and partly blames the racism, which is fair, but I also think he is a major part. I believe Vivian has good reason to be mad, and her “disgust” of Grant is justified. I didn’t get to ask this in my student discussion today, but whose side are you guys on? Is Grant right in being upset, and it’s OK he got in a fight, or is he ruining Vivian’s life and their relationship by getting in this fight?

Perspective and Cash's Role as the New Narrator

Towards the end of the story, I began to understand the reasoning why there are multiple narratives. It comes into perspective when Cash says, “Sometimes I think it aint none of us pure crazy and aint none of us pure sane until the balance of us talks him that-a-way. It’s like it aint so much what a fellow does, but it’s the way the majority of folks is looking at him when he does it.” He is bringing the idea of perspective into the narrative, which makes the reader really think.  We began to get a few new perspectives on the Bundrens with MacGowan and Moseley. We see the Bundren family hobbling along in a more semi modern world, carrying a smelly corpse, on an old wagon, pulled by weak dying mules, looking grimy and dirty. Moseley narrates about how Albert says folks were scared of the wagon falling to pieces, how “ram-shackle,” the wagon is, how Cash lays on top of the ratchet home-made coffin, and just how bad it smells with his rotten-cheese analogy. The reader knows about the struggles the Bundrens had to go through to get to this point, but an outside perspective only sees where they are now, which exemplifies how ridiculous they look. We also see this perspective with MacGowan in Jefferson.  MacGowan’s coworker continually refers to Dewey Dell as “pretty good, for a country girl.” We see these perspectives and we realize how ridiculous what they are doing is.

               Although Cash’s quote is about how people look at Darl strangely, but it also applies to the general consistency of the narrative.  Most people would agree that moving the dead mother across the countryside to be buried with her own family is a morally sound cause. But, because of the hardships they face away from other people, when they come into the city, they are in rags, and are barely on their feet. I really like how Cash becomes kind of the main narrator at the end of the story. We talked in class about how the semi-crazy Darl had been our main storyteller, but now we have Cash. I like Cash’s sections because we know he is competent, sane, and truthful, making him a reliable narrator. It’s weird how his first chapter in the book is just a list of the steps required to effectively do his job, and then his last chapter is one of the most profound in the whole story. 

               Cash talks a bit about perspective and how people look at him, and I almost wish that we had another chapter from someone like the marshal, or any city person to see how the people see the ending of the story. As a reader, the ending of Anse getting remarried was totally weird to me, and It’d be cool to have another perspective, one of the things that makes this novel great.  It would also be cool to have a person from the Bundrens old world, the farm county, narrate on their return. I mean, they know who the Bundrens are and why they went to Jefferson in the first place so it would be interesting to see how they react. I think another perspective would be interesting, as perspective and point of view play a deep and major role in As I Lay Dying.

Differences in Quote and Character between O Brother and The Odyssey

There are far too many similarities between O Brother, Where Art Thou?, and The Odyssey for the Coen brothers to have not read The Odyssey. There are also some differences in quote and character that are interesting to think about.

                 The most interesting parallel I noticed that was a little different was the speaking about how trustworthy the women were. In the movie Ulysses Everett McGill speaks to Delmar, who talked in class about being part of the crew (maybe even Telemachus but that's not what I'm going to be talking about), and he is the one to tell him to never trust a woman. This immediately distracted me, as I presented book 11 for our in-class presentations, and in the book, Agamemnon is the one who says to never trust a woman.

                On page 263, Book 11 lines 499-503, Homer narrates, “True, true,’ Agamemnon’s ghost kept pressing on, // ‘so even your own wife—never indulge her too far. // Never reveal the whole truth, whatever you may know; // just tell her a part of it, be sure to hide the rest. // Not that you, Odysseus, will be murdered by your wife.” I think this is interesting because of how it differs from what happens in the movie. In the movie, Delmar is speaking to Everett in the movie theater and is speaking about how Everett is a “paterfamilias.” He has “spread his seed” but apparently to the wrong woman who is now married to Waldrup. Everett tells Delmar to “never trust a woman,” as he has bad experience with women, as Penny is now engaged to Waldrup.

               I think the parallel is interesting because of what the difference in voice represents. In both works, Everett and Odysseus both are skeptical of their women, and I think it is interesting that Odysseus is told this in The Odyssey but Everett tells this in O Brother.  Everett and Odysseus share almost all of the same qualities. At the beginning of the movie I wasn’t quite sure who Odysseus was, but I immediately realized when Everett referred to himself as the “cool tactician.” Not only is this similar to Odysseus’ skills, but also typical of Odysseus to be proud and confident of his expertise.

               There was another part of the movie that immediately threw me off. The scene where Big Dan takes the crew to a place in the middle of nowhere to eat. Big Dan grabs the branch and is suddenly beating up Delmar, and Everett says, “what’s going on Big Dan?” In The Odyssey Odysseus doesn’t really have any moments like this that I remember where he’s just all out oblivious. I can think of times where his pride gets the better of him, but not anywhere he himself acts stupid and ruins things.

               O Brother has a lot of interesting parallels and some are portrayed differently in the movie to match the slightly different plot, which I like. It wouldn’t make sense to force a connection, where there really shouldn’t be one, or if it doesn’t apply to the slightly different characters. These are just some things I noticed in differences in character and quote, can you guys think of any other examples?

Athena's Major Role in Odysseus' Homecoming

As we have seen in multiple instances throughout the epic, Athena plays a major role in Odysseus’s journey home. Not only does she aid him in times of hardship, towards the end of the epic, she twists everything around him to make it more entertaining for herself. I feel as though this is typical of Greek mythology, with a morally ambiguous God/Goddess.

               Toward the beginning of the story Athena does everything to push along the story. She knows what she wants to happen and she won’t settle for anything less than a battle at the end. We see her eager for a battle, and the use of the word “gleaming” to signify her desire for a “bloodbath.” In book 20 this turns into a blazing eye to show the reader something big is about to go down, what Athena has been planning for the whole book.

               Odysseus recognizes the help he receives from Athena in book 20 on page 411, where he says, “There’s another worry that haunts me even more. / What if I kill them – thanks to you and Zeus – / How do I run from under their avengers? / Show me way, I ask you.” At this point, Zeus knows he receives help, and he even expects further in the actual battle. On the next page, Athena is speaking about how he should be sleeping and says, “So, surrender to sleep at last. What a misery, / keeping watch through the night, wide awake - / you’ll soon come up from under all your troubles.” At first I read this as though Athena was watching him all night, and sees what he is going through and that he can’t sleep. To which she, pretty much, replies, “It will be all OK, because I will make it OK.” Even if I’m not reading this correctly to the point where Athena I watching all night, she does still stay that she will make everything OK, which is relevant to the main point of her constant aid.

               When not everything is going perfectly well in her plot, Athena makes Odysseus’s enemies meaner, just to spice things up. She makes the suitors act especially mean just to make sure that Odysseus doesn’t let them go.  On page 387, Homer narrates, “But Athena had no mind to let the brazen suitors / hold back now from their heart-rending insults- / she meant to make the anguish cut still deeper/ into the core of Laertes’ son Odysseus.” Athena has this crazy desire for Odysseus to be very upset at the suitors because she wants them to die. We talked about this a bit in class, how at first Athena’s eyes “gleam” for battle. But at this point, Homer refers to her eyes as “Blazing,” signifying a next-level change in desire.

               At the end of book 20, with the scene with the blood oozing meat, and ghostly faces, Athena takes it over the top. The seer and prophet Theoclymenus says, “Oh I can see it now- / the disaster closing on you all! There’s no escaping it, / no way out – not for a single one of your suitors, / wild reckless fools, plotting outrage here, / the halls of Odysseus, great and strong as a god!” Odysseus’s halls here are compared to that of a god, this god being Athena. Athena has done so much for Odysseus’s homecoming, that she was the main cause of the entire last bloodbath. From Athena’s intervention with the suitor’s actions, we know that Odysseus may not have been as harsh on the suitors as Athena was herself through Odysseus.  Athena has a major roll and Homer constantly speaks about the major effect Athena had on the final result, by comparing the work to that of a God, showing Athena’s constant aid, as well as showing the contrast of what would have happened without Athena’s over the top intervention.