Required Reading For Your ‘Destination Vacation’
9 November 2009
Jamaica Kincaid’s book A Small Place, reminded me at first of a travel journal, and then of a personal journal. The function of the beginning ‘chapter’ which mimics a travel journal, is to put the reader in the position of tourist. In doing so, the reader is implicated with the ignorance of all the non-native people who visit Antigua. This got me thinking. I thought that I needed a vacation. And then I instantly felt terrible for that, and realized that this book has quite possibly changed the way that I am able to view destination vacations forever. I have never actually taken a ‘destination’ vacation: those are only things that I daydream about, but now that blissful ignorance has been taken away and Kincaid’s book has held up a mirror to the entitlement and suppression that permeates the western idea of ‘holiday.’ It is similar, in effect, to a picture by Banksy:
It seems that there is nothing that this society takes for granted that can be simply separated from its role in the world. Everything has its equal and opposite balance, so a ‘simple’ vacation carries with it the suppression and exploitation of a region and its people, in order to create a false paradise. At every All-You-Can-Eat Buffet, there are people starving in the alley behind the restaurant.
The end of Kincaid’s book changes from an anti-travel guide to a personal journal of frustration, and I feel that as the reader, I have followed that model. The more information that is given, the more complicated and upsetting a situation can seem. The question of what to do next, and how to fix past mistakes, seems so important once the curtain has been lifted, but the answers remain elusive. Kincaid writes about the assassinations of leaders in Antigua with a confusion that translates to the reader. The events and actions are all interconnected, but we cannot see the threads to cut: there is no clear path to rectification. Other readers might say, at this point, that Kincaid is unjustly passing blame to her readers (and alienates the very readers that buy her books) for something that happened before their time. Although Antigua’s history with colonization is not something that the average reader can control, Kincaid’s direct confrontation of the reader asks them to look at what they CAN control.
Kincaid’s book ends with a description of the ‘European Disease’ – the use and exploitation of other people in order to feel better about one’s own lonely and empty existence, and I am left to ponder the cure for this disease. If I never take that ‘destination’ vacation, am I sufficiently doing my part to counter – act the effects of suppression and exploitation? Probably not, but as J. Kincaid writes, we are all just human beings: we do what we can and hope that it will make a difference.
This Blog = Punishable by Death or Imprisonment
4 November 2009
There is a distinct irony inherent in the power of the Party’s control in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. The crux of their power lies in the naiveté of the general public: their willingness to believe uncritically what is told to them, a willingness born of fear, and yet the execution of the Party’s power relies heavily on the sharp minds of the very public that Big Brother is trying to control. For instance, the act of writing is not allowed. Recording events, like keeping a diary (or writing a blog), is not “illegal” in the technical sense of the word, but could result in death or imprisonment, so any attempts to “communicate with the future” are highly risky to say the least. And yet it is Winston’s job to communicate and craft a reality for the future that is in compliance with the Party’s doctrines. The difference is that the diary promotes individual thought and subjective, uncontrolled reality, while the other is a highly crafted conformist reality. The thing is, Winston could do neither of these acts without an element of creativity and free thought. The very seed of individualism and creativity that leads Winston on his journey with the diary is the very thing that he draws upon when he fabricates fictionalized realities like that of Comrade Ogilvy.
Additionally, the double standard of control and reliance is seen with the character of Syme. Winston knows with certainty that one day Syme will be vaporized because he lacked “a sort of saving stupidity.” Unfortunately for Syme, the very thing that makes him so good at his job of language de-creation, if you will, is the thing that will get him killed in the end. Syme’s analytical and philosophical grasp of Newspeak with the implications and possibilities inherent in its execution provide Syme with an artistic reverence toward his job. While he crafts the language into simplicity, his knowledge of what he does ensures a finely crafted framework for future expressions of reality; this is exactly what Big Brother would like. And yet this insight is dangerous in one person, and so Syme’s insight and linguistic artisanship solidifies his fate.
In the world of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, the characteristics that ensure a functioning role in society are also the ones that the Party seeks to suppress. There is a contrary nature in the reality of the novel; “even to understand the word DoubleThink involved the use of DoubleThink” and so there exists a simultaneous suppression and reliance on the individual members of the society to be able to access the very abilities and thought processes that they are told to control.
Feeding the Monster
21 July 2009
It has been a little over 10 days since my last post. I could say that it is because I took the GRE last week and I was all wrapped up in the preparations. That wouldn’t be a lie-I did and I was. But it isn’t the entire truth. You see, the thing is, I was reading New Moon. And after my scathing rant about Twilight, I was embarrassed to be reading the second in the series. But there I was-every night before bed, reading just a little more. I kept thinking that I wasn’t going to finish this one, because really-it was SO BLAND. I mean, blander than Michael Feldman’s Whad’Ya Know, blander than the most boring tapioca pudding you can imagine. (Although, I rather like tapioca pudding.) Bella actually says that “compared to the fear that he didn’t want me, this hurdle-my soul-seemed almost insignificant,” and, AND, she laments “I don’t trust myself to be…enough. To deserve you. There’s nothing about me that could hold you.” So not only does nothing really happen in the book, but Bella is blatantly saying that relationships are about entrapment, and that her very own soul is not as important as Edward’s attention. And of course she doesn’t deserve him. Hell, she is a girl. Do girls deserve any of the men that deign to look at them? (note well the sarcasm and disgust.)
And yet… I kept reading. This is where my epiphany lies.
Let me back track a bit. Last year, (or was it two years ago?) I would visit a certain website daily for all my movie news. This website would be third on the list of my morning web-rounds, and I would read the silver screen updates. And THEN. Then, I would rant to my husband that night about the utter stupidity of the website’s executive editor. I would marvel at how this guy could run a website about movies, when he SO CLEARLY had a) an aversion to fact-checking, b) no conception of the history of Hollywood cinema- for him, movies did not exist before 1982, and c) the persona of an unrefined, immature, and unprofessional moron. Yes. I HATED THIS WEBSITE. And yet I would visit it every day for about a year, because it fueled my day. A little bit of hate and disgust with my morning coffee was just what I needed to set me out into the world with a smugness that I just couldn’t find anywhere else. Twilight does this for me. Heather B. Armstrong recently posted something that resonated so strongly with me: “my righteous indignation, it flared up so magnificently that I sat down to read the whole book, just so that I could be angry at it. WHO DOES SHIT LIKE THIS?“
I do, Heather. I do.
My husband and I call it my Alex Billington Syndrome. Everything that annoys me is dubbed an A-Bill, or some version thereof. I eventually stopped visiting the site, and I now wonder what fueled my self-righteousness in the period between First Showing.net and the Twilight series. I wonder what I will do when I have finished Stephanie Meyer’s handbooks for co-dependent and abusive relationships. I ask you, people, what will I direct my self-important, superior rants at?
I am sure I will find something. If nothing surfaces, there is always Ann Coulter’s Bookstore.
The Anxious Comedy
8 July 2009
In Patrician Authority and Instability in ‘The Way of the World,’ Kevin Gardner asserts that the suppression of emotion, the mastering of presentation, and the embracing of a more legal approach to problem solving are the characteristics of the way of the new world. Gardner explores how these traits are related to the transitioning modes of authority in Stuart Britain, and exposes the social anxieties present in Congreve’s characters, that resulted from such changes to the structure of social power.
The shift from feudalism to capitalism brought with it a different standard for determining social decency and decorum. The traditional controlling powers- the patricians- are of an era that determined conflicts with swords, and relied heavily on emotional release in matters of social communication. Gardner points out that the changing economic landscape was uprooting the outdated modes of social propriety, and an emotional reserve was becoming more and more favored as the proper way to conduct oneself in society. Additionally, the vestigous practice of settling disagreements with force, athleticism and swords was changing, it was coming to be seen as a brutish practice that was fitting only for the lower class.
A reaction against these new social orders was the obsession over natural demeanor. In order to maintain social authority, those in the upper class focused on being able to decipher, through one’s physical actions, whether or not an individual was born of grace. The feeling was that the more natural seeming the rehearsed and choreographed movements of the body were, the more deserving of the aristocracy was the person. The fascination and importance put on this practice had two results, the first of which was that any member of the upper class who could not master their own movements- those who seemed as if they were adopting affectations- were ostracized and rejected from the very network they were attempting to save. The second result of this practice, was that anyone could adopt the mannerisms of the upper class, provided they were skilled at the “natural” presentation.
Gardner uses these social shifts of power to examine the characters in The Way of the World, and in doing so he exposes the anxieties behind their actions and the comedic elements of the play itself. Lady Wishfort becomes a sad product of a society whose rules have far surpassed her, and Mirabell stands as one who has mastered both the new way of propriety and the outdated way, utilizing both modes to assert his own authority. Mirabell is the model of the new cultural codes.
I found Gardner’s article to be very enlightening and approachable. Logistically, I found the presentation of his material to be done in a way so the reader could easily follow the structure of his argument, allowing more opportunities for the reader to associate with, and process the material and assertions made. I find the double ironies of the character’s usage of social rules to be fascinating. Mirabell must maintain the new codes of suppression and self-regulation in order to successfully pull off a subversive plan. These elements are all newer modes of conducting oneself, but their goal is to attain inheritance and a title: both very traditional modes of power.
Another irony that I observed relates to both the patrician mode of power, and the newer, patriarchal mode of power. Gardner writes that the patrician modes of power became based on a heavy reliance on the mechanization of one’s body and movements, as a presentation of “natural” civilization. Whether this development happened as a reaction to, or in tandem with, the threat to the patrician modes of power is unclear to me. However, it is highly interesting to me that the newer, more patriarchal mode of power, based on suppression of emotions and self-restraint, is also inherently dependent upon a mechanistic approach to one’s self- in this case, their inner self- in order to assert power and expose imposters. Both modes of authority are born from similar instincts: to use control and mechanization as a form of self preservation and survival.
Gardner’s approach to Congreve’s The Way of the World has enhanced my perspective of the comedy of manners, save for one element. Gardner points to Lady Wishfort’s anxieties over her loss of sexual and social authority as the driving force of the comedic factor in the play. I would say that Witwoud is also a heavy comedic force, but his force is also born out of misfortune for he, like the Lady, has been unable to decode the social language that solidifies one’s acceptance. In this light, the humor of the play has been taken out of it, and the sadness of the characters shadows over the ‘fun’ element of the play. As a reader, I have a harder time reading the piece as a satire of social mannerisms, it becomes more of a serious reflection on the “way of the world.”
