Today in class, it was pointed out that the phrase “So it goes” was repeated in the book over 100 times. I would like to take some time in this blogpost to expand on these very small three words but their counter-oppositely major impact on the book as a whole. “So it goes” is a line that we come across on nearly every page, and follows all accounts of death in the Slaughterhouse-Five. As Billy has expanded both his emotional and psychological way of thinking, he has most certainly conquered death, the biggest fear of human life. After viewing his death over and over again, as well as various parts of his life, he is a completely different human being, if even human. His way of thinking has completely changed, and he has started seeing things in very different ways than others. When a couple of his “friends” (he doesn’t really have any friends, at least nobody that he really loves, and even if he does, he doesn’t show it) are shot and killed he thinks “Now they were dying in the snow, feeling nothing, turning the snow to the color of raspberry sherbet. So it goes” (27).
“It” is the heart of this statement, referring to life: Life goes on, many roadblocks come and go on the path of life, but it goes on. This statement helps us show, according to Billy, the unpredictability of war, the inevitability, and its delusions. At the same page he starts with “Three inoffensive bangs,” which means that the Germans are simply doing their jobs-- they are not bad people, they are not terrorists, they are not unrighteous, but rather, they are doing what they have to do. This kind of things happen in war and you can’t get angry at these things. “So it goes”. These things happen because they have to happen. 
Doctorow’s writing style
In general, I like Doctorow’s subtle and ironic writing style and narration. While many readers in our class are not really in favor of his different ways of both the manipulation of his characters and the awkward tone, I find it rather amusing. For example, Doctorow’s portrayal of Ford is a demonstration of the manner in which Doctorow sees the inventor in his eyes: “He allotted sixty seconds on his pocket watch for a display of sentiment (Doctorow 136).” While it is true that this may be Doctorow just justifying on Ford’s attitude or nature, I feed that this is Doctorow laughing at Ford, describing his frenkle sense of humanity. Although the narration is vague at times, it does bring for a variety of viewpoints, which I find very intriguing.
Amazingly enough however, I am not content (I don’t know how to phrase this- I don’t really like it?) with the way in which Doctorow talks about his fictional characters when trying to “prove” they are real. On page 183, when Doctorow is talking about Coalhouse Walker Jr.’s background, I was rather annoyed when he said “ Here, given subsequent events, it is important to mention what little is known about Coalhouse walker Jr. Apparently he was a native of St. Louis, Missouri....There were never located any of his school records in St. louis and it still is not known how he acquired his vocabulary and his manner of speaking. Perhaps by an act of will.” Maybe this botheration came to me because Doctorow is no longer fictionalizing historical characters but trying to create history using fictional characters. The “apparently” here is the center of the paragraph: with every character in the book, Doctorow takes their place by saying things like “he allotted...for a display of sentiment,” instead of apparently. The same is true with J.P. Morgan. I don’t know what Doctorow is trying to do by staying apart from this character and giving us a negative connotation of him.
I understand that this weirdness is probably due to intensification in the historical fiction genre which is now showing its true colors, trying to express a fictional character seem real by providing vague details of his past and twisting with our brains. I guess we’ll just have to keep reading to find out more!Has Tateh bought into Capitalism?
1/18/2014
In class, the question was brought up: did Tateh buy into capitalism? I feel that that is indeed a very interesting question-- while it is true that Tateh does agree to sign the contract to have his flipbooks mass produced, that isn’t his ‘true nature’. In those terms, he is similar to Houdini, who starts as a low class jewish immigrant (precisely like Tateh) and using his art, grows and rises high in society, even though he is unwilling and doesn’t like the idea of being bought. Similarly, Tateh did not have that much money (with only 60 dollars to begin with, and most of it was spent in transportation), so, he does need the money, not only for himself, but also his daughter.
Additionally, the way I read it, Tateh didn’t even know that the manager would like his flipbooks, yet alone mass produce them-- Tateh was just hoping to get a couple of extra dollars on the side to literally be able to live: “ Tateh removed his hat and spoke to a man in a striped shirt with sleeve garters who came forward to meet them. The man was amiable. Sure, he said, let’s see it. Tateh took the girl’s satchel, put it on the counter and, opening it, withdrew the book of the skater. Standing next to the proprietor he held the book at arm’s length and expertly flipped the pages” (Doctorow 132). It is clear that Tateh’s intentions were not to seek profits from capitalism. When he was presented the offer, he decided to take it because he had to. Let’s talk realistically: here’s a guy offering you money on the spot for your talent. Sure Tateh does profit from it, but he doesn’t seem to be thinking from a capitalistic point of view. Once again, he is doing this to keep both his daughter and himself alive. At the end of chapter 17, for example: “For purposes of the contract they were called movie books. Come, Tateh said to his child, we'll find a boardinghouse in a good neighborhood and then we'll have ourselves a meal and a hot bath” (133). These words are not those of someone who is embracing capitalism for his benefits, but rather, of someone simply trying to survive. Ragtime: First Impressions
In the class discussion on Ragtime( and outside of class, mostly), several people mentioned that they didn't really like the ‘detached’ tone of the book, at times; but I didn’t mind that, in fact, that is what I love about this book. I think that the tone totally fits the style of the book by giving a really unbiased (as of now, at least) view of the situations, that is, telling situations without taking a stand on it. There are moments, however, when the narrative suggests something without saying anything specifically, which I guess is the type of writing you often encounter in novels.
In terms of plot, (and this is my main point; I love this book because of this as well) all I can say is that at times certain events seem totally random and quite meaningless. For example, the mirror scene in the jail between Thaw and Houdini seemed significant, in tonight’s reading, but I failed to draw anything from it (perhaps a connection from the Houdini scene when his car broke down in front of the house?). What’s even better is how the author mentions himself “the unexpected visit [of Harry Houdini]” at the beginning of the third chapter, accepting this arbitrary plot. The randomness can be seen even from the beginning of the book with “[h]er underpants were white” ( though that too may be a connection to the previously mentioned phrase “everyone wore white”). The best example, though, has to be Theodore Dreiser towards the end of the fourth chapter- his ‘experiment’ to try to align his chair in just the right manner is just so meaningless (I don’t think another connection comes up, unlike the others), which is actually, what I like about this book. I feel that that brings much needed humor to the sometimes dull tone.
Another thing about the plot is that there doesn't actually seem to be one cohesive plot; rather, there seems to be many different plots, each majorly concerning a few limited characters at a time, and these plots tend (as of now) to stay separate from each other. In any case, I think it will be quite fascinating to see how each of these small stories blend into each other, hopefully making for sense(that is not to say that separately they don’t look, they are fun to read, but together might be a different story altogether)...Open- Genre Project
For my project, I did a video summarizing the Sun Also Rises. For the movie, I used the movie Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara, in which 3 freinds decide to go on a bachelor trip to spain. You can read the wikipedia page, or even watch the movie on Netflix (its hilarious) and see that it has absolutely nothing to do with The Sun Also Rises. The summary is followed by a message from Jake about life. I hope you enjoy and laugh a lot. The link is availible at http://youtu.be/ORjcNWrEhxQ. It is also availible at http://youtu.be/LYFAmOrf_Yk
Pilate as the pillar of Song of Solomon: almost like Christophine in Wide Sargasso Sea
I feel that Pilate can almost be seen as one of the biggest protagonist of Song of Solomon as she is the story's moral guide (almost like a Christophine like figure). Although it is true that the narrator of the book hardly ever focuses on what Pilate is feeling or the state she is in, her presence in the book is strongly felt throughout. Ironically, although she is named after the Roman statesman who crucified Jesus Christ, according to the New Testament, Pilate has a complete lack of cruelty. Most often, she is actually leading someone who is in need of guidance.
While Pilate's role in the novel isn't as physically visible as someone like Milkman's, it is definitely just as important (perhaps even more). Pilate is a survivor of the strong racism and yet she is loving and altruistic. Her loving nature implies strength rather than weakness. Most importantly,when a man tries to beat her daughter, Reba, Pilate takes the event very calmly (as Mr. Mitchell mentioned almost like an experienced ‘badass’) pushes a knife within just an inch of his heart and persuades him (and he obviously accepts) to never touch Reba again. Impressively, Pilate is in her sixties (again old age, like Christophine, where old age shows power, experience and knowledge) and the abuser is a strong young man, Pilate still prevails.
In Song of Solomon, Morrison seems to suggest that Pilate’s powers, strength, and everlasting love above all, come from the African-American cultural traditions. By singing and expressing her feeling indirectly through the songs about Sugarman’s flight, Pilate shows her strength and tries to calm the memories of the past, specifically the oppression that her ancestors had to go through. Not only does she make herself content, she also makes the other characters who live in the present surrounding her joyful. In the end, Pilate becomes the novel’s model character, clearly expressing that power does not have to come at the expense of gentleness (although it is hard), and that freedom does not have to come at the expense of the happiness of others.
In these manners, Pilate is much like Christophine. Christophine was the character who was the mentor to Antoinette in the Wide Sargasso Sea and here, Pilate can be seen almost like a mentor like figure to Milkman (his life is empty without her initial guidance). Another factor is when Christophine makes the love potion, and Pilate does something similar. There is also the fact that both are seen as figures with some kind of “supernatural” power. So all in all, both characters have many similarities.
Milkman like Antoinette?
Milkman is just like Antoinette in many ways. Milkman was born into a rather privileged household with a want to always escape but has to live through instead. In order to make his life more peaceful, he tries to make friends with Guitar. He does this because in he does not want to be the part of a household which both the poor blacks resent (because of jealousy for money). Interestingly, this is quite similar the way that Antoinette reaches out to Tia (Tia is from a lower class and is still friends with Antoinette, for a time being). However, the class tensions that are present between these friends are much more pronounced and visible in the case of Antoinette, specifically because she does not even have the option of fitting into any community. Guitar also mentions something similar to Milkman when he says that ‘you do not fit in either communities’. And just like Tia throws a rock at Antoinette (which I feel was done with intent to kill), Guitar tries to hang Milkman.
However, they do have their differences. Mainly, Milkman is a male in a much more modern society (well more modern than that of Antoinette's times) and because of this he does have a shot at actually getting out of the situation he is in, for example, as he so says himself “I’ll buy a plane ticket,” and he does. And while he was stuck there, he was in a relatively comfortable and protective environment. In somewhat of a contrast, Antoinette was a female in an era wher she could simply not leave, and so was stuck (like Milkman) but stuck forever (unlike Milkman) She was made to come of age way too fast for her own good. And as a female in a ante-modern era, she was not able to simply leave. She had to marry, and thus was stuck forever
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
