|
Student Midterm submissions 2013 (2013 midterm assignment) |
LITR 5831 World Literature
|
 |
Valerie Mead
Web Highlights: Cannibalism, Exile, and Evil, oh My!
Web Review #1
Abby Estillore’s Midterm:
“Self-Other and Nostalgia-Exile: Identity Crisis” specifically, her section
subtitled “Nostalgia and Exile in
Robinson Crusoe and
Lucy”;
Karen Daniel’s Research Post 2: “Exile and Gender Oppression in
Lucy”
Estillore’s essay on exile and Daniel’s research
post appealed to me because it discussed the notion that gender and exile have a
direct correlation within Colonial and Post-Colonial literature. I had not
considered this while reading the texts, and while it was briefly discussed
within seminar, these essays helped to enlighten me and extend my perception on
this concept. I honestly did not think of the gender aspect as it relates to
exile, and failed to notice that “Lucy’s exile is [that of the] engendered
female--[it] disrupts domesticity and essentially threatens the patriarchy”
(Estillore), while Crusoe’s exile is comparable to the Biblical Prodigal Son
story. Quite simply, “exile privileges male over the female” (Estillore), a
notion that makes perfect sense upon reflection. Reading these works made me
realize that Crusoe went away to find “identity” and “opportunity” (Estillore),
but Lucy, as a woman, was not able to stay where she was because of oppression,
and upon leaving, she was only suitable to “fulfill another subservient position
outside of her social class” (Estillore). Lucy is unable to escape, as Crusoe
did, because once she leaves home, all she finds is the “same oppressive,
male-dominated culture” (Daniel) that she was trying so desperately to leave
behind.
Estillore ties this gender and exile relationship
in with the idea of identity, while Daniel focuses on the anger that it helps to
produce as a result. Both routes of study are interesting and lead to productive
lines of thought. Daniel’s work seemed much less professional in tone when
compared to Estillore, but both brought up excellent points on the topic. They
helped me to better understand Lucy’s plight and the importance of gender in her
exile, which was something I had not considered. I found Daniel’s post to be
more interesting simply because it explored in greater detail the anger that
Lucy felt at her mother, something that I am still am having difficulty grasping
(perhaps because of the fact that I am so close to my own mother). Daniel’s post
helped me to put my personal differences aside and see that “trying to
understand the reason behind Lucy’s maternal anger was not as important as
trying to find out what this anger represents.” Now that I have a better grasp
of why she is so angry, I agree with this statement, and feel there is much to
explore on the subject.
Web Review #2
Ryan Smith’s Midterm “Through and Beyond Evil”
I was attracted to this essay
simply because it brings up a dichotomy within the texts of
Lucy
and Robinson
Crusoe that until this point, I had not
considered: that these protagonists could be perceived as either villain,
victim, or perhaps an intermediate state of both. Smith feels that this is
because each author “presents their protagonists in ways that are open to reader
interpretation,” and that until readers “acknowledge the victim/villain
dichotomy and move past it,” we will not be fully able to address the more
pressing issues that the texts present. Once I read this, it changed my
perception of both Crusoe and Lucy as characters, letting me see them in a
somewhat altered light. People
are people, and are more than the one-dimensional villain/victim labels that are
thrust upon them: appearances are deceiving because “all that is gold does not
glitter, not all that wanders are lost” (The
Fellowship of the Rings, J. R. R. Tolkien).
Smith further elaborates on the dichotomy of villain/victim
within the works, and in doing so, it became apparent to me that these
characters inherently represent both roles simultaneously. This duality of
spirit or nature fascinates me, and the idea that someone can be both good and
bad shows the very complexity of the human heart. Smith explains that “Defoe
works to present Crusoe as a hapless victim,” but that his “violent dreams of
slaughtering all cannibals” shows that he is more flawed than perhaps Defoe is
willing to admit. By categorical reasons alone, he should be considered a
villain because he is a colonizer and slave seller. I preferred Smith’s
interpretation of Crusoe because it made him seem much more human, and
therefore, relatable. Smith then goes on to remind the reader that Lucy is a
young woman who is “broken by numerous past experiences and memories.” This
role as “victim” leads to Lucy behaving like a “villain” throughout the text;
this realization makes her much more sympathetic and likable, and helps me to
better understand a very difficult character.
I was surprised at the lucidity with which Smith explained
this dichotomy and its relationship to both Lucy and Crusoe, as well as his
insistence of the importance of it within the works. I do agree that this
humanizing of these difficult characters helps the reader to better understand
and empathize with them and the works as a whole. Overall, this was a
well-written, organized, and intelligent defense of characters that can be
viewed as relatively unlikable, and it gave me new insight about the duality of
the characters and their actions. The only real criticism that presents itself
is the way that Smith goes into great detail with Crusoe, while his
interpretation of Lucy is somewhat less thorough. I would have spent a little
more time on Lucy, but it was a thought-provoking and illuminating essay
nonetheless.
Web Review #3
Allison Coyle’s Research Post 1: “Cannibalism in Amazonia:
Morality or Murder”
Coyle’s essay attracted me
because it discussed the topic of cannibalism, something that because of the
nature of the crime and the taboo associated with it, always stuck out to me
like a sore thumb in
Robinson Crusoe. However,
it was not a topic that we discussed with much detail within the parameters of
seminar discussion, so finding this post immediately attracted my attention.
Coyle does not discuss the intentions or ramifications of cannibalism as it
pertains to
Crusoe, but rather focuses on the generality of
the subject and then going on to give real-world examples of the Wari’ tribe and
how they perform cannibalistic actions for “rituals” and “funerary rights.”
Coyle’s research found that “there are several different types and levels of
cannibalism, and one’s culture or ethnicity can play a role in how this act is
performed.” This really helped to open my eyes to the idea that my own
ethnocentrism causes negativity about the idea of cannibalism, while their
culture finds it perfectly acceptable. I also learned that there are different
degrees of cannibalism, something that, while obvious, I did not take into
consideration.
I found Coyle’s post concise and
direct; she gives background information, explanation, and specific examples all
without overwhelming the reader and while using clear, easy to understand
language. I found “Cannibalism” quite useful because it helped me with my
interpretation of the cannibalism in
Crusoe.
For one thing, I had not considered that cannibalism may be done for more than
one reason, especially that it could be “a religious, harmonious, and symbolic
means of mourning the death of loved ones.” While the cannibalism within
Crusoe
was restricted to times of war, this research post really helped to drive home
the idea that while I feel it is a barbaric custom, it is usually based on
ritual and done for a specific purpose. For some reason, I have always
associated cannibals with blood-thirsty, out of control people who are somewhat
less than human, and this helped to bring some of the humanity back to the
indigenous peoples of Crusoe’s island. This is essential to my reading of the
text, as Defoe tends to make them seem one-dimensional, at least in this regard.
This work is short and sweet; there really is not much to critique at all, and
her tone and voice throughout the piece made it simple to read and understand.
Essay
Power and its Relationship to Emotion in the
Villain/Victim Dichotomy
Reading Colonial
and Post-Colonial Literature is difficult because of the innate urge of the
reader to judge the characters and immediately categorize them as either victim
or villain depending on their status as colonized or colonizer, respectively.
What many do not take into account is the duality of the nature of man, and the
fact that most people are not as one-dimensional as previously thought; they are
not simply one or the other, good or bad, but rather a strange melding of both.
The line between them is so thin and blurred that one cannot tell where the good
ends and the bad begins. Everyone has within them the possibility to be both
victim and
villain. This is the nature of mankind: a big, swirling mess of entanglement and
emotion.
For one character to be labelled as a villain simply because
of his status as a colonizer is an unfair representation to him as a human
being. Every one of us has within us both good and bad qualities; because of
this, the villain and victim roles can be enacted simultaneously with most
fictional characters (who are supposed to be representations of real people) in
our texts. As Americans, we are quick to label and then judge, and once
labelled, the perception is that they are one-dimensional, and because of that,
they can only exhibit emotions synonymous with their status/station in life; for
example, villains are stereotypically seen as primarily contemptible and angry,
while the victims are seen as subservient and docile. These assumptions are
often based on a character’s status as colonizer/colonized (and the power
associated with it), and are usually disproved, and sometimes even inverted,
throughout Colonial and Post-Colonial works. This gives credence to the duality
of the nature of man and the idea that people are inherently a flawed species, a
befuddling mixture of good and bad, victim and villain.
There is a noticeable difference between colonizing
and colonized characters as far as treatment, status, and perception, as well as
their reaction to these things. However, as far as their own human nature goes,
all of these characters have the potential to be good, bad, or both; casting
them as villain or victim based on their social status within their current
station in life is simply how the outside world perceives them, not how they
genuinely are inside. Using this logic, Crusoe can be considered to be a villain
based on his status as a colonizer, as well as through his contemptible
treatment of natives and slaves. This perception intensified after he sold Xury
even though he himself had been forced into slavery.
While the possession and selling of humans is despicable, it
should be noted that Crusoe is not an entirely villainous character, nor is he
perceived to be by everyone he encounters or all who read his tale. He (somewhat
condescendingly) befriends the natives, giving them food, taking them in, and
helping them learn the ropes, so to speak. He does this even though he is
disgusted by their cannibalism and feels (through ethnocentrism) that he is
better than they are, that they are somehow less human than he is because of
their station in life. Crusoe is not angry nor vindictive in his actions, as one
would expect the all-powerful colonizing agent to be, but neither is he docile,
insisting on teaching the natives his own language and skills. He is a flawed
human, one who lies outside of the classification system set in place within
this dichotomy.
Crusoe as colonizer does not act with
anger and meanness towards everyone he eventually meets, and seems content, even
happy, to be alone
or to colonize the
natives. While he did own slaves, he was no villainous slave driver. I feel that
perhaps the anger of the natives that he encounters does not get discussed in
much detail because this is such an older novel and it tends to shy away from
expression of emotion. If the natives were given a voice to their emotion, I am
conflicted as to what I would expect them to feel. Firstly, while it is implied
that Crusoe is in charge of the natives because it is his stored food, he does
not simply delegate, but rather helps out physically with the work that needs to
be done as well. This and his relatively fair treatment (as far as colonizers
go) goes a long way to prevent some of the anger that the natives may feel.
However, the natives are fully aware of the fact that Crusoe, an outsider,
claims to have dominion over them, going so far as to banish at least some of
the traditions and customs that they cling to (cannibalism, anyone?), something
seen in Lucy
and A Small
Place. Even though the natives were victims and
virtually docile, their emotions could not be as simple as anger or happiness,
but rather a wide range of sentiments.
Lucy, as a transnational migrant from a
colonized country, is seen as a victim as well. However, if one takes a deeper
look at Lucy, we can see that she is much stronger than any victim would appear
to be; with withering stares and biting retorts, she seems to almost bully those
around her, like Mariah, with the sheer, uncontrollable anger that emanates from
her. One can see from a close reading of the text that her anger has a great
deal to do with her being a victim as well as her
perception
that she is thought of as a victim, something that she despises; her status as a
victim makes her behave most villainously, and this is all because of the anger
she emanates. It is not uncommon to think of a victim as being angry on the
inside, but for that anger to burst forth takes a lot of power, and this is the
one thing a victim is not supposed to have. Power, malice, and anger are all
associated with villains, and for Lucy to be seen as a victim and yet act as a
villain changes my perspection of the villain/victim dichotomy as it pertains to
what to expect emotionally from a character, and it furthers the idea of the
duality of the nature of man, something that helps characters to escape
classification.
In direct opposition to the
wrath of Lucy is the warm and calming presence of Mariah. As she is from a
settling county, it would be thought that cannot be seen as a victim, but
rather, like Crusoe, as a villain. The reader and Lucy initially felt that
Mariah would be callous, even malicious, simply because she had all of the power
in the relationship as an American and as Lucy’s boss, while Lucy would be
perceived as less than human because of her status as a colonized person.
However, upon further reading, one finds that this is not the case at all:
Mariah, while technically in the villainous position of power and dominance
through her station in life, is actually a victim within the confines of her own
home, subject to the whims of her philandering husband’s wandering eye and
unwillingness to fix their marriage. Though she can be seen as both a victim
and
a villain, she does not exhibit the emotions that I expected from either group.
Instead, she is perpetually happy and perky, an emotion neither group seems to
project. That is, until her happiness begins to fade and she falls into what I
feel is a more typical state for victims: desolation and despair over the ruins
of her life, which causes her to lash out in anger, like Lucy. Her reaction to
her stature helps to show that the range of human emotion experienced through
status escapes classification into two neat piles.
The narrator of
A Small Place
definitely has the same anger that Lucy has (perhaps because both are at least
somewhat autobiographical), and I cannot say that I blame her for it. She is
living in a country that was colonized and is now being forced to mimic the
laws, attitudes, and traditions of her oppressor, similar to when Lucy had to
memorize the dandelion poem. The narrator is in every sense a victim, but she
does not act subservient like one. Instead, she is fiery and tenacious in her
condemnation of her oppressors. She has power because she does not see herself
as a victim, and therefore breaks her classification of herself as one. Though
she is perceived on the outside as a victim, within, like Lucy, she is not
powerless; she is no one’s victim, and because of that, she is able to behave as
though she really has power. .
In “Shooting an Elephant,” there is a distinct
colonizer/colonized relationship established, with the protagonist being the
villain, as he is colonizing, and the natives being the victims because they are
under colonial/imperial rule. This is different from the works read thus far
insomuch as both the oppressed and the oppressors are angry. As a villain, it
makes sense for him to be seen as a menacing and angry person; he fits the mold,
so to speak, of what is stereotypically expected for this category, which
differs drastically from Crusoe. However, this perception is made before the
reader realizes that he does not actually want to be there, that he does not
want to be villainized or be a tyrant to innocent people. This actually makes
him a victim, in a sense, of imperialism, and his disillusionment with it all is
what makes him so furious. He himself does not fully know his own role or status
in the world, and it just goes to show the duality and dynamism of the human
spirit, and that while power does affect the way a person is perceived, as well
as their behavior and emotions, it also affects the person himself.
The natives within “Elephant” are
hateful and viciously vindictive towards the protagonist because of what he
represents to them, and also because of the inhumane way they are treated by
these invaders of their homeland. Like Lucy and
Place’s
narrator, they have a right to be angry. Behavior such as this does not fit the
stereotypical role of a victim, someone I see as weak and docile. Their power
comes from the fact that they are fighting an even greater power.
The pursuit of power is what sends
Dravot and Peachy to begin an empire in “The Man Who Would Be King,” and the use
of power through advanced technology and weaponry is what gains them their
crowns. They were happy to conquer, but not malicious in their actions or
attitude while doing so. They seemed like bumbling buffoons on an adventure who
happened to get incredibly lucky in gaining their “kingdom.”
This
lack of malice did not seem to matter to the natives, whose anger at having
their power taken from them led them to instigate a coup and permanently get rid
of their oppressors.
The reversal is seen in “Gunga Din,” where Gunga happily
works and eventually died for those who have power, somewhat similar to Friday.
The poem’s narrator recognizes the colonizer/colonized dichotomy, and while he
adheres to it and wastes no time ordering Gunga to and fro, he also admires him
and feels that Gunga is a better person than he. He sees Gunga Din as almost an
equal and feels that they will go to the same afterlife; there is a level of
equality here that is not seen in the other texts.
There is no doubting the correlation between the
colonizer/colonized and the villain/victim dichotomy within Colonial and
Post-Colonial literature. Once the reader is aware of the character’s position
within such a framework, it is easy to categorize these characters based solely
on their position, which could be why it is so hard for Americans to read and
properly understand works from these periods. Once they are placed within the
confines of these black and white categories, their emotions are expected to
match their categorization, especially as it relates to who has a dominant role
and power. However, one often finds that regardless of station, characters often
overcome these categorizations and become a strange mixture of both good and
bad, villain and victim. This can be seen in the inconsistency associated with
the emotion and behavior of characters once they are categorized, and in the
fact that deep down, people are all different and therefore, behave differently,
which leads for surprising readings and interesting positions on the topic.
Research Proposal
Cannibalism and Mothers: Westerns Ideals and Cultural
Taboos
The research project assignment options both have
their merits. However, for this course I have chosen to do the two research
posts as opposed to the research paper. I chose this format for a number of
reasons, mainly because I have never done the research project through the post
format, only through the paper. Quite frankly, I wanted to try something new
this time, though hopefully not with disastrous results. The fact that it would
help me with distributing the workload throughout the semester really appealed
to me as well. Also, I was having a great deal of trouble narrowing down my
choices of topic this time, which was a huge factor as to why I chose to write
two separate posts.
There are several topics in Colonial
and Post-Colonial Literature that are of interest to me at this point in the
course. The top contender is cannibalism and consumption and how that relates to
Robinson
Crusoe. Cannibalism is such a foul and
loathsome thing to do, something that has been abhorred by most cultures,
including the West. It is such a foreign thing to do, and like a train wreck, I
cannot seem to rip my eyes away. Every time I reread
Crusoe
(this is my third time), the cannibalism is something that sticks out and begs
to be discussed in greater detail than class discussion allows. Learning more
about this topic would be of great interest to me personally, so that I can
finally ease my curiosity and extend my depth of understanding within the field
of Colonialism. I honestly feel that this is a good topic to peruse because I
want to teach, and as
Crusoe is so versatile
categorically as a text, chances are that I will have to teach it in the future;
if I am so obsessed with the idea of it, understanding it now will only help me
as a professor and my future students as well.
Allison
Coyle’s first research post, “Cannibalism in Amazonia: Morality or Murder” was
quite interesting, giving me an idea of how the posts are structured and
examining the taboo of cannibalism.
I
would really love to work with
Lucy in some way, though
at this point I am not completely sure what I would like to look at. I am
fascinated with the mother/daughter dynamic presented in the text, as it is so
different from what we Westerners value. Personally, I speak with my mother
daily and cannot imagine treating her the way Lucy treated hers. Researching the
effects of transmigration on familial bonds might be interesting, and it would
have literary, psychological, sociological, and anthropological applications
that I can pass on to my future students. Studying the mother/daughter
relationship and its parallel to the colonizer/colonized relationship, an idea
mentioned in Chrisoula Mouliatis’ “Mother-daughter, Colonizer-colonized” post,
would have a historical application within the teaching of the text, and could
be useful. Another topic within a similar vein may arise, but I am somewhat set
on using something like these two.
