Boori Ma: Truth or Lies?

After reading 'A Real Durwan,’ I’ve found Boori Ma to be one of the most interesting characters I’ve encountered this semester. Boori Ma is a refugee of the Partition of India in 1947, which was an event that had a huge impact on both the people involved as well as their descendants. In the story, Boori Ma often reminisces on her old life before the partition, mentioning marble floors and baths scattered with flower petals. She sorrowfully recalls her four daughters and husband. While the other dwellers sympathize with Boori Ma, it is clear that they are also slightly annoyed that she keeps mentioning her previous wealth. This makes sense- the apartment is a very middle-class residence, without much money for luxuries. They are also annoyed because they believe Boori Ma’s stories are complete lies—something that the reader may suspect as well.

Personally, I believe that there may be truth within her stories. Often times lies are based on a small truth, and just travel further and further away over time. As a refugee, Boori Ma very likely experienced intense emotions: sorrow over losing her belongings, home and perhaps her family. While some of the material things may have not truly existed, the emotions are definitely there.

And that’s why I don't think it matters if she's lying. Believe her, don't believe her, how much of a difference does it really make? The feelings she's experiencing are what really matter. It's similar to Tim O'Brien's war stories: a story's 'truth' is its ability to capture raw emotion. And for both O'Brien and Boori Ma, telling their stories to others (in her case, she only has the tenants as her audience) may be their own way to cope with the pain of loss.

Read More

Maskulinity

The theme of masculinity in Diaz's stories has been brought up in class a few times, and I found it very interesting to look at what role it plays in the story "Ysrael."
One of the earliest events that stood out to me is when Yunior cries after being sexually harassed on the bus, and Rafa tells him off for crying, calling him a "pussy." While it's true that Rafa doesn't know the real reason why his brother is crying, his message is nonetheless very clear: Yunior needs to get tougher, because 'real' men don't cry.
I also wonder if Ysrael's mask is a symbol of masculinity. Or if not masculinity, a defense mechanism. I found a Latin American sport called "lucha libre", which involves two male (never female) wrestlers wearing masks. Apparently the biggest dishonor is not necessarily losing the match, but having your opponent remove your mask to reveal your face. The stealing of the mask is considered a symbol of losing your identity and masculinity.
So if we are to consider this in the context of the story, perhaps Rafa and Ysrael are the wrestlers (in the story, Ysrael is actually into wrestling). Ysrael wears a physical mask, and seems to do everything in his power to avoid others stealing his mask. While Rafa doesn't have a physical mask, he seems to put on a very 'tough' outwards appearance. Rafa is very determined to remove Ysrael's mask, in my opinion, not only because he is curious about Ysrael's injury, but also because Rafa is frustrated that Ysrael keeps evading capture by any of the boys. I feel as if Rafa is somehow determined to reveal the 'true' Ysrael whom he believes is under that mask. And of course, by taking off Ysrael's mask, Rafa seems to strip Ysrael's power as well, something that is often associated with masculinity.
And then there's Yunior. In class, we touched on the possibility that Yunior is more interested in the person behind the mask, unlike Rafa, who is interested in removing Ysrael's defense mechanism and just looking at his injuries. It definitely seems as if Yunior does not fit the typical mold of masculinity, especially in Latin American culture. This seems to be consistent in other stories involving the two brothers as well—In "Fiesta, 1980," Yunior is constantly carsick, for which his father calls him a weakling.

Read More

How "How" Made Me Feel

The short story, "How" has become one of my favorite pieces I've read for this class so far. In a way, the style reminds me of "Pee on Water"—I feel as if I'm watching a time lapse or movie, completely engrossed in every scene and the emotion it holds. In addition, the two stories share the clear passage of time, which I think adds to the film-like feel. "Pee on Water" unconventionally tells the story of human evolution, while "How" concerns the arc of a certain relationship, over "a week, a month, a year," and how it feels like "just a series of endless tests."
In addition, both stories employ short, deliberate sentences that are extremely effective in evoking emotion within the reader (me). Some of my favorites from Moore's story include "unleash your irritation in short, staccato blasts," "apartments can shrink like drying ponds," and "lie [in bed next to each other] like sewing needles." While those phrases include vivid imagery and metaphors, there are also powerful phrases as simple as when the boyfriend tells you (?) to "have a heart." Moore seems to master the timing/placement of these snippets of conversation. While James Baldwin paints beautiful scenes with long, descriptive phrases, the frankness of both Moore and Glaser's writing (for me, at least) hits closer to home and makes it easier to see myself as a character in their stories. And as we discussed briefly in class, Moore's use of the imperative mood makes her writing feel all the more personal.
On my cover of New American Stories, there's a little spiel from Ben Marcus about the pieces in the book, describing how a good short story can affect a reader. "If they are well made," he says, "and you submit to them, they go in clean...they trigger pleasure, fear, fascination, love, confusion, desire, repulsion. The potent story writers, to me, are the ones why deploy language as a kind of contraband, pumping it into us until we collapse on the floor...overwhelmed with feeling." While "How" is not part of New American Stories I feel as if it checked all of the boxes consistent with Marcus' description. "How" immersed me in the storyline of the main character, taking me on a rollercoaster of happiness, anger and sadness. While I didn't "collapse on the floor" after I finished reading, it was one of those stories that made me stare blankly into space for a few minutes, emotionally taxed, contemplating about how intensely Moore's writing made me feel.

Read More

Paris

Baldwin's story "This Morning, This Evening, So Soon" takes place in Paris, where the narrator, an American expatriate, and his family have lived for twelve years. They are on the verge of returning to the US for the narrator's work, and he is understandably nervous about the transition.

For the narrator, Paris is very special to him because has allowed him to "enter [his] own life." He thinks about how his relationship with his wife, a white Swedish expatriate, would not be possible in America. As the narrator describes it, "if Harriet had been born in America, it would have taken her a long time, perhaps forever, to look upon me as a man like other men; if I had met her in America, I would never be able to look on her as a women like all other women...we would never have been able to love each other. And Paul would never have been born." Besides his relationship, which is considered normal in Paris, the narrator seems to imply that Paris has allowed him to become his own individual. In the US, society attempted to define him solely by his race. This pressure is absent for him in Paris, which allows him to define himself (however, he does acknowledge that France has its own racism).

Later in the story, the narrator recounts on his visit to the US for his mother's funeral. During the ship journey, he begins to feel uneasy, noting that the Americans on board were friendly to him, but it was a friendliness that was "not intended to suggest any possibility of friendship." After tipping a waiter on board, the narrator notices a "flicker of wry sympathy" in the waiter's eyes, and another uniformed crew member refers to him as "boy." As he travels to his Alabama hometown, the narrator has a difficult time hiding his dislike for the cops and white people. He mentions that he tries to say "no sir" or "no ma'am" the 'correct' way, but never succeeds. The narrator, after spending time in Paris and gaining a broader view of the world, seems to pose more of a 'threat' to the white people in Alabama, who find that they are unable to define his place in society anymore.

The narrator eventually returns to Paris, excited to escape from American society. But I think it's important to realize that while he has physically left the US, he can never really 'escape' from America. He was born in America and will always carry his experiences with him. This becomes apparent when the narrator discusses the role of Chico he played in one of his movies. The director of the movie, Vidal, recalls how the narrator could only produce a good performance when he drew upon his rage and frustration that he experienced while living in America.

Paris has also helped the narrator to better understand his upbringing in America and where he came from. His life in Paris offers perspective on how his fellow African-Americans are treated in the US and aids him in understanding his own culture. And generally speaking, looking from the outside in can reveal things that someone might never have noticed if they were inside.

I thought this was a great story overall. I really enjoyed the contrast the author draws between Paris and the US, and how it enabled the narrator to understand his origins. Looking at Baldwin's other stories, setting always seems to play an enormous role.

Read More

How Does Teddy Die?

(Sorry about the weird formatting)

For me, the ending of Salinger's short story "Teddy" came across as an unexpected shock. Even if the reader had picked up on earlier hints dropped by Teddy, I don't think that many people fully expected the story to end in the way it did.
But going off that, how does the story end?
Upon first glance, it seems that Teddy dies. For one, Teddy hints that something important "will either happen today or February 14, 1958 when I am sixteen." This 'thing' becomes clearer later in the story, as Teddy (oddly) explains in great detail a hypothetical situation where he dies.
"I have a swimming lesson in about five minutes. I could go downstairs to the pool, and there might not be any water in it. This might be the day they change the water or something. What might happen, though, I might walk up to the edge of it, just to have a look at the bottom, for instance, and my sister might come up and sort of push me in. I could fracture my skull and die instantaneously." 
And in that famous, ambigious closing scene, we hear piercing screams from the pool, "clearly coming from a small, female child." This seems to suggest that a) Teddy and his sister are indeed at their swimming lesson, and b) something horrifying has happened.
If we as readers believe that Teddy is truly a spiritual genius who can outsmart professors at institutions around the world, then perhaps this whole situation is more believable. Maybe Teddy can truly predict his death.

But even if we accept this ending, it raises a few, important questions. For one, is it possible that Booper  murders Teddy? If Teddy knows that he's about to die why doesn't he try and stop it?
Both are sinister and chilling to think about. Maybe Booper and Teddy's relationship is more strained than just a "sibling rivalry". Or maybe Booper is truly evil. If we believe Teddy's intellegence is real, then it really isn't a far stretch to consider that Booper is a malicious child. Or heck, maybe Booper was just predetermined to kill Teddy when she was born. As for why Teddy does not try to avoid his inevitable death, it makes the most sense to assume that he believes that death—and dying, is not a big deal. He truly thinks he will be reincarnated again.

Another explanation of the last scene is that Teddy commits suicide.
From this point of view, we regard Teddy's genius with skepticism. After all, what ten-year old truly behaves like Teddy? Perhaps Teddy is actually a very mentally disoriented child, who has conjured a whole different world in his head. If we consider the people around Teddy—his parents, Bob, and Booper—they all seem much more different and removed.
Early on in the story, Teddy complains that he was only reincarnated as an American because he could not stay focused while meditating in his earlier life. Based on this detail, it would make sense for Teddy to be frustrated and even feel trapped in his current situation. Perhaps Teddy jumps into the empty pool himself in an attempt to escape from the confinements of his American life.

One last possibility to consider is that Booper is the one who dies (I didn't consider this until someone brought it up in class). It depends how closely you want to read into the text, but the last paragraph states that the piercing female scream seems to "reverberate within the four tiled walls." Maybe Salinger literally means "within"—that Booper screams as she falls into the empty pool.

There's no doubt that Salinger keeps the ending very ambiguous. A few of his other short stories have ended similarly, causing the reader to ponder (at times, with great frustration) what has actually happened, and what will happen.

How do you guys read the ending of "Teddy"?

Read More

Phony People

Since we've started reading Salinger's short stories, I can't help but notice great similarities between them and Salinger's most known work, Catcher in the Rye. Some stories seem to bear an uncanny resemblance. Others not so much, but still carry over certain elements from Catcher. I think Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut is a story that's trademark of Salinger's style. In the piece, he seems to focus a lot on contrasting the phony (hi there Holden) world with an idealized, youthful and innocent one—something that's also a recurring theme in his writing.

In Uncle Wiggily, I think we can safely view Connecticut as the "phony world"—full of fake, materialistic individuals who are concerned about superficialities. In the very beginning, we start to get hints that Eloise is an middle-upper class— if not upper class—woman. She has a camel-hair coat. Her bookcases are "heavily stocked." And of course, she has a maid named Grace. From these details alone, the reader starts to get the impression that Salinger might not be fond of such a lifestyle. In addition, take A Perfect Day for Bananafish as an example. Muriel is portrayed rather negatively as an high class woman who's too naive and preoccupied with fashion to see that something might be wrong with Seymour.
Eloise herself also seems to be rather phony. For one, she didn't marry Lew out of love. When asked about their marriage, Eloise just shrugs and says that Lew liked Jane Austen (which turns out to be a lie). But there are also hints she married Lew for financial security and comfort.
Lew is pretty phony. He lies about his favorite authors and seems to be a stereotypical working husband with a high salary.
Mary Jane, in my opinion, seems to be the most phony. The dramatic way she talks and cackles with laughter seems to be performed, rather than genuine. Salinger seems to suggest that Mary Jane is younger and lacks experience compared to Eloise, as we discussed in class. In my opinion, it just makes her seem immature.
Especially in comparison to Ramona, who in contrast appears to be wise beyond her own years. Ramona doesn't react to Mary Jane's childish conversation and seems to speak very matter-of-factly. When Jimmy "dies," Ramona is able to move on very quickly and conjure Mickey.
Ramona, along with Walt, both seem to represent the youth and innocence that stands in stark contrast to the phoniness of Connecticut and the other characters. In fact, the title itself, Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut, seems to be an oxymoron.

Read More

Beauty, Gore and Death

There's no denying that war is gory. It's ugly. It's dirty and often not as glorious as one might expect (take the shit field where Kiowa passed, for example). Indeed, "war is hell."
But can it be beautiful as well?
In the stories we've read so far from Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried, there have undoubtedly been showcases of the horrors of war, both physical and emotional. Yet every death or other incident is accompanied by a sort of beauty as well.
Take the story of Curt Lemon, who is killed after stepping on a land mine. His death is first told in an almost poetic manner, with O'Brien describing the seemingly tranquil landscape—the white flowers, the sunlight dancing through the leaves, and the surrounding mountains. Then, Lemon's face appears in the sunlight, shining, and suddenly, he "soars" into the tree.
Lemon's story made me do a double take, and I had to reread the section to fully acknowledge that he had died. It was certaintly not what I had pictured a death by land mine to be like. As O'Brien puts it a second time, "when he died it was almost beautiful, the way the sunlight came around him and lifted him up and sucked him high into a tree full of moss and vines and white blossoms."
Later, we get another, more technical and gory version of the story, where "the booby-trapped 105 round blew him [Lemon] into a tree." O'Brien and Dave Jensen were tasked with peeling the body parts off the tree and throwing them down—the white bone of an arm, wet yellow pieces of intestines.
There's also the man that O'Brien killed, described as having a 'star-shaped hole' where his eye should have been, the jaw in his throat, and half his mouth blown away. Yet this description stands in sharp contrast to the other things O'Brien notices about the man: the smooth, undamaged nose and right cheek, his shapely hands and clean fingernails. Notably, we receive descriptions of nature once more. The dead man's head lays among a blanket of blue blossoms, and a butterfly momentarily rests on his chin.
For me, war and beauty have always seemed to be worlds away from each other, especially when you consider the gory nature of fighting. But O'Brien seems to find a middle ground in his writing, where the two are free to intermingle. "War is grotesque, but in truth, war is also beauty. For all its horror, you can’t help but gape at the awful majesty of combat."
Because O'Brien has stated that he is intent on capturing the emotion in war, it is easier for me to try and picture the beauty he describes. Perhaps, in his shoes as a soldier, there is something beautiful about seeing how powerful war can be, and how death can occur so quickly, to anyone. It may even make him value his own life more.
I also think that O'Brien intends to tell us that despite war and death, life keeps moving. Butterflies still fly, sunlight is still reflected off the dead man's ammunition belt. Flowers blossom among pools of blood. Death does not change the world around O'Brien and his soldiers—they're still stuck in Vietnam, in some cases in a shit field. But they too, must eventually cope and move on with their grief.
By writing stories that highlight both the gore and beauty of war, that's exactly what O'Brien is attempting to do.

Read More