Scholarly Novels vs. Non Scholarly Novels: Can One Really Tell the Difference?

Soooo this school year has been filled with novels that one would consider "scholarly"; from Frankenstein, to Grendel, to the more commercially accepted novels like A Visit from the Goon Squad, it seems as if every pick of literature I've debriefed this past year has made more more aware of what one should consider scholarly and what one should consider mediocre. When the year first began, I can't lie, I didn't see what the big deal was about these so called "scholarly" novels. They're boring, too wordy, and dry.....right? What makes them so much better than a typical Gossip Girl book? After much practice (thanks to AP Lit) of coming into contact with novels that people would consider sophisticated, I feel as if I can finally tell the difference between a novel filled with literary merit and one that isn't. Recently, I read the novel Palo Alto by, non other than the Hollywood star, James Franco. Franco is known to be a celebrity who appreciates education; he's attended Columbia University, teaches English and acting classes at schools like UCLA and the University of Southern California, and even once stated that he refused to come to set one day because he didn't want to miss class. Seeing how the man is so into education, his novel was sure to be one to go down in history, right? Wrong. So wrong. I was excited to read the novel once I first started; it's an indie based book that follows different characters within each chapter, yet, they all intertwine as the novel unfolds. MY FAVORITE. Books with separate stories are what I absolutely love, and after seeing the preview for the movie (which comes out on Friday) along with getting a preview of the soundtrack (the soundtrack is pretty good......it fits the whole "distressed" teenager vibe the book gives off perfectly) I just knew this book was going to be something I would instantly fall in love with. Yah.......not so much. Let's just say that I never really plan on reading the book for a second time; once was enough. It's not that the book wasn't good or interesting, because it was, but more so the novel just lacked substance. You can tell that Franco really tried to give the book a deeper meaning than it actually has. He added curse words, sexual content, and even the intense moments where a character decides whether or not they should kill themselves or someone else. Super deep, right? Sadly, Franco failed to create a novel with literary merit, in my opinion, and after reading so many this year I feel as if I can easily state why. First of all, the novel lacks a central theme that it's attempting to convey. There was nothing that I can honestly and truly say that I learned from the book, other than the fact that I'm glad I'm not a teenager living in his depiction of Palo Alto, California. One thing I've learned throughout the entirety of this year is that if a novel truly has literary merit, one will be able to think of a central theme the novel is trying to teach it's readers. Secondly, the grammatical style of his novel was very simple.......literally the whole book was filled with simple sentences. It sounded like something a third grader could have written (aside from the curse words). How does Franco expect anyone to really think while reading his novel if his sentences lack any further interpretation? Lastly, the characters in the novel lacked depth. Sure, each one had it's own personal struggles and problems, yet, none of them we're actually developed characters with solid back stories. They were kind of just there. They simply existed. Not enough Franco. Once the movie comes out, I'm sure the novel will be depicted nicely on screen as some sort of hardcore indie story, however, as an actual novel it lacked any type of scholarly development. Ya feel me?

A Visit from the Goon Squad: Review

Nothing excited me more when we were told that we were allowed to choose our own novel for the first time ever this year in AP Lit. Don't get me wrong, the scholarly choices of Winesburg, Ohio and Frankenstein we're interesting in the sense that they were novels associated with literary merit, but most of the time the books put me to sleep or made my head hurt (when I'm not interested in a novel I actually get literal headaches.......it's so sad). Finally being able to pick the book I wanted to read for class was what I was looking forward to all year! First things first, the choice selections made it so hard to choose what exactly I wanted to read; I’m that person who walks around with at least 20 books at Barnes and Noble. Choosing just one book is literally impossible, so deciding which book to read as my final novel drove me insane. Secondly, the incorporation of a “self chosen" novel truly made me happy due to the fact that I was introduced to so many novels that I may have never ended up coming across on my own. Knowing about the books we talked about in class as options left me with future reading selections, which I always look forward too. The book I finally decided to read (after around 20 minutes of me debating back and forth with myself) was the novel A Visit from the Goon Squad, by Jennifer Egan, and I have to say that I'm very happy with the choice that I made. The novel revolves around an array of characters, some that know each other and some that don't, that are each facing various challenges in their lives and only seem to be connected through the concept of time. From the start I knew that I was going to enjoy the novel; I love it when books are more so a collection of short stories that intertwine together rather than one short and simple story line that get's the point across; this novel was no different from my usual preference due to the fact that it allowed each and every character to tell what was happening in their lives from their own point of view while also showing how they connected to the larger idea at whole. I specifically enjoyed this book over others that I've read in the past due to the fact that Egan wrote out each character's story in such a way that you truly felt connected to them while reading. From Lou's problem with women, to Bennie's feelings after Stephanie left him or Rob's internal conflict due to him denying the fact that he was gay, each story honestly through you into the life of that specific character in way that made you truly see how time was something that they longed for. This book made it clear that time is in fact a "goon" in everyone's life; no one is completely aware of what the future holds; only time will eventually tell. Yet, time may not end up giving you what you wanted in life, which is why the goon that is time may end up visiting you when you least expect it. It's for that reason and that reason alone, that I think Egan allowed her characters to connect in the sense that they each weren't ready for time to continue evolving. Every character longed for a moment in their lives where they were truly happy and had little worries, in an attempt to have control over the situations that were currently going on around them. Ya feel me?

Jazzonia

  The novel, Invisible Man, is based during a time period that was full of life, jazz, and culture in one of the most widely recognized cities during that time period, Harlem. It seems as if I personally enjoy things that have come out of the "Harlem" area of New York (jazz music, the rap group A Tribe Called Quest, etc.) and the novel goes on to highlight some of its most prominent stars in all sorts of allusions and references throughout the novel. One person who seems to constantly be relevant, whether it be in the novel or simply the mentioning of the city of Harlem in everyday conversation, is the beloved Langston Hughes. Langston Hughes may as well be known as Harlem's shining star; his way with words and heartfelt sounds seem to repeatedly speak to people in the modern world, and will more than likely leave some sort of influence on future generations as well. I know, I know......most of my poem selections for these blogs come from Langston Hughes. But who can blame me? His words can almost be sung as if to a tune, plus, the majority of his poems actual have some sort of relevance to the situations going on in the novel Invisible Man; for instance, the poem "Jazzonia" relates to the novel in various ways, and it goes a little something like this"

Oh, silver tree!

Oh, shining rivers of the soul!

In a Harlem cabaret

Six long headed jazzers play.

A dancing girl whos eyes are bold

Lifts high a dress of silken gold.

Oh, singing tree!

Oh, shining rivers of the soul!

Were Eve's eyes

In the first garden

Just a bit too bold?

Was Cleopatra gorgeous

In a gown of gold?

Oh, shining tree!

Oh silver rivers of the soul!

In a whirling cabaret

Six long headed jazzers play.

In my opinion, this poem is describing the innocence of a person who is finally seeing the wonders that Harlem has to offer for the first time, similar to that of the invisible man. The first thing that the speaker of this poem talks about is a "silver tree" that's shining constantly throughout each stanza. For the tree he first sees to be silver indicates that he feels the actions around him as being pure and rare, seeing how silver is a form of pure metal. However, the next line referencing the jazz players "as six headed" makes it seem as if the speaker is completely unaware of the dangerous temptations that are around him. The jazz players being six headed makes me think of something serpent like such as Medusa's hair or the ancient three headed dog, as if the situation around the speaker is actually no good. The speaker even mentions a woman who lifts up her silk dress which is similar to the temptation the invisible man feels when he sees the naked woman during the battle royal. Though everything that’s being mentioned in this poem seems as if it’s filled with happiness and clarity, like the man who sells yams in Invisible Man said, “….everything that looks good aint necessarily good” (264). Ya feel me?

Invisible Man: A Dream or Reality?

As we've gone through all the topics of our Invisible Man seminars over the past few days, the idea that really seemed to stick out in my head was the idea of the invisible man not actually being awake, or within reality throughout the second half (or entire, who knows) novel. The invisible man seems to encounter lots of shifts throughout his journey, some minor and some major, however, a major shift was seen during his episode in the hospital. During this scene, the invisible man is approached by a man that he describes as "a long haired fellow, whose piercing eyes looked down upon [him] out of an intense and friendly face" (239) which almost leads to the allusion of the invisible man being visited by some sort of Christ like figure, such as Jesus. Is this all real? Is the invisible man actually being approached by a holy spirit or is he simply envisioning that he is? If the shift in the hospital is actually seen as a "rebirth" or interaction with Christ, then why was it needed? As the episode goes on the long haired fellow continues to talk to the invisible man, it seems as if some of these questions appear to be answered. When the Jesus type figure continues to ask the invisible man questions, and the invisible man fails to remember anything about himself, the man says to our narrator "you MUST remember" (241) almost as if he is trying to get the invisible man to recognize his role in life and/or go out and fulfill his destiny. Is the invisible man some sort of disciple? Was this dream like experience needed to help guide the invisible man to where he was actually meant to be at the end of the novel? In my opinion, that's exactly what happened: the invisible man needed to fall into his own subconscious, almost as if he was the creator of his own parallel reality, in order to fulfill his destiny in the end. The narrator is asked "who is buckeye the rabbit?" (241) in his limbo like trance and later on replies to the question by saying to himself "somehow I was buckeye the rabbit....." (241), which relates to the movies "Donnie Darko" and "Alice in Wonderland". In the movie "Donnie Darko" the main character is visited by a man in a rabbit suit who helps guide Donnie towards his destiny, similar to Alice in wonderland who is approached by a rabbit with a clock before she falls deep down into the rabbit hole. If the invisible man "is buckeye the rabbit", then is he subconsciously leading himself to his own destiny? Does he allow himself to fall into this parallel trance for a specific reason? It seems as if "the rabbit" concept does actually lead to a journey through a parallel universe/rebirth stage for our protagonist. After the "rebirth" during the hospital scene, the invisible man becomes more enlightened towards what’s actually occurring around him. During the eviction episode involving the old black couple, the invisible man observes the situation around him and says "It was startling: The crowd watching silently, the two white men lugging the chair and trying to dodge the blows and the old woman's face streaming with angry tears as she thrashed her fists at them. I couldn’t believe it" (267); his description of what's going on in Harlem seems to differ from his first impression when he says ".....there were white drivers in traffic who obeyed his [a black man] signals as though it was the most natural thing in the world. Sure I had heard of it, but this was real" (159). The new observation, or way of viewing the true situations around him, shows that the invisible man has now become enlightened, possibly as a result of his "rebirth". Think about it, before the invisible man was so blinded by the idea of Harlem being this sort of fairy tale like environment that he would've never fully stopped to take a glance at what was actually going on around him. So was it the rebirth/parallel universe that helped him become enlightened? Or did that happen all on its own? Who knows.....SO MANY QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED. Ya feel me?

 

Invisible Man: Seminar Summary Thus Far

So, during last week we had a numerous amount of seminars on the novel Invisible Man, and it seemed as if each one opened my eyes more and more when it came to a new way to view what the novel was actually trying to say. The two seminars that interested me the most, however, were the seminars relating to the Battle Royal and the Liberty Paint scenes. The Battle Royal episode of the book not only said a lot about race and people’s views towards others during the time that this novel was written, but also about the invisible man himself. One part that stood out during this scene was the symbol of the arena; if one truly thinks about it the arena could almost be looked at as a comparison of society. The black men within the arena were almost trapped, and constantly confined to participate in the degrading, barbaric activity the white men had set out for them. The arena broadcasted the idea of these black men (and the white woman) almost simply being dolls for these white men to play with. If these men we're actually just seen as dolls than the whole scene is actually quite ironic. Ellison described the men viewing the barbaric battle as "bankers, lawyers, judges, doctors, fire chiefs, teachers, merchants" (18) which actually is quite surprising seeing how they were the one's acting foolishly and immaturely when it came towards the treatment of these human beings while the men within the arena, who were seen as boys, actually acted in a semi mature manner and resisted their sexual urges to give into the temptation of a naked woman. The arena also showed how those who were flung into the setting had no will power; seeing how they were blindfolded, the men were fighting for the sake of fighting, not because they wanted to. The blindfolds being white also showed contradiction seeing how the idea of something being white would make someone think they've found clarity, however, in this situation it lead to the men stumbling "around like [babies] or drunken [men]" (22). The Battle Royal thoroughly highlights the fact that throughout the novel the invisible man appears to be blind though he strives for clarity. The Liberty Paint episode is also one that seemed really important, to me. Irony seems to strike all throughout the factory scene, along with questions. One thing that’s ironic about the "Optic White" paint that's created is the fact that to make the white color as pure as it can be, a black substance needs to be added. What does that mean? How can something that's as pure as the color white become even more pure once something black has been added? I honestly have no idea, and still am curious as to what Ellison was trying to say by all this. Along with the ironic concept of something becoming more pure once something black has been added, the idea of the invisible man falling into hell comes about during this episode as well. Think about it: the mentor for the paint factory is named Lucius (Lucifer??) Brockway, the factory continues to go deeper and the invisible man searches for Lucius......it's all pretty hell like seeing how it completely mirrors the story of Dante's Inferno. When the invisible man and Lucius get into a fight, he states that "[his] fingers leapt to [his] shoulders, finding wet cloth but no blood. The old fool had bitten [him]" (227), it seems to make a direct reference to the idea of Dante's Inferno, seeing how the sinners were said to have gone around biting each other. What does all this mean? Is the concept of society actually hell? Why did the invisible man need to experience this episode? IT ALL MAKES NO SENSE. Yet, it still leads to one being curious. This novel is full of allusions that may lead to one thinking of hell, parallel worlds, etc. and as the series of seminars continues, we're sure to discover so much more. Ya feel me?

Archetype of the Trickster

Hamlet, Hamlet, Hamlet......this play continues to get weirder and weirder as each act passes by. One minute Hamlet is acting mature and isolating himself due to his awareness of being highly more intelligent than everyone else around him, and the next minute we find Hamlet running around like a spoiled teen, disrespecting his elders and throwing out secret jabs towards everyone around him. All of his randomness makes one wonder is Hamlet is actually "mad"; is Hamlet actually as crazy as he seems? or does he simply enjoy playing the fool all in the hopes of somehow secretly getting a rise out of everyone? After the class discussion we had today about the "Archetype of Trickster- Clown and the Fool" I couldn't help but envision various scenarios where numerous characters from within this play seemed to fit the archetype perfectly. For starters, the archetype of the fool doesn’t seem as if it would be the way it is described it the handout we received. When I personally think of a fool I think of someone who's naive, in a sense, or simply wreaking havoc just for the sake of wreaking havoc; however, the handout describes a fool as someone who "has the ability to either laugh at the ridiculousness of life, or to cut through the social shams and reveal hypocrisy in an acceptable way. This makes the fool or clown wise, because they can see through who we are and what people do". All of this being said, the fool archetype really relates back to Hamlet is various ways. I mainly see Hamlet fitting into this specific archetype whenever he is attempting to "play god" and act like the moral judge about every little thing around him. Think back to the scene in act III with the play; Hamlet begins to run around on stage making loud, obnoxious gestures and jokes towards everyone around him and though it makes him seem "mad" and foolish, in reality he reveals a lot of truth through the commentary he provides while the play is going on. For example, while the play is going on, and the murder scene is slowly revealed, Claudius asks Hamlet "what do you call the play?"(act III, scene II, line 252) to which Hamlet responds "The Mousetrap. Marry how? Tropically. This play in the image of a murder in done in Vienna. Gonzago is the duke's name, his wife Baptista. You shall see anon. Tis knavish piece of work, but what of that? Your majesty and we that have free souls, it touches us not" (act III, scene II, lines 253-258). Basically, Hamlet is revealing the truth between Claudius and his mother through the foolish ways of his play and his wit; Hamlet is stating that the situation between his mother and Claudius is very trap like, seeing how Claudius murdered hsi father to get where he is. The mentioning of "your majesty and we that have free souls, it touches us not" it used to reveal the actual truth of the play having an effect on Claudius's unclean soul since he has actually recently performed the act that was said to have occurred in Vienna. Hamlet also represents the fool in the actual dialogue of the play he has written; in the play, the player queen states that "a second time I kill my husband dead when second husband kisses me in bed" (act III, scene II, lines 199-200) as a way of Hamlet revealing to the crowd, and his mother, that she is basically shaming the position that was once his father's by allowing Claudius to sleep by her side every night. What does all this mean? Is Hamlet using his "foolish" ways for good or for bad? Though Hamlet is revealing the truth, just as the fool should, his attempt is done in a very sadistic way that doesn't make him the typical fool, but instead more sinister as if he lets his shadow take control. Ya feel me?

Hamlet As a Moral Judge

So, as the story of Hamlet has continued to progress, we've been able to see the young, distraught prince in various different lights. It seems as if Hamlet's array of emotions appear to be the cause of the many faces we've seen of him. When Hamlet's feeling a little bit over joyous, he fits the role of the fool; when he's feeling a little sneaky, he fits the role of the artist (let's be honest, Hamlet's directional role in the play was actually quite good........but he only uses his powers for evil. What's this guys deal?); when he's feeling all mighty and high, he seems to fit the role of not only the philosopher but also the moral judge. Hamlet attempting to "play god" as if he really is an all mighty being has occurred far often, and is beginning to reveal some hidden traits about him that are far from attractive. For starters, his abusive, judgmental ways towards his mother and Ophelia has begun to really make me question how he truly feels about women, mothers, etc. After Ophelia and Hamlet break up in Act III, it seems as if Hamlet genuinely is upset about the situation at hand and wishes that he could simply live out his life with his one true love without her actually being under her fathers command; however, as their interactions further on, and Ophelia attempts to make some sort of amends with the prince, Hamlet says to her "get thee to a nunnery" (act III, scene I, line 128). Sure, the mentioning of a nunnery can be looked at as Hamlet attempting to save Ophelia from the "wretched" ways that are man, however, as he continues to say things such as "ha, ha, are you honest?" (Act III, scene I, line 110) and "do you think I meant country matters?" (act III, scene II, line 117) it makes me believe that Hamlet is blatantly attempting to call Ophelia to a whore, and believes that she is destined to live out her life in a nunnery since he views her as some form of prostitute. Who is he really to judge (Hamlet's all talk......he can't really declare someone as being something they say they're not when he himself is basically fake)? Why does he suddenly feel the need to harshly lay his opinions upon others? His sudden attempt to tell Ophelia her fate brings fourth his madness, however, not in a sense of actually "crazy" ways but more so in a sense that he's allowing his anger to get the best of him. Hamlet, being as intelligent as he is, is fully aware that he himself isn't a moral judge; however, he uses his high level language as a weapon to make other's feel as if the actions of their lives relate to the fate that Hamlet has created for them. His previous actions are quite evil in a sense, and leads to one thinking how this man can be a "pure" moral judge when he speaks of drinking blood and attacking his mother with daggers...? All of his language is really quite dark and sadistic, and his attempt to morally decide Claudius's fate while he believes he's confessing is far from what one would think a moral judge would act like. Hamlet speaking of tripping Claudius so "that his heels may kick at heaven" (act III, scene III, line 97) is more so something of a demonic tendency rather than that of an angelic, moral judge and makes it quite clear that Hamlet is simply "seeming" when he's attempting to portray himself as someone full of wisdom on other's fait. Ya feel me?