American Literature#12/ Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story/ Lover as an Offensive Intruder

Lover as an Offensive Intruder

             We see SNS flooding with confessions of loneliness. We constantly blame the cut-throat competition, “the system”, “something out there” (whatever “something out there is) to have driven people inhumane and incredulous. In all, we find the cause of their aloofness from the other, longing for a perfect relationship with an ideal man/ woman.

             But at the same time, we are extremely offended when someone intrudes into “our” sense of sphere. A nation-wide example would be xenophobia prevalent in any country, multi-ethnical or homogeneous. On a smaller scale, it would be increasing inclusiveness of sexual harassment. In the status quo, European Union now has leaders with populist and xenophobic support, while modern democracies are filled with extremely sensitive women. Republic of Korea even passed a bill to illegalize “perverted staring” by including it in legal scope of sexual harassment.

             These conflicting expectations towards an ideal life bear too much burden for our ideal, imaginary partners. So our ideal friend/ companion should be someone who is trustworthy enough so that we can let him of her discover our deepest, darkest side, but at the same time be respectful towards our sphere. Is this possible? Is the concurrence of complete affection and mutual independence plausible? If not, a truthful relationship would necessitate significant alteration in the existence or characteristics of the individuals involved in it.

             “Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story” is a depiction of modern individuals exerting each other at the verge of true relationship, thus alienating themselves from the others and regressing to autistic attitudes. This story answers the question above, if a true relationship solely with happiness but not pain and conflict would ever be possible. The answer from the story reads no, and it can be observed by dividing the beings we confront into three parties.

             The simplest dividing line of the beings we face would be between humans and objects. Objects are obviously not alive, and especially enable themselves to be used in any general contexts. This phenomenon is even more apparent nowadays. Because the objects, or to be more precise, products, are mass-produced and mass-consumed, there is no distinctiveness in the objects we use. It can be used by anyone other than myself, thus showing the fact that the relationship between the object and I is typical and superficial.

             Another characteristic inherent in objects is that the pursuit by jouissance is one-directional in its relationship with the user. The object lacks the ability to go for its jouissance, it is sexually castrated being. The user, in contrast, is the only one who takes advantage of the object and enjoys an autistic orgasm. In the sense that the user who solely resorts to such enjoyment fails to make a mature relationship with other individuals indicate that the user is inherently fetishistic and obsessed with childish preference that only satisfies low dimensional needs.

             In “Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story,” there are yuppies, professional and young, who “most…..were divorced.” They have no place to go except for the expensive bars and “white-washed apartments.” They eat “evening meals in radar ranges” while “TV chuckles quietly.” All of these commercial products bear no special meaning to the users. Not only that, the yuppies go through this everlasting circulation of banality, failing to meet anything but these objects and fellow coworkers, bearing a strong similarity,

             The confrontation between coworkers, or people of similar social status and identical dilemmas might function as a defense against the argument that the yuppies in “Sarah Cole” are not autistic or fetishistic. They might not be fetishistic in such sense, but they are autistic and narcissistic. When a person loves the other that bears a similar characteristic as him, and feels affectionate for the similarity he finds in the other, the relationship is more of self-love than true love of others. If a person finds comfort in the similarity, then what significance does the similar other possess? How is it different from finding comfort of one being himself?

             Here is the place when the concept of neighbor kicks in. Loving oneself is never difficult, but loving one another is extremely challenging. Such is the reason why Freud addresses the difficulty to “love thy neighbor” (Leviticus 19:18) in his book Civilization and its Discontents. A neighbor is inherently a being that is outside the rule of one’s family. This is not significant to a subject, but when this neighbor with an inherent difference lives close, the existence of the neighbor becomes menacing. In short, a neighbor is a complete other that has little similarity and is unavoidable.

             There is only one neighbor that the protagonist meets in “Sarah Cole.” Protagonist Ronald meets Sarah Cole and engages into an intact relationship. Nonetheless, the effort that Ronald puts is to extract Sarah from her life and place her in his context. He tries to “draw her forward from the context of her life and place her, as if she were an object, into the context of mine.” This is more of an action of self-defense than of aggression. Because Ronald’s relationships were restricted to materials and people similar to him, he had to treat her as an object, so that he could maintain who he was. This is shown when Ronald rejects to engage in sexual intercourse in Sarah Cole’s house but does in his house. Before Sarah Cole, all sexual actions were either materialism or masturbation (for he has sex with people similar to him), while that with Sarah Cole necessitated the interchange of Sarah Cole into an object of his context of life, so that he could comfortably enjoy his childish sense of jouissance.

             However, Ronald’s effort to capture Sarah Cole into his context fails. Sarah Cole’s presence forces him to change his lifestyle and attitude towards life, thus change himself. He is forced to visit parties that he would not if alone, meet people that he dare would not if alone. After the materialization of Sarah Cole fails, Ronald avoids her, such as not answering her phone calls or letting it ring five or six times before he picks it up. Although he wanted a deep relationship from the beginning of the story, and admits himself as being “shallow,” he refuses to engage in such, which makes the title of the story as not a true love story, but only “a type of love story.”

American Literature#11/ Fish Cheeks/ Hypocritical Cultural-relativism

Hypocritical Cultural-relativism in “Fish Cheek”

             We live in a society that upholds diversity and cultural-relativism on one hand and “political correctness” on another. The term “political correctness” consists of respect towards minority, and moral that treats every groups and individuals with egalitarian standards. In general, it is used to describe an attitude that respects every others’ opinions.

             Because respect towards other’s opinion has become the dominating hegemony, we always respect others’ opinions—at least outwardly. Many whites detest the “Japs”, “Chin-chins” and etcetera, but this idea rarely appears in the public sphere. Hence the new racial slur such as “Asians do math,” many hold discriminatory prejudice that trifle minorities, but such discourse is never done in a public discourse, where the minorities could fight back. Such backbiting occurs in a private level where only people with similar thoughts share what they think, and solidify their antagonism. The reason for this twofold phenomenon would be concurrence of hatred towards outsiders and WASP arrogance to maintain the “politically-correct” behavior.

             William Bennett was gravely criticized when he stated in his call-in show: “But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” This might seem as a prominent example of proud American civic consciousness. However, I doubt whether the criticism was directed at the content of the statement or the context of the statement. If Bennett had stated this in a dinner table with conservatives, would he have been criticized so much? Many whites would actually agree to the statement, but also agree that it was not “politically correct”, content otherwise.

             Of course, I don’t mean to say that all racial slurs and hate speech should be out in the open and proudly bellowed—they are all repulsive. But what I wish to stress is that pretending to be “politically correct” when they are morally not is even more disgusting. People in mainstream maintain their imperialistic, colonialist behavior behind their mask of tolerance. If such behavior is existent in the public sphere, it can be attacked and overcome, but because it lurks in the private sphere, it has become stronger and more rooted.

             In such sense, Amy Tan’s work “Fish Cheeks” is an exemplar of how well-masked colonialism can impress even those who are suppressed. This story seems to follow a stereotypical college-essay fairytale; there is a personal yet sympathizing experience nicely wrapped by concluding axiom. Hence what the narrator’s mother says at the end of the story: “But inside you must always be Chinese. You must be proud you are different. Your only shame is to have shame.” This is an ideal lesson for growing children of a culturally-relativistic era. But is it really?

             This extremely short narrative invests most of its 500 words into a foul description of Chinese food culture and the narrator’s shame about it. The description is done from Westerner’s perspective: “slimy rock cod with bulging eyes”, “[t]ofu, which looked like stacked wedges of robbery white sponges,” “squid…..resembled bicycle tires,” “my father……belched loudly.” In any westernized reader’s perspective, it is pretty repulsive. Disgust resulting from such description cannot be all covered up instantaneously by a short, hasty “words of wisdom.”

             Amy Tan’s story is more of a situational irony than an educational children’s story, even if not intended. No matter what Amy Tan felt after the Christmas Eve visit, the minister’s family (including Amy Tan’s crush) would leave disgusted by Chinese food culture. Despite the reputation as a post-colonial story “Fish Cheek” has, does the viewpoint of Westerners in the story ever change? Or does the readers’ perspective change? Hardly. Even if it does, it is only a superficial level of “The Chinese have some strange culture, and I don’t understand why the fuck they eat such disgusting stuff, but I’ll respect them anyway, because I am a proud, intellectual, politically correct American citizen.”

             The intention to justify assimilation or uphold respect towards others’ cultures (cultural-relativism) might have been kind, or to say, “politically correct.” But the actual function it does is to form a superficial level of respect, more of avoidance, to an unfamiliar culture. In a Zizekian sense, the Westerners are further alienating the Chinese by showing a gesture of acceptance. The Chinese fail to enter the Western pool of culture as a respectful, mature culture but as weird, queer lifestyle. Of course, Amy Tan’s story is politically correct, but the actual meaning that it delivers isn’t. The respect in Amy Tan’s story reflects more Western arrogance (“We, the civilized, accept your barbarism”) than true alienation that outsiders face.



Comments:

Lee Hyunseok: Interesting reflection upon individual plus society. But along the flow or your points, I wonder that although problematic assertions relating to races do now always reflect public but only some people in dominant position. Isn't it so dangerous since those are often influential and power-speaking? 

Han Jonghyun: A very impressive start. I was very surprised by how you have started writing this reflection relating to the general society. However, some ideas you have mentioned seem pretty vague that I cannot fully understand what you are saying. Furthermore, I want to question you that Amy Tan's Fish Cheek does not represent the westerner's view of the Chinese food culture, but rather Amy Tan's personal opinions. I believe that in this "society that upholds diversity and multi-cultralism", the westerners are not so hostile.

American Literature#10/ The Most Beautiful Woman in Town/ Truthful Ugliness

AmeLit Prompt: The following short story "The Most Beautiful Woman in Town" is an example of not only a Beat Generation writer but of the Confessional Period in American Literature. In a well-organized essay, reflect on what the author is confessing, and how the author's style affects the impact of his confession. Use the reverse of the page if necessary.

The word “confession” contains more meaning than simply saying the truth. Usually, it is more about the silenced truth, about uncomfortable subjects that people choose not to tell. So when it is stated that Charles Bukowski’s “The Most Beautiful Woman in Town” is a confessional literature, there must be identification on what the uncomfortably confessed truth is, and how it is portrayed.

The general characteristics of the protagonist of “The Most Beautiful Woman in Town” indicate every traits of rural lowlife. He is unemployed, uneducated and most of all impassionate. There is no attempt made to elevate his social status, and he is not ashamed of it. An average man would castigate the protagonist for being a scum, but in a closer view, the “broken” lifestyle of the protagonist is much reasonable compared to that of the average men. What meaning is there in diligence, social respect and admired jobs, when everyone dies anyway? At the end of the day, what is left is “Old ladies in their 70's and 80's sat on the benches and discussed selling real estate left behind by husbands long ago killed by the pace and stupidity.”

But then is the protagonist happy? If the protagonist is contented after defying all of social norms, it would not be praised as much. The true despair of absurd is that after realizing the voidness of the happiness from norms, one is hardly able to find its substitute, or true happiness. The confession of Bukowski is that even after our personal enlightenment, much bigger meaninglessness elapses. Bukowski’s despair echoes in the line “Nothing. I can’t get on to anything. No interest.” when the protagonist is asked “What are you doing?”

Bukowski confesses his powerlessness toward the violence of the void, broken world through the protagonist’s actions. It is evident that the protagonist loved Cass, nonetheless, he does not show an immediate reaction to her death. When the bartender tells him that Cass had “cut her throat”, the protagonist simply responds, “I see. Give me another drink.” A more appropriate reaction blurts out after some time when he screams at a honking car, which has nothing to do with the death of his lover. The protagonist’s actions depict everyday lives being torn apart by the depression that the broken society provides. Despite the despair that resides, there is nothing that an individual could do against it. Bukowski illustrates this impotency by ending his story “The night kept coming and there was nothing I could do.”

Absurd and powerlessness against it are both depressing ideas. Eloquent, Shakespeare-like language would not fit illustrating or confessing of such topics. Because the character and the writer are both broken individuals living in broken worlds, their language must be broken as well. Bukowski frequently uses obscene language. These languages’ inappropriateness accurately depicts the daily lives, mismatched and distorted. Illustrating an ugly world with beautiful words and pretending as if it is a beautiful is hypocrisy. 

American Literature#9/ The Conversion of the Jews/ Only a God can Save Us

Only a God can Save Us

             What is god? Before reflecting on the Sunday school rhetoric, let us explore its significance upon the human world. A being that does neither reside nor influence the Real world is world-less (Weltlosigkeit), therefore meaningless. Even if there is a god, and it influences us, it must be something real, something that resides with us, maybe in the literal sense as well. Heidegger seems to agree to this notion. Heidegger requires the divine being to be an individual being functioning as a catalyst of the community. In short, Heidegger’s god is a previously human, currently god being who summons inevitable change in essence of its world. In this essay, I will link Heidegger’s notion of manly god to the significance that the protagonist of The Conversion of the Jews Ozzie holds.

             Heidegger’s god is not divine from birth. Prior or concurring to the violence that the creator pounds on the common, there must be a self-destruction made by the god. Before or along with the transformation in essence of the community, he who creates must deny himself as a banal human being and accept the newly born self. Such allusion can be easily found in other sources such as the film Fight Club, where the protagonist goes through an-inner fight with himself and then starts to destruct the social structure. In Sophocles’ play, Antigone, Antigone had to kill herself to accentuate Creon’s tyranny and put impact on the polis.

             The same allusion is found in The Conversion of the Jews with a tone-down description. Ozzie deliberately ducks Rabbi Binder’s hand, causing “the palm caught him squarely on the nose.” Then Ozzie cries “You bastard, You bastard” at Rabbi Binder. Three facts are observable from this very short sequence of events. First is that it was actually Ozzie who initiated the bodily harm, the blow on his nose was unnecessary and unintended. Second, there was a significant trace of the bodily harm, which is the blood from the nose. Third is that Ozzie practically denies his former position as a student within the rule and the discourse of the synagogue. He blatantly rejects the authority of teacher, religious leader and adult all at once. This denial is extremely significant, for the very part of the story shows Ozzie having trouble in accepting the new self—whatever it maybe, not a normal student, obedient juvenile—by saying “Can this be me?......Is it me? Is it me Me ME ME ME! It has to be me—but is it?” This is a very typical reaction from a human who is turning from a common to a divine or heroic.

             But even before such rite of passage, Ozzie already shows signs of an outlier. His name bears a special meaning, which has an origin as “divine power.” Not only that, he fits the description of the violent, the divine by Heidegger in Introduction to Metaphysics. In the Introduction of Metaphysics, the violent creator is described as one who shouts out loud in the silenced sphere with creative insight. Ozzie is the one in the story who raises uncomfortable questions and threatens the set authority. His friends indicate him as “a real one” for opening his “mouth in the first place.” Immaculate Conception and status of Christ in Jewish theology are both disturbing topics to discuss, especially when it is from an innocent child. Ozzie is the only one in class who raises such questions and demands for an answer.

             The decisive trait of Ozzie that qualifies him as a divine being of his community is what he does at the end of the short story. According to Contributions to Philosophy, a god is a divine catalyst who initiates a culturally transformational phenomenon and forces others to perceive its divine state. In the very beginning part of the story, A Jewish student identifies the Jewish by stating “They believe in Jesus Christ, that he’s God.” The essence, or the endowed meaning of the Jewish is the trait of not believing in Jesus Christ, and that he was not born by Immaculate Conception. Then at the end of the story, Ozzie forces everyone to admit that God “can make a child without intercourse” and make them say that “they believed in Jesus Christ.” This is clearly destruction in the essence of a community, qualifying Ozzie as a cultural catalyst.

             Not only that, Ozzie shows a significant influence over the action of the mass. Everyone obeys when he commands: “Everybody kneel” This alludes to “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” (NIV, John 10:27) Ozzie’s mother call Ozzie “A martyr I have”, for he is no longer student Ozzie, but a representation of a large enough entity of students, who are “his people”. This is shown by Rabbi Binder’s transe-like statement “He’s doing it for them. He won’t listen to me. It’s them.” It is not very ambiguous of what “It” in the statement is signifying; it cannot be the students, and it must be Ozzie. Ozzie is the incarnation of the group, not an individual, when he stood high. Ozzie proves himself as a divine being, and leads his people to approve it. 

American Literature#8/ The Lottery/ The Outsider Within

The Outsider Within

        It may seem shocking that there is a great deviation between the companionship towards fellowmen and outsiders. Would it not be difficult for an average, morally-consistent individual to kill a child during his working hours, return home and sing a lullaby to his own child? How absurd is it, UN “peace-keeping” force gun down rogue state soldiers because the soldiers were, uh, rogue. This deviation is more apparent when considering the war crime trials of Nazi officers. The officer’s family and neighbors testified that the officers (after killing hundreds of Jews daily) came back home every night with small toys for their children. How can the sense of compassion and companionship go along with sense of ostracism and hostility?

             Although seemingly ironical, such deviation is what maintains our “civilized, caring” society. A more accurate question would be: How could there be companionship when there is no fear, no outsider and no villain? The concepts of union and companionship within our societies have necessitated the concept of ostracism. Because there cannot be “us” without “them”, we had to imagine and therefore create the presence of the absolute other, the neighbor, the outsider and the stranger. During the Middle age it was the nomads, these days it is the foreigners, immigrants and so called human-rights-violating rogue states.

             It is us who have created our arch-enemies to sustain our companionship and sense of unity. Those villains are not congenitally evil. The power of endowing signification is the listeners’. We endow them the identity of villains, and put ardent efforts to fight against them. This is the point where Jackson’s blazing insight in “The Lottery” comes in. We’re not fighting against a Real-enemy lurking outside the castle walls. Unless there is an entity that threatens us within the walls, in the Real, inside our lives, the enemy is world-less (Weltlosigkeit), and therefore meaningless.

             Then who are we exactly fighting against, and what does Shirley Jackson have to say about it? There is a need for a Lacanian analysis in answering this question. Let’s reflect it on our lives. On the Real, we have our civilized lives: bustling streets full of businessmen, rush-hour traffic, well-being organic yogurt cups—just name anything around you. We don’t have Muslim terrorists raiding our subways, Kim Jong-Il leading a socialist march or illegal immigrants plundering Manhattan apartments.

             On the Symbolic, there are newspapers, broadcast stations (not to mention FOX) that employ stereotypical patriotic rhetoric that keeps citizens in constant fear. Yes, fear is what sustains the violent essence of the “terrorist” existence. Without it, there is no room for the imaginary hostility to exist. In a world-less world with no meaning, no ideology to fight against or fight for, fear is the only motivation that we have to create companionship and feel threat. As Heidegger points out, the languages of patriotism rhetoric are the “house of being” for the existence of rogue states, terrorists and illegal immigrants. The rhetoric creates enemies, the enemy creates fear, and fear makes companionship. Actually, fear is the only motivation we have to move our fat ass out of the couch and care for the community, for there is no ideology to protect these days.

             The observation of the Imaginary answers the question raised: “Who are we actually fighting against?” If we’re fighting against the images created by newspapers and broadcasts, are we fighting nothing? We are fighting the images of our utmost fear; we are fighting against ourselves. Jackson’s human sacrifice in the Lottery sharply picks on this notion that we are fighting the hostile-self, or “the Outsider within.” The villagers stone a woman who was definitely an insider just a few minutes before the ceremony.

             But of course, there is always a room for refutation. There are two points of contention. First is that the time “The Lottery” was published was when Cold War, the war of ideologies, was present. Would not the analysis of the need for fear become unnecessary? Second is that the woman was initially part of the group, and that the group was definitely aware of it.

             The Cold War. I assume that most Americans hated communists during the late 40’s and 50’s. But was there any reason we hated communism in particular. How many veterans knew what communism meant? How many Americans were able to criticize communism based on logical and political analysis? Communism itself is not important; it is just a common us-them boundary that creates fear. How can ideology to fight against exist when there is no sign of a counterpart in daily lives? War and the decadent lives of 50’s were separated from each other. For other wars, the notion on the need for unconditional hostility might not work, but this one does.

             The second point of refutation raises a more intricate question. Surely, the townsmen know that the woman is victimized for no particular reason. They saw the process, yet they still respect the randomness of the ritual. Creation of us-them boundary seems to be challenging in such a situation. But that is exactly what we are doing in the status quo. We already know that Israel is an illegal occupation on Palestinian land. We already know that a vast majority of Israelis are atheists. And we still listen to their claim based on the Holy Bible. We all are very aware of the mysterious absence of bio-chemical weapons in Iraq. Nonetheless we keep on the global warfare. Maybe there are writers who write, criticize and satisfy themselves. We all go on knowingly. We already know that much of these us-them boundaries are mirages, by we go on nonetheless. This is another support for Jackson’s insight in “the Lottery”.

*Many points made during the passage are related to Slavoj Zizek's Violence

Comments

Park Jungmin: I definitely agree with you on the point that we're basically trying to create the absolute villains or enemies to feel security and united. It's like the society in Animal Farm. Even right now, government/ media of the countries around the world are creating rumors, enemies that we must fight against. I actually thought of this phenomenon similar to what happens in "the Lottery". But now I wonder if there is any difference because the enemy for the sake of security and the sacrificed for the sake of pleasure. They seem to be the same thing, but it's still frustrating to find any connections between them. Overall I sincerely agree what you have written here. 

Lee Hyejoon: Don't you think it is queer that we humans have always needed the presence of "them". As far as I know, living things struggle to preserve their own species. Some people say that it is the ultimate reason exist, to extend their lives through their off-springs. Why would people develop a sense of hatred and rivalry within themselves? That doesn't seem to be beneficial for the survival of our species. I also believe that cruelty is human nature but now can the desire for the species' survival and desire for others' pain coexist?

Lee Hyunseok: Great use of language, philosophical analysis with an individual sense and opinion. Maybe difficult to interpret. 

American Literature#7/The Garden Lodge/Tragedy of the Common

Tragedy of the Common

What makes a person gifted? There have been many attempts to define genius (and therefore include oneself). According to Schopenhauer, the common easily loses interest in what surrounds him; after grabbing a hasty understanding of the world, they live off busily, socializing with people of their kind. However, gifted people are never satisfied with the status quo. They are never comforted, for they don’t accept the essence of the world; they create one.

Caroline in this story is clearly a common woman. She is in an objective position of agreeing, following and relying on. She is the recipient of structural violence that the society provides her, while being emotionally exploited by an opera singer. She is not violent. But what kinds of people are violent? A violent person is a creative person, intruding the territory of unspoken. He is never cautious, nice or persuadable. Materialistic success does not sway him. Catastrophes and daily sorrows is what make him produce more, more and more. The society may attempt to oppress him; but it will fail, for the violent fights back with art and literature that disarrays the symbolic structure of the society.

From such perspective, Caroline is never a winner. She does not understand the importance of intangible yet important values, and just calls them “distant, intangible and unattainable.” She does not appreciate Schopenhauer, or talking about him. Ironically, her attitude quite fits what has been proposed as bane by Schopenhauer: the common keeps focus on distant present and tries to rely on the repeating reality. Many parts of the story allude to the expressions used in Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation. The allusions come to describe the conflict between the exceptional and the bane lives of Caroline, trying to make her as one of its kind.

Caroline “never permitted herself to look further than a step ahead, and set herself with all strength of her will to see things as they are and meet them squarely in broad day.” According to Schopenhauer, the common is always stuck to the representation of the world. They are obsessed with their own will that never makes them happy, but just striving to move on forward. She rejects poetry or painting, which are also what Schopenhauer believed as liberation from the blind will.

However, there is a way out from banality that Caroline craves for, at least for a while. She falls in an emotional relationship with the opera singer who performs Wagner’s music. As well known, Wagner is a composer who utilizes much of his work to Schopenhauer. However, such efforts of being freed from common by art is also thrashed by Caroline’s own will.

Comments

Lee Hyunseok: Good to see your opinions, not just analyzing the story or talking about what was said in class. However, your idea is coming in too abstract way, which can be seen as superficial and hard to communicate. Anyway, great english.


Kim Nuri: Hi Chong. I liked your deep thoughts related to this story, but it was hard for me to understand the link between some parts and this story. Maybe writing a bit less abstractly will help me understand.

Reading Class#1/Their Eyes were Watching God/ God is Me

God is Me

“Half-gods are worshipped in wine and flowers. Real gods require blood.” Quite distinctive from the popular description of God, Zora Neale Hearston describes a unique higher power. Starting from differentiating humans, demigods and true god, I will try to analyze who in the story can be classified to such groups, and suggest a new interpretation of Janie’s life.

No one in the story holds a ultimately strong power over others from first appearance. Logan Killicks, Jody Starks, Tea Cake and Janie all start as plain Negroes making a living. However, as time passes on in the story, every single one of them gets involved in conflicts with others (mostly with Janie) and acquires dominance over whom they fought with.

This point is something we have to consider carefully. From the fact that there is no morally perfect, divine and almighty individual in the story, we can state that the god Zora Neale Hurston was depicting was not a traditional Christian god. There is no moral concept that penetrates through the story, creating a single us-them boundary between the good and evil. There is no binary axis, but only several competing characters. This absence of moral is shown in the absence of guilty conscience of committing murder, adultery or slandering. The place of the traditional ultimate being is empty in the story. This indicates that a new concept should be employed to analyze the conflicts within the story.

However, there could be an interpretation that natural beings such as the Horizon, the Pear Tree and the Hurricane plays the role of God in the story. However, the Horizon and the Pear Tree does not play an actual role in the story, it exists in the Imaginary of Janie. It may have influenced Janie’s actions, but Janie fails to meet these subjective mirages in the Real. In fact, it can be said as a set of virtual images that highlights the limits of the Real of Janie.

If there should be a godly existence, the Hurricane would be the closest. However, the Hurricane is not in the place of God, it can be thought as divine violence, a trace of Godly being, not God itself. However, the fact that Janie is the one to pull the trigger to kill Tea cake after the Hurricane compels us to believe that this story is about demigods striving to be gods. Maybe the Hurricane might be a form of divine violence, but it is soon identified by the violence that Janie executes towards Tea cake. This will be further explained in the following paragraphs.

Anyhow, we would have to view the main characters in this story as demigods striving to become the true higher power. Logan Killicks, Jody Starks, Tea Cake and Janie all have certain powers and strong will that differentiates them from the plain townspeople. They do not obey each other, and in most cases, the existence of another is a threat to survival of oneself. From this, I was able to conclude that all of these demigods had “will to power”, trying to overcome others and escalate to a higher position, to a place where common men would never understand.

All four of the main characters are all respected to some degree, and this comes from the special power that they have, qualities that make them demigods, not just common men. For Logan Killicks, it was his diligence and land, while as for Jody Starks it was his political & financial power. Janie is praised for her beauty, and Tea Cake had the strongest, lasting dominance over Janie. They are all in a sense “worshipped in wine and flowers” by the townspeople.

However, there is one person who loses such respect from the town as the story heads to the end: Janie. By this, it can be said that she is no longer a demigod (praised in “flowers and wine”). Not only that, Janie is the sole character in this story who kills or takes away the power of demigods. This relates to the phrase “Real gods require blood”, which indicates that Janie is the closes character to a “real god”.

But to conclude so, there must be substantial proof to it. Logan Killicks’s power was diligence and ability to take care of his vast land. When Janie first marries him, she was part of his power. She helps Killicks do his production, but never something of herself. By deserting Killicks, it can be said that her portion of the production disappeared, thus weakening the power of Logan Killicks.

As for Jody Starks, the blow is much fatal. We must draw are interest at the fact that Starks plays god when he lights the lamp and say “let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.” This alludes to Genesis, and indicates that Starks is striving to become a true god. Also, his weapon used against Janie is making her shut up, taking away her voice. Janie uses the weapon at Starks’s disposal, and kills him with her own voice, slander. Janie uses the weapon at Starks’s disposal, and kills him with her own voice. It is dramatic and victorious when she kills Starks with the tool that Starks tried in vain to take away.

This goes same for Tea Cake as well. Janie shoots Tea Cake with the skill that Tea Cake taught her. This alludes to Shakespeare’s Tempest or Plath’s Daddy when the oppressor’s weapon is used by the weak to kill the oppressor. By getting rid of Tea Cake, Janie becomes independent and apart from common men of demigods.

However, there can be a claim that the case of Tea Cake is quite different from others, for he really loved Janie. But as Deleuze puts it, “if you are caught in another's dream, you are lost.” Love inherently brings of a Symbolic violence that Zizek in Violence points out. One can never know well of another, so love is “giving something one doesn't have to someone who doesn't want it.” The act of loving oppresses the true being of the loved. Because the object being loved and the subject of being is/are inevitably different, the loved feels an endless gap between the Symbolic and the Real.

In such sense, the love that Tea Cake gives to Janie is Symbolic violence. Then what can Janie do to go against it? In a world where there already is Symbolic violence, merely rejecting it or following is subduing. There needs to be a violence that relocates the linguistic power structure that the Symbolic violence had set. Such violence is named as “divine violence”. Divine violence is a violence that is neither unprepared nor led, but of pure despair and will to survive by the suppressed. Hence its name “divine”, we can refer back to the earlier analysis of this essay on the Hurricane. The Hurricane deviate the normal life (original power structure) between Janie and Tea Cake, and relocate the relationship between Janie and Tea Cake. Then Janie pulls the trigger, as the final action of the divine violence.

Janie was a subordinate woman, obeying to her grandmother, husbands and townspeople. However, towards the end of the end the story, Janie does not care about other’s gaze anymore. Hence “and listenin’ tuh lot kind uh talk is jus’ luke openin’ yo’ mouth and lettin’ de moon shine down yo’ throat.” Another statement implies the essence of this novel. Which is: “They got tuh go tuh God, and they got tuh find out about livin’ fuh themselves.” If one meets his/her god, how can he/she be devoted to herself, not God? Maybe it was because God was herself for Janie; that was how she met and came to know herself, and started to live for what she truly wanted.