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. 

American Literature #6/ Big-Two Hearted River/ Paradise Regained

Paradise Regained

1. Laying foundation

“Life swings back and forth from pain to boredom, like a pendulum.” It seems that extremely few of us have consistently fulfilled happy lives. Most of us are temporarily delighted and brought down right after. Why should we be pained throughout our lifetime? I dare claim to say that this phenomenon all comes from “lack of a”. “a” is a variable, a vessel that can contain possibly anything desirable. The deadly property of this variable is that it does not exist, and that it is constantly changing. Anything and everything can come in and out into the place of the variable. This empty signifier always survives, pushing the signified further, further, and even further. It is otherwise named as objet petit a.

Then why do we experience this inanity? In order for something to be deprived of another, there must be a concept of an ideal whole, a perfect integrity that we imagine. Such ideal form is what makes us stubbornly and thirstily gaze at the status quo. However, this observation seems to go directly against the previous premise that we have never been fully content throughout our lifetime. How can we imagine a perfect state when we haven’t seen any? There at should be at least a past reminisce.

However, the fact that we depend on language solves this contradiction. When we think that we lack of something, it is never a specific object. Rather, it is more of a concept, and most precisely, a word or the name of the object. Naming simplifies the signified being and pushes it to be restricted into the sphere of meaning. The object is neither identical with what we think as, nor is it stagnated as we think. In conclusion, the concept of object never exists in real life. This is precisely why the variable “a” can constantly change its form. It was never there in the first place. The problem lies in the fact that we think with language, we crave for a concept based on the traces of the object’s characteristics, not the object itself. We are never able to be fulfilled, for what we want does not exist. Thus, language makes us lose something that we haven’t had in the first place. I would identify this as the origin of our everyday life’s pain.

There can be a rebuttal on how absence draws upon more deference on human nature. Then let us consider a simple question: when do you think more about your girlfriend, when she’s with you or when she’s not? Rousseau seems to agree in answering as “when she is not”. In Confessions, he describes his craving towards Madame de Warens when he is alone in her bed. He looks at her belongings, which are merely traces of her existences. The traces promise her existence, but of course, she does not appear in middle of her belongings.  Nevertheless, this is nothing more than masturbation. Rousseau himself regrets this experience, and calls this corruption by outside influences.

This regretful experience is an apt metaphor regarding the function of language upon us mentioned beforehand. Although we know that being fetish on a girl’s belonging won’t bring our crushes’ affection, we do it anyway. When people cannot get a perfect satisfaction of what they want, they supplement it. And we usually know that is not a healthy way to fulfill ourselves. This is same with language. Many of us know that words we use are not precise representations of what we mean (they are representations, even at its best), but still use them for some satisfaction. My analysis starts from the premise that usage of language is also corruption by outside influences upon us.

2. Literary analysis

Until now, the common analysis of Ernest Hemingway’s “Big Two-hearted Rivers” was that it was about a soldier’s return and rehabilitation from the World War I. The nature provides relief and an escapade from the catastrophic outcomes of human disaster.

However, in this essay, I would like to interpret this story in a broader perspective than the standard analysis. However, it will not be an overly deviant one, for the new interpretation would be a broadening from the status quo perspective of viewing the nature as a shelter against the catastrophic human world, but as a world without others, therefore not with language.

The story at its earliest part begins with several questionable sentences. Among them is: “There was no town, nothing but the rails and the burnt over country.” Instead of describing what is existent in the story, it begins with a sudden reminder of absence. Not a simple object, but a whole town burnt down. Nevertheless, the train goes on even when “[t]here was no town, nothing but the rails and the burnt over country.” No one knows where the train was headed, but that it was just running on the tracks. A point that we should focus our interest on is that the protagonist gets off this train.

In the desert of existence, the protagonist is only able to find traces of the town. But instead of trying to rebuilding it, he sets off towards the nature. Even if he tried to do such, he would only be able to make a supplement of his hometown, never its original, unsatisfying replica of what he would have reminisced over. When he “had left everything behind,” he had abandoned will to reconstruct. He enters into “islands of dark pine trees”, where the “burned country stopped off.” This indicates that he is going into an uncivilized place in contrast with the country.

It is crucial to identify what the protagonist abandoned when “he had left everything behind,” for this shows what he wanted to turn away from. Among “everything”, only two are mentioned by the protagonist: “the need for thinking” and “the need to write”. Why would it be necessary for the protagonist to leave “the need to write” behind? What does that have to do with burnt town or the devastated country?

As mentioned, the burnt town is a trace of a hometown, but it is also the tomb of hometown at the same time. It functions as a reminder of how the reconstructed town will always be different from what was there before. In a Nietzschean expression, it is just like the church, as it celebrates the destruction of an ideal and at the same time prevents it from being reborn. This further reminds the traits of written language, hence Hemingway’s expression: “the need to write”. Language is also a trace of a concept and at the same time prevents it from being in an integral, complete form.

So, our protagonist has left the burnt town, from language, and therefore from the objet petit a. It is important that we remember that the endless delay of satisfaction originates from the absence of existence that language creates. He has departed from his former dwelling, but has returned to the nostalgic primitive state where there is no society or language.

There is an extremely strong allusion that we sense from this return. We have been ridden out of an ideal world where there is no dissatisfaction, and strives to go back, thus paradise lost and regained. The protagonist’s journey more resembles that of paradise regained, in regard the fact that he left the burnt town.

Along with the linguistic allusion, this resemblance of Paradise Regained explains the significant silence throughout the short story. The protagonist speaks three times throughout the story: “Go on Hopper,” “I’ve got a right to eat this kind of stuff if I’m willing to carry it,” “Christ, Jesus Christ,” Among these monologues, the first one does not have any further description of emotion, while the second one “sounded strange”, and made him “not speak again”. The third one makes the protagonist say happily, unlike the previous two.

The protagonist had abandoned language, and that would be the reason why the second monologue “I’ve got a right to eat this kind of stuff if I’m willing to carry it,” “sounds strange”. There is no societal fight over the ownership of the food. Not only that, the uncomfortable presence of language is revealed. However, it is intriguing that the monologue of “Christ, Jesus Christ,” is said “happily”. If there is an allusion to Paradise Regained, and that the paradise is a place where there is no futile desire from the existence of language, this can be easily explained.

Until now, we were able to recognize the metaphor that the pine plain was referring to. It would be a paradise where there is no language, therefore no room for any dissatisfaction. In order to make the analysis more complete, there must be a proof that there actually is no dissatisfaction.

Nick missed a big trout. This is the first time when he meets a failure within the pine plain. Surprisingly, he does not go wild with this trout; he is satisfied with “one good trout”. He insists that he would be able to pick “the very biggest ones” on the Black River. However, he states that doing such would make him wallow against a very strong current. He does not want to be in danger, and he feels that one trout is good enough. This is the proof that the protagonist has regained his paradise. In the paradise where there is no objet petit a, things don’t always go all. No one would be able to catch 50 big trout at a time. But nevertheless, a man might be just as content as catching much. There is satisfaction with what happens.

A further proof for this is the mention of the “Black River”. In the dangerous Black River, there are big trout. Also, it is a place where “the telegram” came to the protagonist’s friend Nick. Nick goes “away when the telegram came.” Nick is never to be seen again. The fact that the Black River is a dangerous place, and that “the telegram” is a written language, it is a further support that the regained Paradise is a place with no language and no pain. 


Comments
Rhee Jiyoon: I always love your ideas! I remember you saying that voting for a person you don't like to be elected would raise voting rates. Your ideas are new, but I like them more because I know it comes from your ceaseless thinkings.  However, I don't get how "written language" and "spoken language" are different. I think you will need more explanation to make your thesis stronger.

American Literature #5/ A Dark-Brown Dog / Being Humane

Being Humanistic

             The word humane has an extremely positive denotative and connotative meaning to it. In Merriam-Webster dictionary, it defines the word humane as having compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals. As an example sentence, it states: “It’s not humane to treat animals that way.” If it is accurate to put the word “humane” as being human-like, then most of people using the word “humane” would have to think that it is an inherent characteristic of human beings to have “compassion, sympathy and consideration towards humans or animals.” The short story “A Dark-Brown Dog” by Stephen Crane rebuts this common belief by accusing the human atrocity done towards nature, and how there is no clear difference in humanity and bestiality

             One way of identifying domesticated or animals is looking for bells, leashes, collars and accessories. These materials are cultural symbols that enable people to differentiate animals that are civilized and animals that are not. This is the reason why the fact that the dog had “a short rope……dragging from his neck” becomes important. It indicates that the dog is already domesticated. Even though there is no owner who leashes the dog, from the fact that dog does not show active rejection towards his leash it can be deduced that the dog is domesticated to its heart.

             The taming makes the dog weak and submissive. The rope itself enacts as an obstacle for the dog acting freely: “Occasionally he trod upon the end of it and stumbled.” The dog “trips upon it and fall forward”. The rope is what makes the dog get dragged inside the house eventually as well. Not only that, the dog does not resist to oppression that he receives unjustly when the father hits him with various materials. The unusual slave stance that the dog takes can be seen from the factor that the dog was domesticated before taken into the family.

             The materials that the father uses to violently treat the dogs can be thought as cultural symbols as well. The dog is hit with “very large saucepan” and “coffee -pot”. It is ironical that such savagery is done with highly developed gadgets of modern civilization. No matter what the development might be, its usage is decided by the human, which in this case was savagery.

             The child uses “a small stick” that he finds when beating the dog. The beatings by the child are not threatening to the dog. He just endures it, unlike the sever ones by the father. The child is less exposed to the human civilizations, so even though he may show “humane” characteristics of violence, the severity is clearly low. It is symbolized through the level of the used tools: “a small stick”. A stick is not made by high-technology. Not only that, the child has sympathy to protect the dog, unlike the father.

             Stephen Crane gives a euphemistic sting towards the arrogance that many have about themselves. No matter how advanced our inventions might be, we use it for beating animals. If humans are not humane, what should we do? Should we “burst into a long, dirgelike cry?”

Comments
Jung Yoonjo: So sad I didn't get to read your main points. But I think your essay is often to a great start. Good luck.
Han Jonghyun: Awesome introduction! I am very curious on how this reflection would lead onto! Please post the finished version on your blog so that I can read it!
Seungwon: This is a completely different approach to the story than what most of us did. Analysis of the dog's perspective! I love the idea. Please go on, I am curious how this would end up with.
Sol Kim: Very interesting approach. I think your experiment  of stick to the family intended a negative connotation. Not negative maybe, but something related to instinct. Nice introduction, and I expect more from your blog. I'm interested in all the other papers that you wrote. 
Soyeon Min: I think your essay needs more development. You must have ran out of time and so dies anyone. While it is conventional wisdom that quality is over quantity, it is impossible to produce any quality with such small quantity. I hope you develop further.