I chose Judith Butler and her idea regarding performing sexuality. Performing sexuality can easily be related to the past season of the Real World: Denver. One of the guys living in the house is gay, Davis, but he hides this information from the rest of the group in the beginning. I think Butler would agree that he is putting on a show for everyone by pretending to be someone he’s not. Everyone believes that he is a frat-boy because of his college stories and his immediate appearance (The “All-American Boy” dressed in Abercrombie and Fitch). Davis doesn’t want everyone knowing he his homosexual right away because he wants people to like hi for who he is as a person, and if everyone know his “secret” he’s afraid they’ll jump to conclusions and judge him. The only question is, how would they truly know what kind of person Davis really is when he’s not being true to himself, or honest to the entire group?

Butler feels as though everyone performs their sexuality since everyone winds up conforming to society. We are conditioned from the moment we are born, so it may be difficult being yourself in such a “people-pleasing” society. In the Real World: Denver, Davis conforms to societies standards, pretending to be a straight man. In Butler’s piece she talks about the performativity of gender versus its expression. She says, “Hence, as a strategy of survival within compulsory systems, gender is a performance with clearly punitive consequences. Discrete genders are part of what “humanizes” individuals within contemporary culture; indeed we regularly punish those who fail to do their gender right. Because there is neither an “essence” that gender expresses or externalizes nor an objective ideal to which gender aspires, and because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender create the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all” (2500). Because our society is so obsessed with gender, Davis is having difficulties revealing who he really is.

Interestingly enough, it may seem as thought Denver is scared to be himself, but soon enough, he digs deep and stands up for his beliefs.

In Gender Trouble, Butler says “The soul is precisely what the body lacks; hence, the body presents itself as a signifying lack. That lack which is the body signifies the soul as that which cannot show.” I chose this particular quote because I completely disagree with Butler here. From what I understand, Butler doesn’t believe that people have souls (regarding their gender or even in general!) — She believes that every little detail is performed. Even though the soul cannot show itself through the body, it is still something deep within. The soul is hidden but it is the most important thing in any person. Outer appearance obviously can’t show the soul, but the soul is exactly what the righteous body needs.

In Davis’ case, one would first think that Butler was right because Davis was acting out who he is in order to fit in society. He is disregarding his feelings to please others. Later, we see Davis standing up for himself by saying, “I didn’t wake up one day and decide to be a gay man.” Here he is further proving that who he is comes from deep within, he can’t help or change who he is. He’s conscious of how he needs to act, which can be related to drag shows. Drag Queens are conscious of what they need to do, they need to wear make-up and fancy dresses to play the part. For example, you don’t just wake up in the morning and say “OK, I’m going to be very girlie today..” You just do it because it comes natural and because you are aware and conscious of what others expect without even thinking twice about it.

As far as conforming goes, Davis admits that he knew he was gay since he was in Middle School. He didn’t tell anyone for years; he recently came out and told his friends, family and frat brothers whom he attends college with. When he recently told his mother about his sexuality, Davis said “My relationship with my mom was great until I told her I was gay. She said that I was filled with demons and Jesus commanded many times in the bible that I’m going to hell for this, this is a sin.” He also said “She even refuses to pick up my phone calls.” Due to such extremes, he pretended to be straight for years, conforming to a society that only finds heterosexuality appropriate. He conformed by dating girls, talking a little deeper, and dressing preppy.

*As a side note, I have watched the Real World before this class, so I never picked up on the things that I do now. I focused in on the episodes and tried to relate it as much as I could, and because the Real World is a “theorist’s wonderland” (thanks Professor Middleton!), I had no problem relating theory to this type of entertainment. I wrote down a million quotes that I just couldn’t believe came out of some of the cast member’s mouths..

“The majority of the black community is homophobic, that’s just something that’s been passed all of a sudden, it’s not really discusses in our community, but I try to be open and tolerant as I can be.” First off his statement barely made any sense and second of all, “tolerant as I can be?” How ridiculous.

“You seem like such a cool person, are you sure you’re gay?” -Stephen (member of the Real World)

“You know how I feel about homosexuality. I just think there’s something wrong with it. I think it’s wrong that you’re gay, I do.” -Stephen

“I think that homosexuality is gross and it is gross. There’s no place for it in the church.” -Stephen

Towards the end of the episode Davis says “Gay is a sin? So the rest of Christianity can’t accept me because of some word in the bible?” He said it perfectly, people won’t accept him based on notions of what/who gay people are. Because people won’t accept him and give him such a hard time like Stephen does, he always has to hide his true identity when first meeting new people.

Cyborgs! According to Wikipedia, Cyborg is defined as “a portmanteau of cybernetic organism, is used to designate a creature which is a mixture of organic and mechanical parts. Generally, the aim is to add to or enhance the abilities of an organism by using technology.” Well then! Obviously throughout this reading she discusses how everything basically relates back to science.

On page 2269, Donna Haraway says “Modern medicine is also full of cyborgs, of couplings between organism and machine, each conceived as coded devices…” What I get from this is that medicine is produced by using bacteria and essentially machines which are man made in certain senses. Let me try to explain that better- An organism is a living thing, such as mold, and many medicines are made of bacteria, such as amoxicillin. What the medicine is doing is putting bacteria in your body to make you immune to it. If you add to medicine, it is not organic, so many Doctors are trying to come up with something to enhance medicine to make it better. Basically, medicine is full of cyborgs because it is being touched and altered in hopes to benefit people who are ill.

I thought it was really interesting, on page 2275, where she says “Identities seem contradictory, partial, and strategic. With the hard-won recognition of their social and historical constitution, gender, race, and class cannot provide the basis for belief in “essential” unity. There is nothing about being “female” that naturally binds women.” I don’t know if this is completely off base, but I though of Butler when I read this. Is Haraway saying that women have worked so hard to get where they are, but women shouldn’t be in their own category? Women are equal and can do anything anyone else can, so people shouldn’t refer to women as a group. Does that make sense? She says there is a ” political myth called ‘us.’ ” Us referring to all women. Then where she mentions that “there is nothing about being female that naturally binds women.” Is she saying that women can choose to be whoever they want, and be whatever gender they choose, and be attracted to any gender of their choice? And being female, usually comes along with duties- such as taking care of the house and children.. so just because someone is a female, all of those terms don’t necessarily relate to a female? Sorry if this is confusing, I just confused myself..

On page 2280 it says “But sexual objectification, not alienation, is the consequence of the structure of sex/gender. In the realm of knowledge, the result of sexual objectification is illusion and abstraction. However, a woman is not simply alienated from her product, but in a deep sense does not exist as a subject, or even potential subject, since she owes her existence as a woman to sexual appropriation.” Ok, let’s see.. so I think what Haraway is saying is that many women are seen as objects.. especially in the eyes of men. Women aren’t always taking seriously because (she doesn’t come out and say this, but for example) they are nearly naked in music videos and usually seen as “arm candy” for men. Yes, no, maybe?!

All of this biology talks bring me back to Deleuze and Guattari and how they discuss biology, relating metaphors of/to literature. They’re the ones who talked about the body without organs.. Is this all leading back to how society has a structure but the world doesn’t?

On page 2283, I thought this quote really stuck out.. “No objects, spaces, or bodies are sacred in themselves; any component can be interfaced with any other if the proper standard, the proper code, can be constructed for processing signals in a common language.” In other words, can everything/everyone essentially be “broken down?”

There he is, the man who confused the heck out of me! Is he also against entertainment? I wasn’t really sure which way he was leaning. Something interesting that stuck out was on page 1733 where he says “Something has disappeared: the sovereign difference between them that was the abstraction’s charm. For it is the difference which forms the poetry of the map and the charm of the territory, the magic of the concept and the charm of the real.” Is he saying that the main reason behind everything has changed? That there is no true distinction between what is real and what is not? There isn’t charm to anything anymore, it is not genuine, everything is being done to keep others happy?

On page 1734 Baudrillard goes on to explain the difference between someone who feigns or simulates in illness. He says that “someone who feigns an illness can simply go to bed and make believe he is ill. Someone who simulates an illness produces in himself some of the symptoms.” Meaning that when someone simulates an illness it is hard to distinguish if they truly are sick, or if they’re faking it. It’s hard to tell if someone is faking it because they eventually develop a symptom, maybe something small like a stomach ache. You can develop a stomach ache because you’re making your self sick over thinking that you truly are sick. As for feigning an illness, it is easy to see that one isn’t genuinely ill. They’re pretending they’re ill- so it’s easier to distinguish between such characteristics. He gives a good example later down the page, saying one “hesitates to draw the distinction between true and false, between the “produced” symptom and the authentic symptom. ‘If he acts crazy so well, then he must be mad.’” There someone would be jumping to conclusions, if someone is acting crazy, they assume one is mad, they don’t think “Well maybe he’s putting on a show,” the same as if someone claims they are sick, people are usually going to believe that person. One would like to think that someone isn’t trying to get out of work, or school by using the “I’m sick” card.

Unfortunately, Baudrillard lost me when he was speaking of religion. What does he mean when he says “One can live with the idea of distorted truth?” When religion is taught to us, is it distorted?

So I got really excited when I started reading his section on Disneyland! He talks about dreams and how when you go to Disneyland, nothing is real. He says “Disneyland is there to conceal the fact that it is the “real” country, all of the “real” America, which is Disneyland.” Is he saying that Disneyland is there to take your mind off of what is really going on in the world? He also says that “The Disneyland imaginary is neither truth nor false, it is a deterrence machine set up in order to rejuvenate in reverse the fiction of the real.” He also says that “In this imaginary world the only phantasmagoria is in the inherent warmth and affection of the crowd..” and all of the rides or “gadgets” that are there. I thought this was so true because I just went to Disney World 2 weeks ago and my brother and I went to the Magic Kingdom one night– It was so exciting and fun because there were so many people around, laughing and having a good time. When it started to clear out it’s like the fun died out with it. We were there late because they had extended hours, so it was open until 3am. When all the families with kids started piling out, it’s like the magic of it all left with them. The park was quiet and dark and it just wasn’t as fun, even though the rides were still open and running. It’s all really interesting to think about…

It’s unfortunate Horkeimer and Aforno rip apart movies because I love them. Movies aren’t made to brainwash people, they are produced as a source of entertainment. You’re not supposed to go to a movie theater, watch the entire movie, go home and reenact what events had just occurred. Horkeimer and Aforno start off their piece by saying “Films, radio and magazines make up a system which is uniform as a whole and in every part” (1223). Right, they do all work together, but not necessarily in a bad way. Again, movies, the radio and magazines are all here for entertainment– they’re not always supposed to be taken seriously or literally. Movies are made to make people laugh, cry, and enjoy themselves. Many people work or go to school all day, so having some down time watching a movie is what America likes to do.

Because both men are labeled as “philosophical thinkers,” I’d imagine that they feel as though people should pick up books and further educate themselves rather than wasting their time watching movies.

Anyway, on page 1224 Horkeimer and Aforno said “Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce.” Ahh they really hate movies huh? Basically they’re saying how the movies and radio maybe aren’t as classy as they used to be? I guess I can agree with that, but then again, things change. Generations are changing and people “voice” their opinions a lot more freely now-a-days. I think they’re also saying how the producers don’t care if their movies are raunchy or distasteful because they’re an empire, all they care about is making money.. but it’s true because people pay to be entertained.

As far as magazines go, many people do buy magazines because they want to read the latest gossip on the stars and feed into the latest trends. But what do they expect? Women are conditioned to act girly and buy these magazines to keep up with the latest fashions! haha.

On page 1227 where they are discussing Mozart, I think they are just saying that they don’t like the change. They want the music to remain the same, and that goes for movies and radio.

Another thing I found interesting was on page1229 where they say “What happens at work, in the factory, or in the office can only be escaped from by approximation to it in one’s leisure time. All amusement suffers from this incurable malady. Pleasure hardens into boredom because, if it is to remain pleasure, it must not demand any effort and therefore moves rigorously in the worm grooves of association. No independent thinking must be expected from the audience..” I think they’re saying how lazy people are because if people aren’t captivated within the first few seconds of something, they get bored and turn the channel or turn off the movie. Books for example, many people would choose a movie before a book. A lt of people view books as boring or they relate them to homework and movies as viewed as entertainment.

All in all, it’s a little upsetting how much these guys hate movies!

I’m sure many people are going to agree that this was the best assignment thus far. Margaret Cho was so entertaining and funny that she kept my attention the entire time. It was interesting how she started out by saying that she wasn’t nervous to be performing in front of so many people, she was just nervous that she had to do it in front of her parents. She had said that she could feel her parents silent disapproval. This reminded me of the symposium that we all attended because all of the students who spoke and read their papers, were doing what Cho was doing.. except the students were doing it in front of a smaller crowd, but still, it takes guts to get up and speak to a group of people.

Cho started off by discussing the differences between gay and straight men, moving on to stereotypes and adding in humor along the way. She was saying how gay men are much more attractive than straight men and it’s a lot easier to talk to gay men, claiming that she was a heterophobic. She made jokes that many people wouldn’t be comfortable with making themselves. Cho touched upon gays, lesbians, the KKK, and even mothers (or just her mother). By the way, I thought it was hilarious how she made fun of her mother. She talked like an old Korean woman, scrunched her face, and just mocked her. I know that sounds bad, but it was her own mother, so that made it funny! Cho also talked about something very important, body image. A lot of girls today are brainwashed to think that you’re only beautiful if you’re very skinny. When Cho was on television, I guess she dropped 30 pounds in 2 weeks, which is very unhealthy. She was conforming to society. She thought she looked good, but because the network didn’t agree, she had to change.

I think I saw a lot of theory throughout Margaret Cho’s stand-up. First off, I saw Foucault because he discusses sex throughout his text, and obviously Cho didn’t have a problem touching upon that subject. She shared her thoughts with the whole world and wasn’t shy to speak of it. I think Foucault believed that it should be more private, but Cho was very much more open about it (she’s not easily embarrassed). Rubin was also represented when it comes to the sex/gender system. Women are “supposed to be” seen as objects, skinny and pretty, for men. Then of course, I saw a lot of Fanon. There was a lot of racial items being covered throughout this ‘movie’. She talks about people of different races and it’s just covering the fact that a lot of people are where they are because of the place others put you in. That makes sense in my head, but now that I’m rereading it, I’m not so sure? Then of course there’s Judith Butler. When Cho talks about how her mother would call her and say “Are you gay? If you don’t pick up the phone, you’re gay” on her answering machine. Because Cho was born a woman, her whole life she has been conditioned on how to act like a woman. Being gay in her mother’s eyes would just be wrong. Her mother claims that it is ok– that there are a lot of people in the world who are gay, just not people who are Korean. Contradictory?

Either way, Margaret Cho was great and was able to make light of a lot of situations that are viewed as controversies in today’s society.

After reading Gender Trouble, by Judith Butler I searched around the web looking for more background information on Judith Butler. A lot of her work is related to Sigmund Freud and Foucault. I came across a professor’s website and I guess she teaches a class on Butler, but she had said that Butler “wants to question the idea that a person IS male or female, masculine or feminine, which are the fundamental ideas Freud started with. Butler wants to show that gender is not just a social construct, but rather a kind of performance, a show we put on, a set of signs we wear, as costume or disguise– hence as far from essence as can be.” I really liked the fact that this profesor (Dr. Mary Klages) was able to basically put together all of Butler’s ideas in one sentence. It is made clear that Butler is a feminist, so throughout the reading Butler goes on to explain how there’s a certain distinction made between men and women.

On page 2488-2489 Butler says “I read Beauvoir who explained that to be a woman within the terms of a masculinist culture is to be a source of mystery and unknowability for men, and this seemed confirmed somehow when I read Sartre for whom all desire, problematically presumed as heterosexual and masculine, was defined as trouble. For that masculine subject of desire, trouble became a scandal with the sudden intrusion, the unanticipated agency, of a female “object” who inexplicably returns the glance, reverses the gaze, and contests the place and authority of the masculine position.” I picked out this quote for a couple of reasons. The first sentence stood out because over and over I hear how men find women to be a mystery, or confusing. I’ve also heard that women and men think differently. I’m not really sure where I’m going with this, but is the mystery between a man and a woman attractive? Butler then brings up an interesting point where she refers to women as an “object.” Many men see women as an object, even today– especially as a sexual object. Women are seen as objects in music videos, on MTV during the Spring Break programming, having them participate in games where all they have on are teeny bathing suits, and some are even represented as “arm candy.” Anyway, back to the quote where it says “authority of the masculine position” — it seems like what she is saying is that men over power women, they hold all the power because they are the one’s who basically seek out “their” women, that he basically “chooses” her. Men feel like they can have who they want whenever they want, rather than it being a mutual attraction. Did any of that make sense?

Ok, so I’m a little confused on the section where Butler talks about the body. Is she saying that the only way a man and a woman are distinguished is because one looks feminine while the other looks masculine? Or is gender determined on the way a person acts and presents themselves rather than what you look like? Mm, confused? Me too!

I thought it was interesting on page 2943 where the whole idea of AIDS was being discussed. I couldn’t believe that (I think it was Simon Watney’s idea?) a person with AID, someone who is gay/lesbian, is defined as “the polluting person.” On the following page it also says, “Paradoxically, homosexuality is almost always conceived within the homophobic signifying economy as both uncivilized and unnatural.” That is just wrong on so many levels.

Then on page 2496 where the soul is being discussed, I linked a lot of this theory to Saussure because the words signified/signifying continued to pop up. It says “The soul is precisely what the body lacks; hence, the body presents itself as a signifying lack. That lack which is the body signifies the soul as that which cannot show.” The soul cannot show itself through the body, so that is something deep within. The soul is hidden, but it is the most important thing in any person.. (the body can’t show the soul and the soul is exactly what the righteous body needs).

On page 2497 it says, “If the inner truth of gender is a fabrication and if a true gender is a fantasy instituted and inscribed on the surface of bodies, then it seems that genders can be neither true nor false, but are only produced as the truth effects of a discourse of primary and stable identity.” Then a few sentences later it says, “I would suggest as well that drag fully subverts the distinction between inner and outer psychic space and effectively mocks both the expressive model of gender and the notion of a true gender identity.” The way one presents themselves, such as appearance, can be an illusion. In the case of a drag, what you see on the outside is not really what’s in the inside. The outer appearance would be considered feminine, while the person inside the body is considered masculine. So in other words, you can never really tell who a person is by their outer appearance, such as gender? It all comes down to soul?

I attended the Writing Fiction Class Readings from 11:15-12:05 today. I really enjoyed everyone’s readings/micros. Both Kim and Cara were involved in the readings and their stories were great as well.

I had a little trouble relating theory to this section because I wasn’t able to stay (due to classes) nearly as long as I would’ve liked. But after thinking about it all day, I figured the best theorist to relate to all the of the reading’s would be T.S. Eliot. T.S. Eliot said that “Every nation, every race, has not only its own creative, but its own critical turn of mind; and is even more oblivious of the shortcomings and limitations of its critical habits than of those of its creative genius.” I don’t know if I can do this, but I kind of disagree with Eliot because I feel like everyone today went beyond their creative genius. The stories that I heard today were extremely creative and put together so well. I found that all of the fictional stories were very descriptive and the five senses were put into play throughout each reading. I was sitting there thinking, “Wow, this would take me months to write.” Every writer that stood in front of the crowd today went beyond my expectations.. I didn’t really know what to expect going into it, so it was such a nice surprise being able to see everyone’s artistic side. On the other hand, on page 1094, Eliot says “We say: it appears to conform, and is perhaps individual, or it appears individual, and may conform; but we are hardly likely to find that it is one and not the other.” From what I understand, Eliot is saying that even with individuality, a person still needs to conform to another person’s standards. When writing, author isn’t necessarily the only person involved in their book. The book needs to be approved and read by many other people before hitting the shelves. Editors are involved, and because everyone thinks differently and writes differently, things get changed or rearranged in the process.

There was one specific reading that really stuck out. The author, I’m so sorry but I didn’t catch her name, wrote a micro on women and it reminded me a lot of Britney Spears. Her micro was titled “Rock Stars” and she went over the fact that women conform, they “go plastic” and one quote that was funny was “Always lie. Lying can cover your butt later.” Now, that just isn’t true. Lying always catches up to you in the end and only makes matter worse. Another great quote was where she said “Live by the phrase no regrets and smile.” I found all of that really interesting, but how does it relate to theory? I don’t know! But what I did get out of it was that most of her micro reminded me of Rubin. Rubin discusses the sex/gender system and how gender is imposed (“What a women is”). Rubin also talks about women and gift-giving; women as gifts. Her micro reminded me of this because women are conforming to men’s standards. They get plastic surgery to look better for men, they do this and they do that, just searching for approval (not in all cases of course, just an example!). Ahh, does that make any sense? Anyway, there’s always a preconceived notion about people– people are quick to judge.

As far as Althusser goes, I’m going to be honest, I’m in the dark. In the beginning of his reading he discusses wages and truth be told, every person who read their micro today should sell their writings to the newspaper or something! But the Ideological State Apparatus? Help!

So what, you ask? Well I’m sure it wasn’t easy for everyone to get up and read their personal stories in front of a group of strangers. That takes a lot of courage because you never know if people will accept your style of writing, or if they even care enough to pay attention and focus in on every little detail. All the micros today were so descriptive, which makes the story that much more interesting and captivating.

I read up on Michel Foucault in Beginning Theory and after reading The History of Sexuality, I was able to tie the information from both works together a little better. On page 175 in Beginning Theory, it says “New historicism is resolutely anti-establishment, always implicitly on the side of liberal ideas of personal freedom and accepting and celebrating all forms of difference and ‘deviance.’ I thought this was interesting because throughout Foucault’s reading, he discusses sex and how it is viewed. I think that Foucault believes sex should be on a more personal level, not discussed so openly/freely. On page 1649 in The History of Sexuality, it says “Discretion was advised, with increasing emphasis. The greatest reserve was counseled when dealing with sins against purity.” Here Foucault is explaining how sex should be kept quiet and only spoken in particular places, at certain times, with certain people. “Sins against purity” is mentioned here because sex was obviously viewed upon as wrong before marriage. It’s also a double standard here because in most cases, it’s “okay” for men to have sex before marriage, but the woman should remain pure. The woman is seen as tainted if she is not a virgin. In my other English class, we discuss a lot of double standards and in one of the texts that we dissected called The Cult of True Womanhood, it says men “are supposed to be pure, although it came awfully hard to them, but men were the movers, the doers, the actors. Women were the passive, submissive responders.” Double standards are just insane!

I thought it was really interesting how religion was also touched upon in the text. Again, sex is wrong before marriage, but because a lot of choices were based on religion back then (such as Christianity), it is known that religion used to be the reason why people didn’t make bad choices. Today, religion doesn’t play as big of a role in people’s lives as it did back then.

I also liked the part on page 1655 where it says “Salzmann even organized an experimental school which owed its exceptional character to a supervision and education of sex so well thought out that youth’s universal sin would never need to be practiced there. And with all these measures taken, the child was not to be simply the mute and unconscious object of attentions prearranged between adults only; a certain reasonable, limited, canonical, and truthful discourse on sex was prescribed for him–a kind of discursive orthopedics.” I think this would be a great idea.. in other words have classes that focus on sex. A lot of kids today don’t know a lot about it, the diseases that one can catch, and the fact that teenage pregnancy is occurring more often. It seems as though a lot of parents have the attitude “Oh, not my child..” rather than sitting down with them and discussing right from wrong. Parents think that their kids learn about it in school, when in reality they don’t.. it’s just other kids bragging that they’ve had sexual relations.

Back to Beginning Theory, it says “Discourse is not just a way of speaking or writing, but the whole ‘mental set’ and ideology which encloses the thinking of all members of a given society.” Because discourse is defined at the extended verbal expression in speech or writing, I find this quote to be true. You can only learn so much from conversations and books, some information learned comes from real life experiences.

After reading the rest of the novel I’m still stuck on the fact that Mr. Isaacs invites David over to his house for dinner. How weird is that? If I was Mr. Isaacs I think I would want to beat the crap out of David.. but that’s just me. The whole situation is just so weird, I don’t know what to think. It’s obvious Mrs. Isaacs is mad or upset that he is there, but my question is, why doesn’t she speak up or say what’s on her mind? It’s like they’re all trying to cover up the fact that he had an affair with their 20 year old daughter.. does Mr. Isaacs want to be his friend or what?

Moving on, I love the change in David. It’s honestly like I’ve been reading about two different characters. He started off as a crazy man obsessed with sexual interaction. He wasn’t a huge part in his daughter’s life (maybe that’s why she calls him David rather than Dad) and it’s like he’s finally starting to realize that. Lucy welcomed him into her home which was very nice of her, and it’s like David did a 360 on us. He actually started to care about someone.. genuinely. He was more hurt by the rape than Lucy was. He wanted revenge and wanted to know who did this to her. She went on with her life and didn’t want to worry about who raped her, she just wanted to forget about the whole thing. Come to find out Lucy ended up pregnant and David was shocked that she decided to keep the baby. Later in the novel, David found out that one of the boys who raped Lucy was related to Petrus. Petrus made me so mad throughout the rest of the novel because he didn’t care that Pollux raped Lucy because he was family. That honestly just makes me sick, rape is such an awful crime and Polluz should have been punished. But I do think it’s awesome how David basically attacked Pollux, haha, he deserved it. It just really showed how much David has changed, by sticking up for Lucy and protecting her.

I found it really strange how on page 208 it was like Lucy was sticking up or protecting Pollux. He raped her and she doesn’t want revenge. David catches him staring at Lucy through one of the windows and it doesn’t even phase her. AHH and how nuts is it that Petrus wants to marry Lucy!? He already has 2 wives and children, does he really need another one? Oh and was Lucy raped before? On page 198 she says, “But I am not having an abortion. That is something I am not prepared to go through with again.” So either she was raped and got pregnant or she was with a man she chose to be with and wound up pregnant.. but that isn’t very realistic since she prefers women. If she was raped before it’s like its unfortunately become a way of life for her, that she just accepts it, rather than doing something about it.

I also find it really weird how he continues to say “I wonder if she can smell my thoughts.” People aren’t dogs, I just think it’s a weird analogy that keeps coming up.

On page 178 it says, “His spell with Lucy has not turned him into a country person. Nonetheless, there are things he misses — the duck family, for instance: Mother Duck tacking about on the surface of the dam, her chest puffed out with pride….” and so on. Interestingly enough, he acts like Lucy hasn’t changed him (since he didn’t want to be changed in the first place), but in reality she really did. She made him into a better person. I also loved the quote on page 179 where it says, “Who would have guessed, when his child was born, that in time he would come crawling to her asking to be taken in?” That’s so true! He’s lucky to have her as a daughter, because not all people would be willing to do what Lucy did for David.

Oh and what’s up with his book that he’s writing? The passages were a little confusing..

Sorry if this is all so scattered, there were just so many things I tried covering all at once!

Wow! After reading the assigned chapters, I’ve come to realize that David Lurie is a completely different man.. or at least he has a very different side to him that I had not seen earlier. In the beginning of the novel, David seemed like such a horrible man, having sex with random people such as prostitutes and 20 year olds, but now we were able to see another side of him, as a father-figure.

Interestingly enough, David Lurie starts out as someone who can possibly be viewed upon as a rapist, while his daughter was just unfortunately raped by three men. It seemed as though David didn’t really have feelings emotionally, but now that his daughter is going through such trauma, he hasn’t left her side. It’s really nice to see David consoling her and just being there for her. She is a little cold to him, but because of the circumstance, I find it very reasonable.

A couple things struck me throughout the reading that I tried to relate to theory. On page 64 Lucy says “He and his wife have the old stable. I’ve put in electricity. It’s quite comfortable. He has another wife in Adelaide, and children, some of the grown up. He goes off and spends time there occasionally.” Here she is talking about Petrus and his double life. I related this to Rubin because a lot of Rubin’s theory is that men sometimes view women as gifts/prizes. The whole issue of sex/gender is brought up because it was obviously alright for men to have other wives and children, but definitely not okay vise-versa. Even though it is wrong regardless, it’s not fair because it is such a double standard.

I thought it was funny on page 72 where David thinks, “He does not like women who make no effort to be attractive.” Here he is talking about Bev Shaw who he later in the book has sex with?! That’s just weird.

On page 77 I found this quote to be interesting as well, “All right, I’ll do it. But only as long as I don’t have to become a better person. I am not prepared to be reformed. I want to go on being myself. I’ll do it on that basis.” I just think that’s not right how David is so narrow minded. It is obvious that he needs help and needs to change things in his life, yet he doesn’t want to; he has no interest in bettering himself.

Then on page 111, David says “Lucy, my dearest, why don’t you want to tell? It was a crime. There is no shame in being the object of a crime. You did not choose to be the object. You are an innocent party.” After reading that I thought of Melanie and David. I paralleled the two because Melanie was an object who didn’t want to be with David, yet she didn’t stop him either. He committed a crime as well, but he didn’t do anything to fix the situation.

On page 133 David says, “Lucy, Lucy, I plead with you! You want to make up for the wrongs of the past, but this is not the way to do it. If you fail to stand up for yourself at this moment, you will never be able to hold your head up again. You may as well pack your bags and leave.” Why didn’t he give this speech to himself? He packed up his bags and left town because he was ashamed. He didn’t speak up for himself and didn’t try to fix the situation. David just said he was guilty and left it at that. He didn’t try to keep his job or find another one, he just ran away. I find it very contradictory.

All in all, I just find it really interesting how he’s trying so hard to be a good father and be involved in his daughter’s life. It doesn’t seem like he was ever really there for her beforehand, so it’s nice to see the change.