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.

Wow! I did not see that coming. Throughout the reading, all that kept running through my mind was “Is this man serious?” I really was just so blown away and because crazy stories such as this keep me interested, I couldn’t put the book down. Going into this I wasn’t sure what to expect, so I made sure to read the back of the book first to get an understanding of what this book was all about. After reading it I was hoping that it wouldn’t be too bad and it would be semi-easier to get through.

What I found really strange was the fact that Professor Lurie continued to refer to his sexual relations as “making love.” I thought that was so weird because it’s not real love, he’s lonely and it’s all just lust. Thinking about it, it seems as though he refers to it as making love only when it is not a probable romance. For example, having a steady relationship with a prostitute or a 20 year-old student is very unlikely. On the other hand, he takes a woman out from his office named Dawn. He takes her out on a date two times, after the second date he has sexual relations with her. After he had done that with her, he avoids Dawn and basically wants nothing to do with her. Why though? Is it because he’s afraid of commitment? She was hurt when he began to ignore her, so it was obvious that she was interested in him. She’s probably somewhere closer to his age and she’s a real woman.. she’s not a prostitute with no emotions or a confused teenager. He teaches a Romance class, yet he seems to be lacking in that area. He’s romantic with people that are not suitable for him. Actually no, he’s not romantic, he’s just crazy.

I loved the part where Lurie’s ex-wife Rosalind tells him exactly the way she feels (page 44). She doesn’t care about hurting his feelings; she’s the only truth and stability he has in his life. There is something wrong with Lurie, whether it’s psychologically or emotionally.

Oh and did Melanie set Lurie up? I was a little confused when she showed up at his house asking him if she could live with him for a little while. I also thought it was pretty funny on page 27 Lurie thought that his and Melanie’s “relationship” would be a “quick little affair.” That’s extremely contradictory because on page 29 he thinks “there might, despite all, be a future.” He really can’t serious! How twisted is that? I don’t know, I just think it’s nuts.

Another question I have is why is Lurie being so stubborn? It’s admirable that he is taking complete blame for everything that has happened between him and Melanie, rather than lying because that is what some people would do when in such a situation; but because his friends who are on the board are trying desperately to help him, why is he being so uncooperative? All they want is a statement and he just won’t listen to a word they say.

Since the beginning of the semester, I’d have to say my reading has improved. I find myself going back and rereading what I had already read to get a better understanding of what exactly is going on in the text. Sometimes I would find myself skimming some parts of the reading because I had no idea what the author was trying to say. I figured if I didn’t understand what he was saying, why spend so much time on one little section? I didn’t think it would make much of a difference, but looking back.. it really did. Now I understand that there are naturally going to be tough readings, but the key is to just read, reread, and read it again– I also figured out that I should mark up the pages as much as possible.. even if I write “WHAT?!” next to a paragraph, that reminds me to go back to that later and try to dissect it a little more. During the beginning of the semester I just really had a hard time getting through the readings because I was so bummed out that I didn’t understand a lot of it, so now that I’m able to understand them a little more (not all of them, but I’m getting there) it makes me feel a lot better.

My writing. Well, I think it’s progressively gotten better. Writing these blogs a couple times a week has definitely helped. In the beginning of the semester I would’ve said that nothing has changed only because I found myself starting each blog off with “I didn’t understand a lot of this reading, so I’ll give it my best shot..” So a lot of the time I was just piecing together little bits of information the best I could. But the past few readings I’ve understood a lot more, so being able to express what I understand has helped a lot. I like the fact that we are able to comment on each other’s blogs because it’s rewarding knowing that people agree with you.. or even if they have something to add.

Hmm.. my conversation.. Well I’m pretty quiet in class, I know. I’ve always been that way though, I prefer to take notes and listen to what others have to say. During the beginning of the semester, I found that I spoke out a lot more. Now that we’re getting deeper into the material, I’m not always as comfortable with some of the pieces as others may be. I try as best as I can to get a lot of my opinions and understandings of the readings out on my blog, so when it comes time for class, I like to listen and just see what others got out of the reading. I like to piece together information that I didn’t understand and see if there is anything big I could’ve missed. Everyone has their own opinion, so maybe I should speak out a little more. I’m just shy with some of the material, so I don’t want to say anything completely off key. I just feel like I learn better when I concentrate on everything going around me and taking notes whenever possible.. but if there is something I have to add, I wouldn’t hesitate.

When we get together in our group, we’re all usually a little quiet, but we always get done what is expected of us. It’s nice being able to work together in smaller groups because it’s easier to toss ideas around. In my opinion, I feel like it would more beneficial if we were able to meet with our groups a little more frequently during class time.

All in all, I think I’m starting to understand theory a little more. It feels so good reading a text and at the end of it realize that I’m not confused. The last piece that we had to read by Fanon was great. I really enjoyed reading it and it was nice being able to feel something for the piece, rather than disgust. Hopefully it’s all smooth sailing from here : )

First off, I really enjoyed this reading. Franz Fanon discussed the issues of identity and racism which are always interesting to read about. It’s fascinating seeing things from another person’s perspective.. and sometimes unfortunate. While reading the piece, I couldn’t help but feel bad for him– and other’s who had/have to live the way he did.

You hear a lot of things and see a lot of things over the years, but some of the items in this piece are awful. On page 112 there is a little child who says “Mama, see the Negro! I’m frightened!” WOW! That is just rediculous. What is there to be afraid of? He’s a human.. I really admired the fact that he was so calm and so accepting of everything going on around him. There was so much racist and prejudiced things being said about him and/or his race, but it seemed like he just tried not to let it affect him or his life.

After going back over my packet, I realized I underlined a lot of demeaning sentences. I just couldn’t get over the fact how mean/prejudice some people really were. On page 114 it says “A man was expected to behave like a man. I was expected to behave like a black man– .” Again, are these people serious? He’s a man too.. he shouldn’t be treated any less than a white man.

On page 116, the last paragraph, the speaker goes on to explain how white people introduce people of a different race. For example, “Oh I want you to meet my black friend. . .” I couldn’t believe that either! Why would someone feel it is necessary to introduce someone in that manner? They’re obviously face to face, they are able to see that person’s race.

On page 120 it says “The Negro is a human being.” YES, GOOD JOB! But then the man stating this goes and contradicts himself by saying, “Under no conditions did he wish any intimacy between the races, for it is a truism that ‘crossings between widely different races can lower the physical and mental level…” Oh man, need I say more?

Then on page 122 it says “Whenever you hear anyone abuse the Jews, pay attention, because he is talking about you.” That just goes to show that there is prejudice among all the races, not just one.

A couple more things to touch upon is on page 128 where it says “The white man wants the world; he wants it for himself alone. He finds himself predestined master of this world. He enslaves it.” This was obviously true back then, but very sad. Obviously, a lot of these particular men felt this way because they treated African American’s so poorly just because of the color of their skin. Then on page 129 it says “When the whites feel that they have become too mechanized, they turn to the man of color and ask the for a little human sustenance.” I find that to be true as well, and again contradictory. If the white man felt that African American’s were under them, why would they go and “steal” African American ideas/traditions?

A lot of this just really made me mad. All men and women are created equal, race shouldn’t matter..