Language in Hatterr

Sometimes during this book I felt a little bit lost. Its hilarious at parts, and its so bizarre at times that you can't help but love it, but All About H. Hatterr is definitely out in left field most of the time. H. Hatterr's mixed heritage is the catalyst for his story, which is his search for enlightenment with the sages he visits. Its such a strange book topic, especially when you consider how its written, that most of the time I just didn't know what to make of it. Its funny to think that someone actually sat down and put this together, then sent it to an editor. Even the opening of the book makes a point to say that the language is not correct, but still perfect in its own way. “it is the language that makes the book. . .. It is not pure English; it is like Shakespeare, Joyce, and Kipling, gloriously impure.”

After reading a book by Joyce, I can understand how you can draw similarities between the two authors, even though the books are separated by a long time period and thousands of miles, the ideas are very similar. They're both all about a guy who doesn't know what hes supposed to do with his life, on a road to revelation that they never really seem to find. I think that's a fear that most people our age can relate to.

Gloriously Impure Language

There was one thing that managed to catch my attention in my stupor from an all-nighter was how not only job titles are a Western identity of status, but also speech. I, like most of the class, struggle with the vernacular. That being said, the speech whether it is high flatulent or chuck full o’ accents is very indicative of a person and their culture. A lot of writers reflect regional dialects through how they write a character’s dialogue. As a result, this technique purposefully slows down the reader’s pace in order for him/her to understand the character. What happens at an unconscious level is the reader will make judgments about this character as either intelligent or dull-witted. As people, we socially interact and we make decisions from our first impressions. We do this ALL the time and the same judgments are made about us when we converse with other people.

In class, I underlined a line on page 95 that just jumped out at me and it states, “But I tell you, man, I have seen more Life than that feller Shakespeare! Things happen to me with accents on ‘em.” I was struck by this line because it was so passionate in its fightin’ words against the guru of English literature, Shakespeare. This is one thing I like about this book is it undermines all of our hang-ups on being thoroughly knowledgeable on pieces of “greatness,” which let’s face it are 9 times out of 10 only comprehensible when you have a professor taking you through each passage and what it means and why it’s so important. Oh, and of course, handy-dandy Sparknotes. From the way Desani writes, he shows how we, the readers, see how provincial it is when someone puts on airs. I see Haterr falling prey to this phenomenon for his inserts of French language, which was the language of high end British society for a time.

However frustrating it may be, I like how Desani is so acutely in tune to the human condition and he realizes how unreasonable it is to quantify one person’s credentials to a single standardized criteria. It’s not so much what is more commendable, book smarts versus street smarts, but Desani is sneaky in how he contorts the reader’s expectations for this book. For me at least, I have to consciously put aside my own biases to know what Desani is communicating to me and for me to find the method in his madness.

Language of a Mad Hatter

Of all the literature that we have whole heartedly consumed this semester, I believe this particular piece emphasizes the language of colonization more perhaps than any other of the works we have digested. The books we have covered have all had a similar theme of hybridity in characterization, as most of our protagonists have found themselves caught between two worlds and struggling to grasp onto an identity. In Hatterr, we find a character in a similar situation but now the hybridity has manifested itself stylistically in our protagonist’s strange and curious diction. The faux-pidgin superfluous pseudo Victorian (yall like that, yeah I made that up) speech employed by our mad hatter is conceivably a direct representation of this hybridization. In societies where colonial oppression supplants indigenous culture and in the case of India, where the colonizer has set up English as a means to social mobility, it would seem acceptable that our perhaps not so educated protagonist would pick up these English words and idioms as a way to foray into the upper stratospheres of society. If Hatterr, like Gandhi, places emphasis on ‘experience’ , then this lay accumulation of seemingly exaggeratedly and false ‘educational’ speech would serve this con artist in a dual sense. Though the words are of an educated nature, his application and usage of this knowledge oft comes in a ‘real life’ setting. I place real life in quotations because obviously the fancifulness of his misadventures is meant as allegory and metaphor and not meant to be taken literally, but this book is not about a scholar who studied away in the hallowed halls of the Etons, or Shattuck St. Mary’s of our world, but the focus is rather on his accumulation of experiences and how they shape his world view around him. I like Hatterr, I think Desani does good by playing with the syntax and diction, and the cacophony of intellectual vomit pouring forth from H. Hatterrs mouth is quite amusing and correspondingly poignant given the trope of the piece.

A Cry Against Conventionality

As was mentioned today in class, Desani’s H. Hatterr did seem to harbor quite an amount of resentment or disdain towards some of the more notable figures in the literary and even general world. Mostly, he really seemed rather perturbed that these figures were able to attain such a vast amount of recognition when (he believed) they did not even truly possess what should be constituted as knowledge. He speaks of himself as having a knowledge of “life,” or maybe even similar to the knowledge which Gandhi describes his father as having—that of experience.

Hatterr, though clearly not quite as well-known as those such as Shakespeare, Milton, or Marlow, it would seem, clearly thought he had just as much of a right to be—believing himself to be just as knowledgeable (due to the great amount of knowledge which he found them all to be lacking in) and probably even deserving of all of the numerous titles which he illustrates as being shown forth on his idealized tombstone. Overall, I think Hatterr (or Desani) truly did, to a degree, respect all of these forerunning literary geniuses, but would simply refuse to completely accept them as such out of the resentment and possibly slight jealousy which he felt towards them. It seems as though he is trying to illustrate how the these writers ultimately came to be so widely acknowledge due to their mere following of conventions. As Hatterr does in fact illustrate with this novel, he clearly is capable of just as much genius in his own way. He simply refuses to follow the conventions which the majority of the populace seems to find fit, finding it dire to be exceptional more in an amount of uniqueness rather than molding to the proper means of exposing such intellect. With this novel he seems to me to be trying to show just how much he truly is capable of, if people would only allow themselves to stray from acceptance solely of the conventional and veer out in experience and appreciation of something starkly unique and new.

Obi Wan and All About H. Hatterr

I like this book. A lot. I don't get all of it, but most of what i do get is hilarious.

this book makes fun of everything. shakespeare? he lived way long ago. and maybe he wasnt shakespeare, but bacon. the wasteland? the man is talking to a dog, whom he identifies as himself. The most important book of the last 100 years (Joyce) starts out with "once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moo cow..."

The scary thing about H. Hatterr is for all its ridiculousness, it adheres to the old Obi-Wan mantra: "What I told you was true, from a certian point of view"

Now a lot of Hatterr is so utterly ridiculous as to be incomprehensible, but for me it serves as a kind of outlet for all those irreverent thoughts we have about the literature we read in English classes. Hatterr says all the things you want to blurt out in English class, but just cant. He takes Freud's theories and seeks to implement them in the most carnal and unacademic way possible. Joyce takes words seriously. Language is a weighty matter. Desani looks for the absurdaties in words. Why is the word for a useless organ in your body the same an additional section in a book (appendix)? Desani seems to be poking fun at these notions by creating a world where words are taken to the extreme and define reality. This book is a lot of fun once you start laughing with desani... if you arent, he is probably laughing at you!

different critiques of religion

I agree that Hatterr is a challenge to read. Even after we were given the different elements to be on the look out for, it is still hard to understand. One of the things that I do like about the book is that it is written in a way that forces you to slow down and as it was stated in class today “sound it out”. I know at times, people (myself included) are tempted to gloss over the text, and just pick up on the “key” or “important” elements that get you whatever information you need. But that really isn’t feasible with this book.

I think another interesting thing to look at is the way that Hatterr is critiquing religion versus the way that Tutola critiqued religion in My Life in the Bush of Ghosts. In Hatterr, when the reader encounters religious figures, they are doing things that one wouldn’t associate with a “truly” religious person. The religious/mystical people the Hatterr encounter are con-artists and swindle people. If you take a look at My Life…the religious people that are encountered are acting badly, but they stick true to certain religious mythology. If I remember right, the demon baptizes him with scalding water, even though he doesn’t want it. Tutuola doesn’t say that a priest, using a visage of righteousness, does this bad thing to him. This leaves me wondering which critique is more effective. Is it more effective to use a critique that Hatter did, which highlights hypocrisy does exist in the religious world, or is better to critique it the way that Tutuola did?

Titles

As discussed in class today, we read about the titles on the coffin. I will say, I have been extremely confused throughout this entire novel, and I don't feel like I have much to add because I am not pulling the same meaning out of the passages as everyone else. However, I thought the passage with all of the titles was interesting. Throughout every novel we have read titles are an extremely important, as well as clothing, food etc. They all show a symbol of status and, I believe, a certain amount of respect. I found this play of titles was pretty amusing honestly. When you start reading a huge list like that you tend to just skip over it and move on, at least I did, and doesn't seem to matter. However, when we took a closer look at the passage I realized how ridiculous it seemed to have all of that on a coffin! I mean can you imagine walking into a cemetery and someone having to headstones with all of their titles and accomplishments? I mean, that would be the most ridiculous thing ever! So it made me think, why does this matter? Well it does in so many ways because, if you really think about, we all want the credibility that comes with the titles. As we said, that's why we choose UT over ACC. In another class of mine we were talking about Jonas Salk, who discovered the vaccine for Polio, and his wife's parents would not let them get married until he got his degree, that way the invitations could read "Dr. Jonas Salk". He could be the crappiest doctor in the world, but as long as he had the title that's all that mattered. I think Desani had a great point, you acquire all of theses titles, true or untrue, and that's all that people look at.

Boo ya H. Hatterr, how ya like me now?? A little pent up aggression.

What I’ve come to realize in this book are the infinite amounts of allusions to other works. I’m an English major, as many of you also are, and have a hoooorible time trying to understand the works that are almost force fed to me in this latest book. I find myself discouraged most of the time when reading a book who’s allusions I cannot understand, but this book takes that feeling and acts like a crack hording mother who beats her children (obviously with us, the reader, being those crack addicted babies). I’m not sure how to get through this book without throwing it in disgust, but I’ve strangely found a fascination with it. It’s almost built a game for me, ‘find something you do know’ would be the title of it-unfortunately, I’m losing right now, with no real hope of recovery. It’s as if I want to throw the book down Dane Cook style, scream ‘you don’t know me’ and call it some ‘mind ninja’ or say I’ll ‘punch it in the throat.’ It’s absurd, I know, but the shining light from all this is the emphasis I’ve come to realize on words over anything else (mostly because, well, my comprehension is less than those cool Joycian writers who seem to know more than God and can fart Hamlet in their sleep). At some points in the book, I had to stop and realize what absolute beautiful imagery H.Hatterr has in it. For this, I say, H. Hatterr isn’t a complete labyrinth or waste on those with lesser knowledge than gaseous filled 20th century men of old. Ha. At least they’d see some pretty colors, and human organs, imagine what he could mean by libido, and wonder if he’s stupid, smart, or just an enigma.

All About H. Hatterr

I don't think I've ever read anything as puzzling and complex as All About H. Hatter. I think Desani intended his writing to be interpreted as "Life" that Hatterr narrates he is in quest of. Instead of attending school or college, Hatterr dedicates his whole to searching for Life and learning from the "school of Life" (p. 33). Therefore, the author and/or narrator is deliberately vague about almost everything we read for that very purpose - learning of life.

We also talked in class about Hatterr's hybridity - I thought back to his name and the link we made between Hatterr and the Mad Hatter (Alice in Wonderland). Mad Hatter's preoccupation with time finds an echo in H. Hatterr's failure to fulfil his quest because time works in such a different manner between the fantasy (Mad Hatter) and the reality (Hatterr). This hybridity propels logic to the relation between language and reality. Like Alice, Hatterr is caught in a world he does not understand but attempts to learn of it, we are forced to recognize that language creates its own reality and identity is undetermined. In this way, Desani's departure from standard English, simple and to the point, becomes his way of articulating the reality of the local. Therefore, I think Desani's play on words (i.e., extraordinary rather than extraordinarily) is his way of experimenting with language - presenting the versatality of the local, the colloquial, and the masterful. Since we're told not to read for content, to focus on words, it's quite fascinating to see the words he chooses. If you read word for word, Desani definitely knows how to manipulate words.

The Mad Hatterr!!! ( It does make you mad)

As discussed in class, the book is a difficult read. I found it a little easier when we were given a "map" of what to read for. I do however realize it is difficult to get through his writing. Desani writes in a clever way to cause critical thinking. As English majors, we are use to correcting things when we see them as wrong. For example the sentence that contained extraordinary, we wanted to change it to the adverb extraordinarily and that is not what Desani wanted. As the reader, it is hard for me to get over the fact of just reading words and not getting content but at the same time the book is teaching me to pay attention to words that I otherwise skim over and do not give much thought. The book contains many ideas even though they are all over the place but it reminds me of our daily thoughts of our minds running from one spectrum to the other. I can appreciate the fact that gives questions in the beginning for thought even though they may not all be answered. I am not saying this is my favorite book but it reinforces the idea of research. We need to research for our own understanding of what to make up of concepts or ideas that may be jumbled like this book. In order for me to read this book, I have to remind myself of the cleverness of the writing and figure out other ways it can benefit me.

hating hatterr

Alright, so the title is a little harsh, but I think that on some level everyone can agree. Trying to read this book is painful, and as I stated in class the other day, I am not finding content, which is hard to get past since everything we learn as English majors is about content and finding the underlying meaning. Although, this book does have a lot of underlying meaning, it's hard to grasp unless you know exactly what Desani is poking fun at. While I do find this book difficult to read, and hard to understand, after going through some passages in class, I am finding the book to be a little more beautiful and humorous. I think that Desani was a very smart man and that his book gets overlooked because it is so difficult.

Gandhi and Religion

Gandhi says earlier in the novel how he was raised to be tolerant of other religions. However, he found that "Christianity was at the time an exception." He didn't like the missionaries abusing Hindu gods and so it makes sense that he would dislike Christianity. It must be noted though that Gandhi did say "at the time." We say that later in the novel, Gandhi becomes more tolerant of the religion and actually begins to compare the teachings of the "Gita" to the New Testament's Sermon on the Mount. This shows that Gandhi was interested in learning about other religions and achieving tolerance for other beliefs. This is one more admirable quality that can be added to Gandhi's nature. To me, it seemed like Gandhi wasn't so much against the essential teachings of Christianity (belief in Jesus, One God, etc), but more against some of its practices like "eating beef and drinking liquor." However, after meeting "good" Christians in England, he is willing to reform the opinion that Christianity is bad. Gandhi finds similarities between a verse from the New Testament “But I say unto you, that ye not resist evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” and Shamal Bhatt’s “For a bowl of water, give a goodly meal.” He finds that these two teachings have commonalities so he is not completely against mixing some Christian beliefs with Indian teachings.

Education

Ghandi's experiences in London are particularly interesting because of the wide variety of things he is assailed with. He finds himself swimming in a foreign culture often times at odds with his own values. Ghandi finds himself reading a variety of things for the first time- both his own sacred hindu texts as well as being introduced to the Bible by his friends. For Ghandi, the institutionalized education he receives is less helpful to him because he is forced to adjust himself to the system. Ghandi's informal education that he receives is largely of his own devising; he joins groups, seeks out vegetarian diners, etc. Whereas law school introduces a series of external facts and cases, Ghandi is always intensely interested in the inward journey. In his informal education, Ghandi is his own teacher, sets his own syllabus of study, and ultimately learns about the world by examining himself instead of the other way around.

Good fortune versus Merit

One thing I noticed and appreciated was Ganghi's stating that much of success was due more to good fortune than to his merit. He says, regarding two scholarships he received, "an achievement for which I have to thank good luck more than my merit. For the scholarships were not open to all, but reserved for the best boys amongst those coming from the Sorath Division of Kathiawad" (pg. 14).
By him admitting that he didn't actually earn the rewards through hard work, but merely by coincidence, we are shown that Gandhi really is modest and truthful. Some people would maybe acknowledge the same thing, but they might also also prefer to tell themselves and others that it was well-earned also.
Gandhi's revealing to the reader of the reason for the rewards is self-less and honest and to be admired. I feel that in today's day and age, people are to quick to take credit for things that they don't really warrant.

Gandhi's Humility

While I was aware that one of the most common conceptions about Ghandi was that he was a very humble man, I didn't realize the extent to which he went in order to maintain his humility. I thought it was very interesting that he came from an affluent background and consciously made a decision to remain in poverty, which is a sharp contrast to some of the other protagonists in other stories we have read who go to great lengths in order to escape their impoverished conditions. Gandhi's manner in which he tries to live a sinless lifestyle is also very interesting. It seems that Ghandi serves as a sort of polar opposite to Stephen Dedalus from Portrait of the Artist: While Dedalus fully embraces the life of sin and vice, Gandhi fully rejects it, and yet the two both seem to have a similar understanding of the nature of sin itself.

The Informal Education topples the Formal Education

Gandhi's view of an education is not the outlook we have in our western civilization. We are taught that the formal education is what is most important for us to grow in society. For Gandhi, his reading of the vegetarian books taught him the value of his food and benefited him. I think Gandhi benefited in his opinion when it was not taught in the classroom. When developing his theory on living a simpler life, he had come from a sort of prosperous family but he did not get the "finance" education we are taught today in school. I admire that Gandhi stuck with whatever he vowed to do even though he had many temptations from peers that he chose to hang out with. Gandhi was a mediocre student but he was a good learner. What he learned, he applied. Gandhi truly appreciated his culture and stuck with the teachings and values of culture. He did try to branch out by eating meat(vowed to mother to never eat it), he tried to be a English gentleman and realized that was not for him. For him learning is trial and error, he realized what made his education for personal growth.

Establishing His Absolute Truths

I found the manner in which Gandhi seemed to regard himself to be particularly interesting—his fear of other students and being picked on throughout his earlier childhood, his general tendency to accept what others would prefer for him to do over his own preferences, and his extreme and rather perplexing fear of public speaking.

In class it was brought up how odd it seemed that Gandhi would receive extremely harsh criticism from elders (which would totally ruin any positive self-image he might hold), yet he always took everything which elders would relay to him as absolute truth and adjust his own truths consequentially to fit. And, following such criticism, he would still regard the elders with just as much respect or affection as before. He did not allow the harsh words to affect the views he held of any such individuals, and took everything which they would tell him as opportunity to be provided with a broader perspective of himself which he might have otherwise been oblivious to. This would also correlate with the remaining aspects of his overall character and his ability to take the bad of every opportunity as a learning experience, or further aid in his experiments with truth.

P.E.

Growing up, the misery of my existence always came out during obligatory physical education known better by its established acronym, P.E. I certainly would not want Gandhi for my spokesperson against the evils and embarrassments that come from the daily 50-60 minute torture, which scarred my otherwise happy-go-lucky youth. Yet, like most adults, one can see the positive effects of physical training. Even Gandhi states how “gymnastics and cricket [were] compulsory for boys of the upper standards” and he disliked both (15).

Unlike gym and cricket, Gandhi seems to emphasize physical enlightenment as equal in importance as mental exercise by controlling one’s own body you gain a better sense of yourself in the space of your surroundings. This could be analogous to how Indians compare themselves with the English whether it is race, physique, money, and/or power.

While Gandhi may not fit the criteria of a P.E. teacher, i.e. a fairly obese coach who simply enjoys the power of commanding weakling children, he teaches the same basic principles. Developing self-discipline through dietary constraints and the limitations brought on by poverty. All this is needed to gain a closer understanding and speaking truthfully.

Handwriting

After class today, I wanted to say more about the importance Gandhi places on handwriting. Lisa mentioned that she learned to draw before she learned to write and that it greatly benefitted the quality of her handwriting. While I know that Gandhi means this example to be literal, and I agree, I also want to look at the metaphorical stance.

Observe before you do. We should teach our kids to observe flowers, birds, etc. from nature and learn to draw them. Then we should teach them to write. Drawing takes a great amount of interpretation. You look at the object, interpret it, and project your interpretation of the object. Gandhi wants to emphasize this skill. If we pay attention to the specifics and aesthetics of something, we are able to interpret it much better and produce a better product.

I just think the implication of this is wonderful. We should teach our kids not the product (the handwriting) but the skill needed (observation and interpretation). These skills are not as concrete as being able to craft letters into calligraphy, and apply to life as a whole.

I think Gandhi learns that he must observe before he can do, and I think the amount of observation he becomes able to make is shown through his careful evaluation of the school system, and even of his life in general as represented in his autobiography.

Gandhi and Education

Perhaps, in Gandhi's eyes, a man is shaped not by his accomplishments, but by his choices. Anyone who has the ability to pass a test can go to law school, where a curriculum and a set of predetermined goals are set up for you and the end result is quite clear. In the United States, from grades K-12, and even up into higher education, there is little autonomy given in regards to what subjects one must take, when one must go to school, and how long a particular section of education should last. There are written expectations and non-written expectations -- community service is supposedly voluntary, but how many hours did you need for that dream school? Gandhi has to pass matriculation exams, memorize Civil Procedure Codes, attend departmental dinners, and read a variety of books he has no interest in reading in order to fit the mold carved out by law school. He finds little fulfillment in these things. Not to say that a foundation in basic principles of learning is bad, but there is more outside of the walls of school.

Contrarily, Gandhi's personal choices shape his informal education. In the section appropriately titled "My Choice," Gandhi asserts his vegetarianism to a friend by saying "A vow is a vow. It cannot be broken." For someone whom we later find out despises public speaking, this is an act of courage. He walks miles in search of vegetarian meals and personally seeks out vegetarian dietetic books. Gandhi's venture with vegetarianism fosters in him a sense of intrinsic motivation to learn outside of law school. His hunger for knowledge is fed by his non-curricular experimentations and involvement in the Vegetarian Society. I think he is suggesting that the pursuit of knowledge has to come within, regardless of how prepared you think you are on the outside. His friend Narayan Hemchandra is an example of this -- sure, his English grammar isn't great and in English society, he might be ostracized, but he has passions for multiple languages and is confident in the person he has become. Passion, loyalty, dedication, self-acceptance, tolerance - these are the things Gandhi sees and learns outside of formal education.

Gandhi: social and verbal education

Gandhi's learning outside of law school was stressed more than the education he received because it was familiar and an extension of the home - physical, intellectual, and spiritual development - all of which is attained outside of an educational institution. Gandhi's concept of a person being educated is someone who is at a complete balance with self-development in all aspects of the human personality and not what he learns in books.

If you pay close attention, most of Gandhi's account regarding learning and teaching is outside of a classroom, where he strikes curiosity about the world around him and his desire to improve it. Gandhi's attachment to a lot of physical development through productive activities like walking and meditating allowed for physical development. Alongside, experiences should cater to the intellectual development of a person. Through work experience and social stimulation, a person is able to develop their personality. Aside from physical and intellectual development, the learned process should stimulate the spiritual aspects of a person as well.

Mainly, Gandhi's take on education is solely about the preservation and the appreciation of culture. One doesn't need a book to learn how to preserve and appreciate culture. Education should hold the capability to pervade all aspects of human behavior. In order to preserve culture, one must be able to maintain virtues and the ability to be selfless. What Gandhi learned socially and culturally during his time in London (away from the classroom), he brought to the forefront of politics. This suggests that Gandhi advocated verbal and social learning over textbook - Children do not learn with books because they process what is understood through observation. Rather, they learn by the examples of their teachers' (i.e., parents, siblings, elders, observations of strangers, etc.) virtues and attitudes.

Extraordinary

I know this doesn't follow the prompt, but I was blown away by the beginning of this book.

Gandhi clearly is an ordinary human being. Yet he is so EXTRAordinary. What makes him so? I think the story about his childhood marriage is very well written. He is telling about one of his own first encounters with the obligation to be extraordinary- to live outside of the norm. His reflections upon the situation are wonderful because he pinpoints his own faults of jealousy and his sinful lust. I think it is important that he has taken this experience and truly thought about it with an adult mentality.

What I found interesting was the way he regarded his wife. We often see women as controlled in these types of novels. While the extreme jealousy concept is not foreign (just read 1001 Nights), the idea of a woman's freedom is.

I wonder if his wife had the freedom to take her own liberties with Gandhi because she was so young?

So what does that say about culture? Only the young can be free, truly liberated? Is a young person in an adult's role, still a child?

I think Gandhi involuntarily accepted a huge amount of responsibility in his childhood through this marriage, and I think this early exposure to maturity is what makes him the man he became. I think these little snippets of his history are essential to understanding his character, and now, I have opened eyes towards reading nonfiction.

Back to Swami

Swami decisions are based on his obsession with making desirable impressions and fitting in with his peers. However, fitting in for Swami means decisions that involve him choosing between two competing brands of cultural. Swami wants to prove to Raja that he is “British” enough to hang with him. Simultaneously, there are nationalistic figures in his life he would also like to impress or that he doesn’t want to let down. This dilemma of deviating between two constructs of identity leads Swami to compromise his integrity and honesty to fit in--or to flee a scenario where he is not fitting in. It’s never convincing that Swami genuinely feels a personal connection to either culture outside of what it means to him in the moment in where he must, essentially, choose one or the other. Swami’s maturation in all this is that, little by little, he begins to realize his own naiveté and lack of true understanding of the cultural crossroads in which he stands. To hang with Raja he’s got to strive to look like Raja, sound like Raja, and think like Raja. If Raja doesn’t have to serve his own coffee and Tiffin when entertaining his friends than Swami similarly will have his coffee and Tiffin brought to him when Raja is a guest in his house. Conversely, to be cool with the nationalists at the protest against the Arrest of Gauri Sankar, Swami throws his cap into the fire without much deliberation, “Swaminathan quailed with shame. ‘Oh, I didn’t notice,’ he said, and removing his cap flung it into the fire with a feeling that he was saving the country.” This last excerpt is an example of how Narayan at times in the novel jokingly mocks his main character. Swami truly believes at the time he is doing something right, when really he is succumbing to the shame brought on by being called out as too “English” in a scenario where it doesn’t benefit him to appear as such. Part of adolescent life is about figuring out who you are. For Swami, he is not only figuring out who he is, but how the things and people around him make him who he is.

Prompt

For this week, write about the differences between formal and informal education in Gandhi's AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Why do you think Gandhi stresses the education he received in London outside of law school? What does he learn from the people he's with and the groups he joins? Why do you think he stresses these over the law school?

Preaching

Something I wanted to talk about in my presentation but didn't get a chance to is I drew a connection to Joyce from Narayan. This connection was Rajam's attempts to pacify the two groups of friends in Chapter Six. The "lecture on friendship" Rajam gives the two groups seems more like a diatribe, one that stressed "hair-raising accounts of what hell had in store for persons who fostered enmity" (38). This immediately reminded me of the lecture by the priest about hell in Joyce, and the vivid description he provided about the hell that awaited those who were not God-fearing, good Christians. I wonder, then, if the inclusion of Rajam's speech is a parallel to Joyce, or at least to this sect of Christianity. It may be an even greater parallel to colonialism, as we have already discussed other qualities in Rajam that make him a symbol for the British rule.

Rajam and Mani's friendship

As I was reading Swami and Friends, one thing that stuck out for me was the way in which Rajam became friends with Mani at the beginning of the story. It would appear that Rajam basically forces Mani into being friends at gunpoint, which struck me as a bit odd. It could be argued that Rajam's actions led to a peaceful result, and that the end justifies the means, but in my mind a friendship can only be made when both sides are in agreement with one another. A relationship based on the idea of "be my friend, or else" seems a bit broken to me. This scene perhaps makes a statement about the attitudes of the British imperialists when they colonized India: "Let us govern you, or else!" Another part of the scene which has colonial symbolism is the offering of biscuits as an olive branch. Biscuits are a very British foodstuff, and basically offering them as an act of friendship after holding Mani at gunpoint creates a very strange scene indeed.

Much More Realistic

What I liked most about this novel was the way Narayan wonderfully describes the childlike behavior of Swami and his friends in a realistic manner. I guess I had a much easier time relating to this since more or less Swami was a normal kid. Some of the previous novels we've read like "Ake" had a totally different description of the main character who was a child. For instance, I think a lot of us had trouble believing Wole's child-genius qualities. However, because Narayan uses such a realistic character, I find the messages sent in this novel having a greater impact on me. Using Rajam, a boy who Swami desparately tries to impress, as a symbol of Britishness or Westernization just made all the effects that colonization can have on a child seem more believable. For instance, in "My Life in the Bush of Ghosts," Tutuola draws a parallel between the ghost world and the real world where colonization is happening. At many times during that novel, I found it hard imagining what life would be like under colonial rule because it was hard to relate something so unbelievable like ghosts to something so realistic like colonization. However, in Narayan's novel, there is such a refreshing description of what it feels like to be a child and the thoughts children tend to have like wanting to impress a friend which is something most of us have been through. Therefore, its easier to relate to the idea that colonization psychologically impacts the mind of children into believing that they are inferior and everything Western is superior.

Jimminy Crickets

I was reading over chapter 13 and I was stumbling through the allegorical intent of Rajam, so I decided to muse on this for a minute.
The chapter starts off with the affirmation of Rajam’s forgiveness of Swaminathan’s political sins. Rajam, the symbol of colonial power, is offended that his friend and subordinate had decided to take grievance against state and policy, or rather the school and the headmaster, into his own hands. Rajam’s father was a political servant, “and hence his family was anti-political”, so this act must have in some way been perceived as a disrespect to Rajam, for he, himself and his family has profited much off the colonial arrangement of India. Rajam’s family may not be the exact representation of British political authority but he certainly stands as a medium for it’s interaction with the Indian people. Swaminathan representing the average middle class citizen stands inbetween the influence of a presence like Rajam, the affluent and entitled, and Mani the strong and labor oriented individual. Rajam quips at Swami’s expense in regard to his new educational surroundings, comparing and remarking on his shift to the Board High School, with that of his previous stint at Albert’s Mission. In an interesting exchange Swaminathan, I believe, attempts to establish some sort of commonality between Rajam and a new friend Akbar in reference to their shared affluence, but tip toes around an issue of faith since Akbar is a muslim (or reffered to in the somewhat antiquated term of Mohammedan – I assert a “orientalist”/ or subtley chauvenist inspiration for this). But instead of Rajam finding a commonality with Swaminathan on the basis of faith, Rajam dismisses Swaminathans religious point.
“He is a very fine Mohammedan, calls Mohammed of Gazni and Aurangazeb rascals”
‘What makes you think they were that?’
“Didn’t they destroy our temples and torture the Hindus?...”
“We Brahmins deserve that and more’, said Rajam. ‘In our house my father does not care for New-Moon days and there are no annual Ceremonies for the dead.”
It seems to Rajam, or perhaps through metaphor to the colonial power structure, that Civics and Law are the determining factors for their idealized notion of commonality. It was political dissidence that separated Swaminathan and Rajam, but it seems that Rajam is stating that if it were religion or ethnicity perhaps that separation would not have occurred based solely on that. Religion, heritage, these things are useful when they denote power, but otherwise they are of little concern to Rajam’s family.
It seems interesting that immediately following this Rajam brings up the idea of starting a cricket team. The names and acronyms lend to a depiction of political parties and affiliations. Swaminathan says that he doesn’t think the can play cricket. Cricket a largely upper class game, is now being made available to Swaminathan. Political parties are instituted by powerful aristocratic families to give lay citizens and middle class practitioners a feeling of political involvement. The political party opens up the ‘playing field’ to the historically lower class, or at least relatively lower class individuals. I think it is poignant that Swaminathan has dreams of over taking the Board school team, or the St. Albert’s school team. Every political party wants to challenge the order of things, but as Rajam points out, the party or team has to register itself and pay taxes to the government in order to be allowed an existence. One has to pay the dues to the system in order to have a chance to change the system. This is what Rajam hands down to Swaminathan, as the aristocrats handed down to the colonized citizenry.

Swami at the train station

I think that Swami deserves some serious commendation for going to the train station to see Rajam off. First he was uncertain what to give as a goodbye present, but then he decided on one. Second he woke up early to get to the train station on time. Third, even after a moment of pure doubt and self-consciousness when he saw the crowd around Rajam and his family, he still makes his appearance to his friend.
Indeed, just ten days before, Mani had told Swami that Rajam would never want to see him again, but Swami must have decided that their friendship was worth more than just a fight. Rajam's leaving was final, whereas the situation with the cricket game would probably blow over in time because that's how kids are.
In other words, Swami took a pretty big risk is going to the station because he knew that Rajam had been mad him for some time now and that there was a chance that he would completely blow Swami off. Rather than being afraid to take this risk of pain and embarrassment, Swami went to the station, gave Rajam his present and got the goodbye he wanted.
Whether or not Rajam would write to him is another story. At least by Swami going to the station, he can assure himself that his and Rajam final moment together was one of cordiality, which to me is better than never getting to see him again and having the cricket game (or lack thereof) be their last memory.

The Blatantly Less Obvious

Narayan’s short narrative of the young Swami and his group of friends might seem at surface level to be fairly trivial. In contrast to some other authors we have read, such as Joyce, he used very simple and straightforward language, and presented his ideas in one short and concrete narrative. Though not simply one narrative, My Life in the Bush of Ghosts was presented rather similarly. The author of Bush of Ghosts also had some extremely interesting ideas he wished to portray, and using the life story of one young boy, also found a simple means through which to express them. Though presented in simple concrete narratives, each is truly much more abstract and though-provoking than one might initially presuppose, and I find it extremely interesting that the author’s chose to present their ideas in this manner. When possessing a message which one would wish to portray, it is often times easier to simply spell out one’s argument in a clear-cut fashion which is easy for the reader to grasp and understand. One could then argue that each of these two authors found a more artistic way with which to get their messages across in choosing rather to incorporate and slightly obscure their thoughts in the form of a narrative.

Swami & Decision-Making

Although I could hypothesize about better plans of action Swami could have taken to deal with his predicaments, I can't blame him for being anything other than human. (He's a kid, too. They get away with more stuff.) Human fallibility follows us from birth to death. Our decisions shake us, break us, and make us. That doesn't mean they are always easy or that we arrive at them after a certain amount of meditation.

His motivations to both skip school (to play cricket) and run away (to avoid cricket) have to do with his inability to cope with structure vs. chaos. From the opening page of the book, we can see that Swami values the structure that school provides - academically and socially. There is a schedule of classes that recurs daily, there are teachers that are your authority figures, and it is expected that he has a mood of "work and discipline."

He complains about these things like they are dreadful, but as a child, I think he appreciates the familiarity of the situation. (And what child doesn't complain about school?) When he describes his friends, he describes them in terms of their classroom demeanor and intellectual capabilities. School gives him a place in which to define himself and others. He skips school because he thinks the doctor is vouching for him, therefore upholding the hierarchy of society and the structure of school. During the incident with the headmaster, he suddenly feels like this place of structure has become so chaotic. He has already been dismissed from the other school, and in his mind, I think he wishes he hadn't been so gullible, but he doesn't see any way out of it, so he panics and runs. On page 116, when he is grappling with his decision, Narayan beings each sentence with "He..." and this repetition creates anxiety that overwhelms the reader simultaneously. This repetition is also seen on page 128, when Swami is in the forest as well.

Eh, the articulation of that thought was not 100%, but I think you get what I mean. What does this say about his maturation? Well, I think it says that he has a lot of growing up to do, but dealing with the mental and emotional consequences of your own decision making is a skill that comes with time and experience. I mean, we are all much older than Swami is, and I guarantee that we still grapple with our decision-making...age is just a number, after all.

Similar stories

As I have continued to read through the Swami and Friends, I can't help but notice a definite parallel with My Life in the Bush of Ghost. Although the two novels are different they both have a theme of an alternate universe. The passage we discussed in class today, pg. 128, where Swami is in the forest by himself is a perfect example. Yes, his fear is driven by him being young, but in order to make it out of that fearful place he imagines himself on the cricket field. This alternate universe and mindset helps him to control certain things. He doesn't have to be scared because he is winning the cricket game. Swami is seen as a naive child throughout the entire novel, and only at the end does he finally start making these connections to the real world. Being a child that is ignorant to the things of the world, such as consequences, has brought Swami this far but at some point he must face reality. I feel like this is very similar to My Life in the Bush of Ghost because the ghost world is an alternate universe, however, reality has to be entered into at some point. Now in this novel, yes, the character has a choice to enter back into the ghost world or not, where as Swami does not have this choice. Growing up is inevitable, and unfortunately Swami has to come to the realization that the real world isn't also fun and full of friends. I was suprised the novel ended this way, but I did think it was an epic moment when Swami realizes that Rajam probably isn't going to write and they probably won't be friends. It was sad to see a child step out of the clouds of childhood and on to this highway we call life, which is sure to blindside you at any moment. Narayan does a wonderful job of showing the progression of his character and the changes that are inevitable in a vastly changing world.

The title of this book says it all. It almost sounds a little cartoonish, like bugs bunny and friends or something like that, but "Swami and Friends" perfectly sums up this novel. Its all about our young protagonist and all of the friends that he grows up with. I think that we all have a little Swami in us. That need to please the people around us, especially our friends, can be a very strong motivator. It hurt me a little bit that Swami could not stay friends with all of the children that we see in his posse at the beginning of the novel, but I suppose that is just a natural part of growing up, no matter where you live or the circumstances of your life.

Swami is ten years old, and life for him consists mainly of the adventures that he has with his friends, avoiding monotonous homework, something we can all relate to, and coping as best as he can with the teachers and other authority figures he may encounter. His greatest passion is the M.C.C - the Malgudi Cricket Club - which he founds together with his friends. His crowning achievement is the day when his tests are over and he gets off school. Then its time to party. Narayan uses delicate details to make us sympathetic to the boys and their adeventures and he establishes perfectly a childhood world that is far more realistic than some of the other novels that we've read before.

Of course, Swami’s innocent and impulsive nature winds him up getting him in trouble as the civil unrest of 1930s India carries him and friends into uncharted territory. The quite, normally subdued b oy somehow manages to get himself expelled from two schools and he even runs away from home.
Despite Swami’s little adventures this novel is far more than a simple narrative of friends playing cricket, as interesting as that is.

decisions

With this novel, Narayan really seems to have captured the essence of being a young person and being face with decisions. In the beginning of the novel, it feels like Swami is only concerned with instant gratification. One prime example is when he wants the hoop. He is duped into believing that the Coachman can take his small amount of money and magically turn it into a larger sum of money, and Swami will then be able to get the hoop he so desperately desires. Of course, after his money is taken, he realizes that there is no magical ability to multiply money and that he isn’t getting a hoop. This scenario, to me, really exemplifies a child’s desire for instant gratification and an inability to understand being deceived. It also shows that at this point in Swami’s life, he isn’t thinking long term, he is only thinking about the next moment, and what he can do to make that next moment happy for himself, or what he can do to ensure that he enjoys the next moment.

Then we are confronted with the decision to run away from the school when the headmaster is punishing him for skipping class. “A flood of emotion swept him off his fee, a mixture of fear, resentment, and rage. He hardly knew what he was doing. His arm shot out, plucked the cane from the headmaster’s hand, and flung it out of the window. Then he dashed to his desk, snatched his books, and ran out of the room. […] He would not be admitted to any school. So he would have to work and earn…he might get some rupees-and he could go to hotels and buy coffee and tiffin as often as he pleased.” (page 116) Here, we still see this almost knee-jerk reaction way of making decisions, with instant gratification as the reward. As the passage continues, we see him in this childlike state of trying to “plan” something that to him is a logical future.

It isn’t until towards the end that we see him begin to have moments of maturity. As was pointed out in class, when he is scared in the woods, he comes to the realization that he shouldn’t have done what he did. He is beginning to understand that there are consequences to his actions. And he is slowly realizing that not everyone will tell him the truth and at the end, we are seeing the notion of discerning who to trust and who not to trust dawn on him.

Goodbye Rajim

I think what makes the Rajim/ Swami conflict more heartbreaking is the obsession Swami shows for maintaining a friendship with Rajim since the very beginning. Swami is willing to embrace Rajim from his first appearance at the school despite the objections of Mani, his current best friend. He even lets it get as far as a fight. While he does sell out his friendship with Rajim to Mani, his true feelings are expressed through the narration. Once Mani and Rajim become friends Swami's life seems to be consumed with his friends. School, religion, and family seem to come second to his friends and activities with them.

He is constantly trying to live up to Rajim's reputation that he has created for himself. Swami wants to appear as a worthy companion for Rajim and becomes obsessed with retaining their friendship. For example, when Rajim comes to Swami's house for the first time he makes arrangements to deceive Rajim into thinking that Swami is wealthier and more sophisticated than he truly is. For some reason or another, I think that Swami looks up to Rajim and envies his life.

The ending is a failure. It is the failure of the friendship that Swami has been so devoted to maintaining. Without even a word, or a clear wave, Rajim leaves. Swami didn't know before hand. Rajim didn't talk to him. He just boards the train "Carrying away Rajim for ever" (pg 139).

So the heartbreak for me comes from the fact that Swami is obsessed with this friendship which is told about in depth and just like that Rajim leaves and the friendship dies. I think if Swami was not characterized like this- like he didn't really care if they were friends or not- it would not be nearly as sad or effective an ending.

I think the ending is abrupt and somewhat confusing. (like seriously, were did that come from?) But I think it's abruptness is what makes you keep thinking about it way after finishing the book.

English 360L – FINAL ESSAY

English 360L – FINAL ESSAY

Please choose one of the following prompts for your midterm essay; if you would like to write on another topic, please come and talk to me about it first. This essay should be a demonstration of literary analysis that engages with one of the main themes of this course. Papers should be in polished collegiate prose, MLA style, double-spaced, one-inch margins, in 11 or 12 point Times or Times New Roman ONLY. Final papers are due electronically to me (by email: snehal.shingavi@mail.utexas.edu) on May 7^th.

1. Choose any passage from Joyce, Soyinka, Tutuola, Narayan or Desani (no more than 2 pages in length). Using only material from those two pages, explain how the language of the novel helps bring out themes that we have been addressing in class. This is an exercise in closer reading. I want to see not only how well you understand the themes of the course but also how carefully you consider the literary techniques, style, tempo, and/or word choices to arrive at your conclusions. Make sure that you choose a passage that we haven’t covered in class to talk about for your paper.
2. Compare Narayan and Joyce. In both books we have narrators and characters who are either suspicious of nationalism or critical of how nationalism erodes the individual. How are those critiques of nationalism represented? Are these legitimate critiques of nationalism or the outgrowth of what Ngugi calls “self-loathing” (the alienation that colonial education produces)?
3. Compare Desani and Tutuola. In both novels we have wild stylistic experimentation (in Tutuola this is indigenous folk narrative; in Desani, we have high modernism). What is the function of their formal experimentation? What is the relationship between the formal experimentation and the processes of colonialism that are represented in the novels? Which novel do you think more consistently critiques colonization and why?
4. Compare Soyinka and Gandhi. In both books (autobiography/memoirs) we have authors describing their own education and the development of their own nationalist politics. What difference does the adult voice in Gandhi’s Autobiography make in comparison with the child-like voice in Ake? How do autobiographies and memoirs narrate the problems of colonial education differently than the novels we have read? What can you tell about the audiences for whom these texts were written?

Swami's decisions

I’m firmly convinced that all the decisions Swami makes are statements or assertions of his “authority.” His complex seems to stem from the need to be superior to his peers or at least his juniors; and these distinctive titles are confused in Swami’s mind. He has difficulties discerning who his peers are – such an example is his contextual expression to a teacher in the junior class. The teacher doesn’t recognize him as a peer.
His criteria for making decisions seem to stem directly from comparison with others. After his examinations, instead of confidently relaying his answers to his friends, he passively asks, and then evaluates his performance with the performance of his friends. He lives his life with desires of achievement, but I think he hasn’t the maturity to understand the steps involved in getting there. When situations become volatile for Swami, in actuality a discrepancy between his assumed authority and the reality of his situation are in conflict. He then acts as quickly as possible to get out of the situation. Such a decision is made when he runs away. His authority was questioned in public, he assessed the situation, found himself exposed and embarrassed, reacted in extreme, and then evaluated his embarrassment with context related to Rajam – Rajam exposed Swami saying he had “no sense” in the matter, and inadvertently swayed Swami into changing his purpose for calling Rajam out of school. His inclination for running away was more powerful with regard to his emotionally abusive and apparently terrifying father. Again, his embarrassment plays part in Swami’s rash decision - him trying to avoid a situation which calls his authority into question.
In short, his criterion:
Egregiousness of action, impact on others, question of authority?, outline of extreme consequences, decision of movement, impact of movement, glorification, rationalization, movement.

Swami's Decision

As in the previous novels, we see children who grow up to make something of themselves whether they are forced or not by circumstances and environment. Swami is similar for he has to make many decisions for himself that can affect his future. Swami chooses to loathe about like a ten year old should and he chooses to do this instead of hitting the books hard and preparing for studies all the time. He chooses the child like tendencies to stay his age but then at certain times when inviting his friend Rajam over he wanted to seem more mature. At certain times, his rebellious ways take over. For example, when throwing objects at the headmasters window he felt bold and like a man but when he knew he was caught he chose to revert back to child like ways and lie. Mostly, what I got from Swami because of a lack of wisdom or immaturity, he tended to flee when things weren't going his way. When he returned the day or around the time of the match, people were coming to see him and made a spectacle of him and so he was excited. I felt as though he should have been punished in a way that made him understand how his family and friends were feeling and even when his father did make a comment, swami didn't like it. But it taught him that he had consequences no matter the severity.

Swami grows up...

I certainly feel I can relate to this novel. Swami's desire to excel at cricket is equivalent to my childhood desires to be like "the rest of the kids in my school." I fondly remember telling my mother those very words growing up. I think similar to Swami, minorities (and I speak for myself) relate internally in which they want to be mainstreamed in order to be considered a part of what's considered their "superior majority."

Swami's desire to excel at cricket is an indication of him wanting to be more like the British. The metaphor of Swami and his friends' immersion in cricket is that of internalizing values and cultures of the British. If you understand the rules of cricket, you are that much more British. Therefore, if you play cricket you are so-called British and you support its justices. Choosing cricket over school primarily shows Swami's dependency on imitation - being more like Rajam, Mani, his father, or the headmaster, or all of them, perhaps. Swami is very imitative by nature, so his power of imitation has a huge affect on his development and/or maturity. Also, it simply reflects the quality and reality of adolescence, where life hasn't fully developed yet for a young boy who dreams of being accepted by all that is superior to him.

Our young protagonist chooses running away as a refusal to oppression by authority. Though the case, he is still attracted to authority because it leaves him with a promise of continued stability, security, and relationship. Swami struggled with the evolution of the "self" but was finally able to accept that he was essentially Indian before he was anything else - a refusal of "Englishness" (suggested by Swami's parting of friendship with Rajam). I think these two scenes, his return and Rajam's departure, is so poignant because it ultimately suggests an ending of childhood for Swami. His return is a departure of his innocent and easily influenced personality for his newfound ability to combine attentiveness to the realities of life and a consciousness to unrevealed intentions of human motive.

choices galore!

As we have discussed, Swami is constantly faced with choices. In fact, each chapter is based around a choice. I find it interesting that at such a young age, he is faced with some extreme choices. Granted, some choices are age appropriate, like what group of friends he chooses to involve himself with, but many young children are not given the choice of choosing their schools. While he might not be "given" the choice, he takes it upon himself and makes these choices. I think that Swami makes his decisions based on the here and now. He does not seem to think of the consequences, but of what everyone else is doing and what seems to be correct at the time. When I first thought about it, I thought that he was taking the easy way out, for instance, not standing through a punishment, but the more I think about it the more it seems that he makes decisions based on how proud he is. An example, is that he burns his hat to make India proud, and he runs away from his school because he is too proud to stand and take a punishment. I also think it does have to do with his age and his maturity, that while he has a mind of his own, he is easily influenced by those proud people around him.

PROMPT

For this week, please consider writing about what kind of decision making criteria you think Swami uses to decide between the various options that are available to him: why does he choose running away instead of playing cricket; why does he choose to skip school to play cricket; etc. Then, write about what you think that decision-making calculus tells us about his development/maturation.

Gandhi readings

We will only be reading the First part of Gandhi's Autobiography (pgs. 1-87)

Journal

One thing that struck me while reading, and that we briefly touched upon in class, was the journal format of the very end of the novel. This shift intrigued me, and I spent some time trying to figure out why Joyce decided to make this rhetorical change in the narration of the novel. I think it places emphasis on the idea of individualism, and the search for identity that Stephen displays through the novel. Perhaps it can be seen as Stephen's maturation, no longer a stream of consciousness search for identity but a more structured, controlled manifestation. The journal method could also be a parallel for his growth in age, as at the beginning of the novel we have a more childlike unfocused, sporadic literary technique. The shift to the journal is thus more adult: Stephen is purposefully penning these things, rather than simply shifting from one idea to the next as his mind shifts.

The End?

The ending of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man gives the impression that Stephen's journey is not finished and that his life is a work in progress. As the title of the book promises, we are given a portrait of Stephen as he is growing up. The conclusion of the novel must give the impression that Stephen's story continues. This seems to fit a general trend in the novels we have read, many of which seem to give a portrait of a nation in its infancy. For example, The Book of Not follows the birth of independant Zimbabwe as well as Tambu's adolescent years. The story doesn't always end in a satisfactory manner- there usually isn't too much closure- but it gives the impression that the story can't conclude because the struggle for the colonial (or formerly colonial) nation continues after independance.
Interestingly, Stephen seems perplexed by the education system. He comes to the conclusion that education- at least, as it exists as an institutional form- is not the answer to his dilema. Most colonial novels seem interested in examining the flaws of education as well.

Joyce's English

Portrait of the Artist gives great insight into the command of the English language that Joyce uses in his work. His depiction of the different language patterns used by the characters described in the novel show that Joyce's insight into the intricacies of the English language allows him to meta-analyze a given character's speech in order to further reveal hidden truths about them. Joyce's comparison between the speech of his friends Davin and Cranly highlights this gift; comparing the full-of-life speech of Davin to the "lumpy" language of Cranly. It is clear that Stephen Dedalus (and by association Joyce himself, on whom the character is based) places a great deal of importance on how well a person uses English and makes judgments and assumptions about people based on this. This is made readily apparent when Stephen has a conversation with his dean at the end of the novel and the dean's vocabulary is found wanting. One of the great ironies of the importance of English to Stephen is that he realizes that because of his Irish heritage, English will always be somewhat of a borrowed tongue for him.

Jumping for Joyce

This Künstlerroman took us into the existential journey of a young artist as he struggled to find his identity in the burgeoning world of modernity as it clashed with the fading principles of Victorian imperialism. The character Stephen is exposed to a wide array of external and internal influences all conjoining to concoct a tumultuous brew of idealistic turmoil, as he tries to discern of these influences which is ‘real’ and which is folly.

This novel was peculiar because in several ways the “classic” colonial experience that we had been studying was in ways turned on its head. The growing independence of the young boy often matches allegorically the growing independence movement within the country, but for the first time in a novel we have a character that truly wants no part or association in his mother country. Not only does Stephen seem none too invested in Ireland’s own movement away from colonialism, but in a weird paradoxical shift we find our protagonist consistently refusing things commonly associated with the Irish or at least now southern Irish culture and nationalism; primarily Stephens revulsion to the Catholic Church. His affinity for words evolves into a broader cultural affinity as he rejects his race. Though Ngugi would ultimately disagree with an individual abandoning one’s culture in favor of the culture of the colonizer, I think Ngugi would point to this instance as an affirmation of what he believes colonization does to the colonized mind. After generations of subservience and second class citizenship an Irish writer (which in itself is seen as a cultural signature) no longer wants to be Irish. The land of poets is now breeding poets which turn its back on its green fields. What would Brendan Behan say? Is Stephen Daedelus’ rejection of his own culture is in some way quite Irish? The loathing of these social constructs thrust upon Hibernia, marring the once virgin fields, and fey coats, …yada, yada, yada, and Ireland isn’t the same. Did Stephen reject his race because of Englishness or because of himself? Or perhaps he is just so lost he doesn’t even care anymore. Fairly modern I suppose, the death of the optimistic delegation of faith and the realization that the greasy machine -ran palpability of the world will crush your puny dreams, so your wings better be made of titanium and jet fuel or the nets might catch them up ol’ boy.

Switching Voices

As Joyce finishes out the novel, he makes a curious change into a journal format. I think it is a good metaphor for Stephen’s continued search for a personal voice. I think it also shows how words without consciousness can often mean a very different story from similar situations. He is literally speaking in his own voice for the first time, and it shows how different people are perceived by others rather than by themselves. This ending is also interesting because it ties back into the opening of the novel. Mr. Dedalus opens the story as an external voice without a stream of consciousness. As we discussed in class Stephen doesn’t really know what his voice or his path in life should be. At first he is a quote machine, letting past philosophers talk for him, but eventually realizes he must use his own language or else risk not finding himself at all. We really get to see this voice of Stephen’s in his journal entries. He isn’t imitating anyone anymore; he has started making his own decisions, finding his own convictions. It’s an important moment in a young person’s life and we really get a sense that Stephen has become his own person. Of course, Stephen’s own voice may not be the polished, thoughtful prose of Joyce, but that just makes the idea of Stephen’s own voice that much more believable and genuine.

In class we briefly discussed the issue of femininity and the subjugation of women throughout the novel. I don’t know if that was how Joyce himself felt, or if that was a general attitude towards women from his time period, but either way it is not flattering. Still, it was good to see Stephen begin to be a man, so to speak, taking control of a situation and not letting his fear of rejection get in the way of his life. When Stephen mentions meeting Emma on Grafton Street, and actually talking with her, as a person, we can see that he has broken free from the women who have controlled his life to that point, his nagging mother and the prostitutes that have pulled his attention throughout. He starts seeing people for people, not as objects that have to be impressed then collected and counted. He doesn’t need his mother and the rest in order to become the artist that he knows he should be.

Coming of Age Tale

I think this novel most reminds me of Ake in the sense that it is a coming of age tale to me and a continuous development of character and identity. We see Stephen at a very young age begin to question limitations and the nature of everything. We see him scolded and living in constant fear of sinning. Yet Stephen is bullied at school, somewhat intimidated by Dante, and distanced from his father and his natural autonomous characteristics begin to come out. By using Count of Monte Christo as a form of escape, Stephen is developing his affection for literature but also providing himself with an outlet to express himself. I think this is a key turning ponit in Stephen's life as this is when he truly becomes independent. He goes through typical struggles like family relations and money budgeting. He also works with sexual desires. Concerning the prostitutes, Stephen seems tortured and torn between what he has always been taught is right and what he wants to do in the moment. Stephen's impulsiveness is a characteristic that has caused him much grief and one that he must deal with. He becomes depressed because of the degradation of his soul and I think this sadness and regret is a driving force for Stephen's independence. Since he feels alone he acts alone, just as he did at a younger age. I do think that Stephen has a strong desire to repair his soul and begins that journey.

I want to say that this is interesting to me, because I find this part of the book more honest and believable than the beginning in which Stephen is just reciting prayers. I think his independence and desire to repair his soul makes his part in Catholicism more genuine. This time around it is he himself who is pushing him to be right with God. I think we see Stephen's true devotion to religion.

But that devotion dwindles again and Stephen is in this kind of limbo. I think that the extreme guilt for his sins has pushed Stephen into such a far away, lonely place that he cannot find even God again.

I can't say that I get a resolution of Stephen's character out of this novel. I thought he would stick to Catholicism and find his own way in the religion but I don't find that answer.

I don't really know what I think about the book's ending. I do think though, that Stephen is struggling in a world with different languages, religions, and races just like the other characters in our other novels.