Love and its Destructive Properties

In Song of Soloman, love plays a big role in nearly every character’s life. Often when we think of love, we envision a good, romantic situation, but this type of love is scarce in this novel. Some of the main love connections that are found in Song of Soloman include both Ruth and Hagar’s love for Milkman and these are the most destructive of the lot. In my opinion, love drives the plot and creates the most conflict between characters.

Let us start with Hagar and Milkman. This relationship starts when Milkman is young and he is struck by her beauty “She [Hagar] was to him [Milkman], as pretty a girl as he’d ever seen… He seemed to be floating.(45)”. We learn that for the next couple of years, Milkman is obsessed with his cousin (yes I know its weird). To be clear it is often not the love itself that causes destruction, but rather when it hurts the mindset of the lover. When one of the characters in this novel is obsessed with something, especially another person, it often spells an incoming disaster.

Back to the example from the book, the relationship between Milkman and Hagar grows beyond a one sided love from milkman. Over time the relationship switches and suddenly Hagar is the one falling over Milkman, and meanwhile he has lost interest. Hagar’s love reaches a new level and this is seen after Milkman tries to break things off with her. Then the love story turns into every crazy killer movie, and Hagar goes around trying to kill Milkman to make him pay for breaking her heart. This is one example of how love causes Hagar to act irrationally, and her obsession for Milkman lead to her demise.

The other big relationship in the story is between Milkman and his mother, Ruth. Just like the previous relationship, this one has its highs and lows. Ruth’s motherly love for Milkman is initially seen as good, and when Macon tries to keep Milkman from Ruth we find it awful. This was my initial reaction, but it changed quickly after learning that Ruth was using Milkman to get back at her husband. This put a new twist on the initial story about motherly love, and it is turned into a much darker version. This motherly love causes many conflicts throughout the Dead household, and it is just another example of destructive love.

Overall, there are a lot of different sections of Song of Solomon that are effected by some kind of love, but it often leads to destruction and problems that drive the plot.

Bad Relationships in 20th Century Novels

             There seems to be a trend in some of these books that we have read in which characters stay in bad relationships. It is as if they chose to ignore their issues, and since we have an overview of the situation, we see that this turns out badly. This trend is especially seen in The Sun Also Rises and Wide Sargasso Sea. In The Sun Also Rises, the bad relationship is the one between Brett and Jake, where Jake is in love with Brett but since they can never be together, she continuously hurts him. 

             In Wide Sargasso Sea, Antoinette finds herself in two separate bad relationships which she can’t seem to get out of. The first is when she was a child. This relationship is between Antoinette and her (so called) friend Tia. Their friendship is full of conflict but there were the two main times that pointed towards a bad relationship. The first was at the pool when they get into a big fight about somersaults. This encounter went beyond a normal fight between children and after that happened I thought that they would not like each other anymore. But it turned out, I was wrong because not much later when Antoinette’s family is leaving she tries to run to Tia and plans to live with her. Tia’s response is to throw a rock at Antoinette and this is what finally makes Antoinette realize they are not friends. This is the first example in the book of Antoinette not understanding the relationship she is in, which leads to more problems.

             The second relationship is the one between Antoinette and Rochester. Their marriage is strange from the beginning since they barely knew each other at the time of their marriage. This lack of communication between them continues throughout the book and we see that despite being in this bad relationship they never break apart. There are times when Rochester is given the chance to simply leave, but for some reason he does not take it. Antoinette on the other hand loves Rochester, but he is just rude to her and sleeps with other people (This is very much like Brett and Jake). The relationship is failing, but Antoinette is trying so hard as is seen with the love potion, but all this makes it worse. The moral these books tell is that if the relationship is going very badly it might be better to just leave.

A deeper look into the absurd and why it is that way

The Stranger by Camus explores the absurd in that we are put into the mind of a character who seems to have minimal to no emotions. To accompany this lack of emotion he seems to have no ideas of his own, as is seen in his simple “yes” as an answer to many people’s questions. In class we have talked about the idea that nothing in life really matters and now that we have finished the book it is much more obvious how seriously Meursault took this idea to heart. All of these factors put together make Meursault a very, for lack of a better word, strange character and we the reader are not the only ones to think this, since the jury kills him much for these reasons.

The absurdity of Meursault is what drives this story as we search for any reasoning behind his actions. For my panel presentation we even did an article that argued that Meursault had some condition that caused him to not have emotions. This shows that we are all trying to find an explanation as to what Meursault is thinking and why he is doing things. We are always searching for concrete answers and we are scared by the idea that someone “just does something”. Just like the jury we look for a reason and when we find out that Meursault has no motive, we think of him in a bad light, some even calling him a monster.

So one big question is why would Camus create a character like this. We have already talked a little about how Camus might be basing his character of his philosophy that nothing in life really matters which would fit with how Meursault does not seem to think there are any repercussions for his actions. This is a good explanation, but what if there is really no reason for his characterization because just like Meursault believes, there is no meaning to anything we do. What if just like Meursault, Camus just said yes to someone who asked him to write a book and it really has no meaning to him. Although I'm quite sure that this is not true it is a good thing to think about when we look at this novel.

What are your thoughts on the absurd parts of this book as well as your ideas on what this might mean?

Gregor's Metamorphosis of the Mind

          The first sentence of Franz Kafka’s Metamorphosis simply tells the reader that one morning Gregor Samsa woke up as a bug. This implies an abrupt transformation where one day he is human and the next instantly a bug, but the story seems to take a different path than this. Since we have finished the book, we see the full transformation of Gregor during his time as a bug. His changes are mostly seen in his physical abilities (or lack there of) but more importantly how his mind changes.

           At the beginning of The Metamorphosis, Gregor Samsa is just learning how to use his body. He has difficulty turning over and tries to walk on two legs which ends up hurting him. At this point you can still see the thoughts of a human because he is thinking about his job and trying to do normally human activities. Although there is on main turning point in his physical metamorphosis, the change in how he thinks is a multi step process. He starts out mostly human as we see through his attempts to talk to his boss but he is also having trouble communicate with his family members. The first time that we see an obvious mental change is when he eats for the first time. We see here how much of a bug he is because he avoids the food that humans might eat and is drawn to the old cheese.

          From there the next step where his mentality seems to become less and less human is seen when his mother and sister start to take out his furniture. When they first start to move his things, he simply points out how nice it is of his sister to do this. Then when his mother says her reasoning why its a bad idea Gregor immediately changes his mind which seems to show that he has no identity. For a moment, he had the mindset of a bug in that he was going to be happy with them taking away his human possessions, but instantly snaps back into human mindset when his mother makes that comment. He has now made a change from having his own thoughts to being in between human and bug. This is just one step of his mental metamorphosis. 

          Gregor Samsa’s unfortunate death makes it so this intermediate stage is the most bug-like he gets, but I am certain that his metamorphosis would continue. The book tells the story of a son who wakes up with the body of a bug, but there is also the deeper, slower change of his mind turning into that of a bug.

A Change From Paris to a Fiesta and its Negative Effects

In class we have talked about the change in scenery and how it has affected the characters, and since we mainly talked about how the fishing trip made an impact, I will talk about how the fiesta changed the characters. When the five main characters meet up for the fiesta, everything goes downhill. It seems to start even before the fiesta as Jake’s mood changes with the telegram from his friends, interrupting his peaceful fishing experience. When Jake and Bill make their way back to Brett, Cohn and Mike it seems some issues have already arisen and these will grow throughout the fiesta.

The first issue is between Cohn and Mike. We learn that Cohn has been following Brett around and trying to be with her as much as possible, and this angers Mike (a seemingly reasonable thing to be annoyed about). At first this quarrel between the two is limited to a few harsh comments after a lot of drinking, but over time it becomes a fight between every member of the group. The fights range from telling Cohn to go away, to a full on beating of the bull fighter. These hostile tendencies are something rarely if at all scene during the time in Paris leading me to think that it has to do with the change in setting.

The first aspect of the change in setting that affected the relationships between the characters is how much time they spend together. The five “friends” are pretty much taking a vacation together and thus they have no obligations other than to party. When in Paris we saw a trend of Jake going to work during the day and then at night they would drink together and have fun. This meant that they were only together for a small portion of the day which is different while in Spain where they spend the majority of their time together. This is one of the reasons for the conflict because after spending so much time with Cohn, everyone got fed up.

The next reason as to why there was so much more conflict in Spain isn't really part of the change in scenery, but rather who was there. While at the fiesta, there were three different characters who were in love with Brett together at the same time, and this led to fighting over her. When they were in Paris at most two were in the same place with Brett and thus all three adds to the friction between these lively characters.

Finally, the fiesta in general added to this friction. As some people have eluded to, alcohol effects the characters and how they act especially Mike who is a “Bad drunk”, and although there was drinking in Paris, the fiesta reaches a whole new level. The fiesta is where all the locals party for many days in a row and everyone seems to be drinking so naturally, the five friends drink their fair share. Although this seems to be to loosen up, it ends up hurting the group dynamics and leading to the fights.

Overall, as the friends move from Paris to the fiesta and bull fights, their daily routines and alcohol consumption changes leading to many problems throughout their long vacation.

From Free Indirect Discourse to Jake

            We have recently finished Mrs. Dalloway, and some people have even done a pastiche of Virginia Woolf's writing, so I believe we are all quite familiar with Woolf's style. In Mrs. Dalloway she wrote in free indirect discourse, moving from one character's consciousness to another's whenever she deemed it necessary. Arguably one of the best examples of this occurring in the book was the motor car montage where we see the same situation but from the perspective of so many people. This way of telling the narrative forces the reader to think about not only who's mind we are in, but also how their past experiences will affect how they are viewing the situation. This leads to each scene being dynamic as you get a new prospective each time you change characters.

            There is a different story brewing in The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway, one told from Jake's point of view. Contrary to in Mrs. Dalloway, as we read this book there is only one perspective that we get which forces us as readers to judge the validity of our source. When we were given many different points of view, we were able to decide for ourselves what seemed most trustworthy, but in with Jake as the sole narrator, we will be spending a lot of time talking about his biases and credibility.

            Another difference that, in my first impressions of the book, I have noticed is the difference in sentence format. The sentences formulated by Woolf are longer and less precise which stems from the fact that it is free indirect discourse and the sentences often emulate thoughts. Meanwhile in The Sun Also Rises, the sentences are more direct which is partially Hemingway's style, and also because these sentences are not depicting thoughts as often as in Woolf's novel. These differences in the sentence structure has affected me as I read these books. The long sentences in Mrs. Dalloway often forced me to go back and check if I understood what was happening. Contrastingly, in the first chapters that we have read, these short, direct sentences are easier to read, but as Mr. Mitchell alluded to in class they only give us the tip of the iceberg and we must deduce ourselves the rest of the story.
            From Free Indirect Discourse to Jakes narration is quite a jump in writing styles. Just one example being that Woolf almost never listed the physical attributes of the outside world to set a scene, but in the first sentence of the third chapter Jake does exactly that in a long sentence. We will have to adapt to these differences as we delve into The Sun Also Rises, but I know that I am definitely looking forward to analyzing this book in class. 

Baker vs Woolf and What They Find Interesting

Both Baker and Woolf write about short and seemingly mundane periods of time, whether it is a normal day at work or a June day in England. Having already read The Mezzanine, we have picked up on what Baker finds, to use Howie's favorite word, interesting, and as we indulge further and further into Mrs. Dalloway, we are getting a better and better sense of what Woolf writes about as well. We are able to see what she finds important through her essays and Mrs. Dalloway, and now that we have that better understanding I ask you, "How does Woolf's topic of writing differ or compare to that of Baker's in The Mezzanine?"

From what we have seen over the past weeks in both Woolf's essays and Mrs. Dalloway, it is obvious that she finds characters and their stories to be the focus of her writing, and any fiction writing for that matter. She writes about a group of different characters using free indirect discourse, and through this writing style she tells the reader about the story of many different characters all at once. Her focus on how these characters think and what their beliefs are help us to see how deeply based her novel is in those characters. Woolf tells us little about what is actually happening outside of her characters minds, but rather tells us about what they think about what is going on. For example in the scene with the car backfiring, we are told about who everyone, especially the main characters, thinks is in the car, but we don't learn much about what the area looks like. It is this focus on the unseen and mostly unspoken part of our world that defines Woolf's writing in Mrs. Dalloway.

In The Mezzanine on the other hand, Baker will tell us in painstakingly precise detail about each and every object for example the doorknob. This is something that Woolf's essay would say is materialist. Baker does not only spend his time on describing objects, since the other part of The Mezzanine is a tunnel into the mind of Howie as we see snippets of his past and we learn his views about each and every object and interaction. Since the readers time in The Mezzanine is spent in the thoughts of Howie he ends up being, in my opinion, a more developed and familiar character than any of those in Mrs. Dalloway.

The biggest difference I am able to see in their topics of writing is their focus on objects vs people. Although Baker manages to do a mix of both with his stream of consciousness writing allowing us to understand Howie, The Mezzanine doesn't get close to the amount of information about characters thoughts as in Mrs. Dalloway. So from my experience so far with these two writers I think that although both writers have a fascination with looking into the mind of the characters, the way that they created their characters, Howie focused on everyday objects the others on the people around them, shows us a major difference in these two writers.