Passing #2

Novel: Passing

Author: Nella Larsen

Analysis&Quote:

Irene was thinking: “I had my chance and didn’t take it.”    

Again, I think this book is similar to The Great Gatsby in the fact that this novel chronicles the life of a women who seemingly has everything. Instead of class/economic background being kept a secret it is race.

            Honestly, I am not entirely sure what Larsen is trying to say in the novel, but I think she is hinting that you can’t repress your emotions or other cultural parts of you. When Clare started “passing” as white, she had to repress her black heritage/side. And although “passing” did have its economic benefits she was still unhappy with the life she was living because she couldn’t express her desire or actually have the chance to be around black people. Since she repressed herself for so long when the opportunity arrived she took it because it would give her the chance to fulfill her unmet desires.

            The same is said for Irene who held such a tight and controlled grip on her emotions. She put a lot of strain on herself by not allowing herself to express anger, sadness, and any other emotion that wasn’t happiness or joy. She was too scared to speak or say something and always found ways to justify why she didn’t say the sentence or mention something that happened. Because of this, when Clare started to enter her life she became even more frustrated because she wanted to say something but couldn’t. Her lack of courage and confidence made her yield to other people’s commands/wishes. This isn’t realized until she sees that she can never say no to Clare and once Clare does enter her life she realizes that even though she thought she had control over Brian that he actually had control over her. I believe she thought that since she was able to stop them from moving to Brazil that she had some sort of power or foothold in their relationship. But I think the moment she made that decision that Brian lost all respect for her and slowly and subtly started to control her, but Irene didn’t realize this until Clare came along.

            That said Brian is the most obvious example of repressed desires. He wanted to move to Brazil to make life better for his children so they wouldn’t grow up in a racist society and wanted to be somewhere new. However, he gave that up for Irene because he loved her at the time. Over time, I think his resentment started to build up and took form in him mocking his wife and sarcastically answering her.

            I think what Larsen demonstrates is a sort of give/take relationship or pro/con. She says that if you do repress certain desires of parts of yourself that you have to take into consideration what you are giving up and what you will take in return. I think Passing shows the reader or even warns the reader that you have to make decisions carefully because they can determine the rest of your life.

Passing

Novel: Passing

Author: Nella Larsen

Analysis&Quote:

This is what Irene Redfield remembered.

This story is about Clare Kendry “passing” in society but it is told through Irene Redfield’s memory. It’s interesting because when I started reading about ten pages into the story, my mind immediately went to F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. There is something in the way Larsen writes her sentences, describes scenes, and presents characters that draws strong parallels to me. Take this description of how she describes Chicago:

A brilliant day, hot, with a brutal staring sun pouring down rays that were

like molten rain. A day on which the very outlines of the building shuddered

as if in protest at the heat. Quivering lines sprang up from baked pavements

and wriggled along the shining car-tracks.

In The Great Gatsby Fitzgerald describes Daisy’s living room:

A breeze blew through the room, blew curtains in at one end and out the other 

like pale flags, twisting them up toward the frosted wedding-cake of the ceiling,

and then rippled over the wine-colored rug, making a shadow on it as wind does

on the sea.

They are able to create vivid and strong imagery using only few words. The way they present characters share similar characteristics as well. Larsen describes Clare Kendry:

            There had been, even in those days, nothing sacrificial in Clare Kendry’s

idea of life, no allegiance beyond her own immediate desire. She was selfish, and

            cold, and hard.

Fitzgerland describes Daisy’s husband, Tom Buchannan:

His speaking voice, a gruff husky tenor, added to the impression of fractiousness

 he conveyed. There was a touch of paternal contempt in it, even toward people he liked —

 and there were men at New Haven who had hated his guts.

They describe characters in specific details that, like the imagery, give you a sense of them with only a few words. In general, the way/style they write is very particular. They’re economical with their word choice but simultaneously giving.

I’m drawing these parallels because I feel they are both using a similar approach to writing about sensitive subjects. The Great Gatsby is talking about the wealth of the wealthy, their indulgent lifestyles, and is commenting on society during the 1920’s. Passing is commenting on how society accepts/rejects race, how race intersects with class, and possibly how race is perceived by people of that race. I think it will be an interesting story not only in terms of the actual content, but in how the actual story is written.

What I’ve noticed is how Larsen writes in a way that class surpasses race, or at least in certain instances. From the beginning we don’t know who is black, white, or mixed. Only later after learning about their class do we learn that Clare Kendry is “passing” and that Irene Redfield has chosen not to do this. Irene is in a high class because she is able to buy these gifts for her children, decide between two dresses for a night event, and have a social calendar for all next week filled. Not to mention when she’s about to faint she doesn’t have to worry about how she will pay the taxi or pay for the glasses of tea she’s drinking.

However, Larsen almost hints that Clare Kendry is mixed from the rumors people spread about her:

And then they would all join in asserting that there could be no mistake about

it’s having been Clare, and that such circumstances could mean only one thing.

Working indeed!

I’m not sure if Larsen is suggesting that Clare is of a lower class and that’s why she’s working or if they know she’s partially black and because of that she’s working. If it is the latter, then Larsen slightly suggest class could be tied to race. Yet, overall I find it interesting how Larsen presents the characters class or writes signifiers of the person’s class and then proceeds to mention the race. Larsen could also be saying that the class you are in is affected more by one race than another. For example, it is worse to be a poor black than a poor white.

Another interesting point is how Larsen set the story in Chicago which, if I am remembering correctly, has always been a historically black city. I think Larsen is making another point by making the main character, a mixed woman passing as white, living/visiting a black city. Why is that? Could Larsen be making a statement about the black community at large? Other things I found interesting was the twelve year specificity. Why is twelve such an important number? And how, at least at this moment, there is no distinction between who is right or wrong. Larsen doesn’t seem to imply that Clare Kendry’s “passing” makes her an angel or a saint. She makes it hard, at least in the beginning to root for either character, which almost begs the question: Should we even root for a character? It seems this novels is exploring lots of gray areas to get people thinking, and not to provide a solution to the problems or issues that arise.

South of the Slot

Short Story: South of the Slot

Author: Jack London

Analysis&Quote:

I found this short story interesting but a bit infuriating. Initially, I was infuriated because Freddie was toying with the poor/working class. As I read more, it began to get more interesting once he unleashed his inner working man, Bill Totts. It also began to get interesting because I could see certain parallels of this short story with other books. And like Desiree’s Baby, I felt there were three main points London was trying to convey. (I always find interesting lines throughout the text, but I try to condense them so I don’t ramble and end up confusing myself.)

The obvious point, in my opinion, London wrote about is class fluidity and from that, what constitutes class. Class fluidity in this story happens quickly. In six months the protagonist, Freddie, finds himself being able to accurately imitate the working class. “In those six months he worked at many jobs and developed into a very good imitation of a genuine worker.” His transitioning between the poor and upper class begs the question of: what constitutes class? When Freddie discovers his fluidity it’s because he has mastered, “the language and qualms.” Later on his fluidity is shown through his drinking, smoking, loose love making, love fatty foods (bacon and sausage), and his way of speaking as Bill Totts.

As Freddie, we see his manners are completely different. He’s cold, stiff, unsociable, and is even made fun of by people in his class. He is always referred to as a “college man” and has a tight control on his emotions. London demonstrates that social customs constitute class more than income. This is the opposite of Desiree’s Baby where class was reliant on wealth and sometimes race.

On the flip side, London comments on how the intellectual/upper classes ridicule and undermine the lower class. Sure Freddie ended up as Big Bill Totts in the end, but he initially saw the working class and his inner working class man as a science experiment to be observed and written about. London shows the undermining of the working class by immediately writing about what Janny Scott and David Leonhardt called, “constitutional optimism”. Freddie says he will play the role of the “free and independent American who chose to work with his hands and no explanations given.” But Freddie doesn't realize he can play that role because has the cushion of being a sociology professor at a university. Because he sees their lives as a game, he doesn't understand why they are angry that he’s making more money that they do and blames it on their “inherit laziness.” He doesn't realize they have to live their lives like that every day. Freddie has the intellectual capacity to write about them, but he doesn't have the empathy to understand them.

He ridicules them by calling them savages, and the way London initially writes about them suggest Freddie’s distaste for them in a passive-aggressive way. Freddie was, “interviewed by his fellow workmen who were very angry and incoherently slangly.” He was “promptly reproached by the other fruit-lumpers.”

But it also has to be noted that Freddie’s has a connection with the working class because his inner working man, Bill is a part of Freddie. Can we say that Freddie learns empathy because Bill is an extension of him? I have to say no. I say this because he created Bill out of necessity to infiltrate the “underworld.” He doesn't feel bad for them as Freddie and in the end, he wants to kill Bill. “Bill Totts had served his purpose, but he had become too dangerous an accomplice. Bill Totts would have to cease.”

London also comments on how division of class can be both manmade and physical. It can even be a sort of feedback loop. (I learned this in my ES102 class. It states that causation can be both the cause and effect.) In this particular story, it means that a physical separation of class can come about because man decided it. Or the physical separation/natural obstacle was already there and so each side developed differently.

I think this is important to note because in the end Freddie has to choose between his two selves and the story starts off with old San Francisco, which to me is old Freddie and presumably, new San Francisco, which is Bill Totts. I also think it’s important to note because the North and South were also divided by the trolley cars, which is a manmade thing. I’m not exactly sure what all of this means but I feel that it’s important to note. (I also wonder why the South part of an area is always the “bad” area. Is it because Hell is South and Heaven is North?)

This story reminds me of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. I read it senior year and it’s a book I actually enjoyed reading. In a way Freddie was like Bernard Marx in that he wanted to explore the “savage world.” But instead of Freddie leaving with an actual person, he left with his inner working man. This story also reminded me of Jekyll and Hyde. I've never read the book but I know the protagonist has a good versus evil battle inside of him. I think this story shared parallels with those two.

Now as I write this, I’m realizing how these blog posts are like mini-essays (at least for me) and I do appreciate them. I like finding ways to communicate my ideas. I’m not at the point where I can clearly explain what I’m thinking but I think I’m getting a little better every time.

* I think London also writes about gender, duality, cultural capital (education is important in the story), and separation within a class.*

Desiree's Baby

Short Story: Desiree's Baby

Author: Kate Chopin

Analysis&Quote:

Quote:“He was reminded that she was nameless.”

I think this line sums up everything Chopin is trying to say about class and how class is determined. When I read this line, I started writing notes and as I read along I was able to see between the lines. To me this quote is related to how class is determined. In class, we discussed what factors contribute to the determination of class. There are three main factors that Chopin uses throughout the short story while also adding race and gender into the mix.

The first factor is where you live. If you are wealthy you live in a place with a name. Madame Valmonde lived in Valmonde, Aubignys lived in L’Abri, and there is another place called La Blanche. If you don’t live in a well-known place it can even diminish you as a person. For example, Zandrine is the nurse maid, which is respectable position, but we don’t know where she’s from. Yet, the little quandroon boy who is nameless is told to be from La Blanche. Why is it that Zandrine with a higher position and name doesn't have an origin but the nameless boy does?

Your background or family origin is also an important factor. Desiree was a nameless blank state that Armand could paint on. Since she didn't come from anywhere in particular, he could make her whatever he wanted her to be. But we could also say that background doesn't matter because of the second paragraph in the story. Madame Valmonde hears all the whispers but doesn't care and adopts the girl because she is a blessing from God. Yet, if origins don’t matter then why wasn't Desiree at least given Valmonde’s last name? It can be presumed that she wasn't given a last name because Armand could, “give her one of the oldest and proudest in Louisiana.” If origins and family background weren't important she would have been given their last name from the moment she was adopted. Were they afraid her past would catch up or something worse?

In addition to origin and background being a determination of class, Chopin also seems to comment on the old wealthy class versus new wealthy class. Armand is young Aubignys while his father is old Aubignys. In class, we discussed how attitudes and manners are passed down by class but this may not always be true. Old Aubignys is described as easygoing and having made the slave’s lives easier so that they were “gay.” Young Armand Aubignys is a militant and strict ruler. They don’t have the same views towards blacks and how they should be treated even though they are father and son.

Even more, Chopin demonstrates how gender and personality can be a contributing factor to not only determining class but staying in it as well. Desiree is infantilized throughout the story. Madame Valmonde is “holding her in an instant tenderly in her arms”. Desiree is describes her baby with a childlike innocence noting how he has “real fingernails”. She “tottered” to Armand in their bedroom and only lives to make Armand happy. This makes it easy for Armand to dominate her. Another interesting point is how Armand didn't have a mother figure long in his life, and Desiree didn't have much of a father figure. (I say this because her adoptive father is only shown finding her and then arranging the marriage deal.)

This is the perfect combination for a male-dominated romantic relationship. The house also reflects the relationship and domination between Armand and Desiree. A house is traditionally a woman’s domain, but it is introduced without having a woman’s touch. Not to mention it sounds sad and rugged in appearance. This is the first blow to Desiree having any type of power.

Then the trees are described. “Big, solemn oaks grew lose to it, and their thick-leaved, far-reaching branches shadowed it like a pall.” In a natural form, they mimic the pillars that shadowed Desiree where she was saved both times by men. Not only is Desiree infantilized, but she has no sort of power over herself, her baby (I say this because the baby only makes her happy if the baby makes Armand happy), and any physical place. This makes it hard for her to try to be on her own while still remaining in the same wealthy class.

Chopin also discusses how you spend your wealth as a determination of class. Armand is able to buy Desiree a corbeille from Paris, a nurse maid from an exotic location, a mahogany bed, and silk and lace gowns. He has enough wealth to buy all of these luxurious items for her. But his greatest display is that of his son, but soon he finds no joy in displaying him.

In this short story, we see race as a determination of class. When Armand found out the baby was partially back he turned cold to his baby and his wife. (What I also found strange was how he immediately blamed Desiree for the baby’s blackness even though she noticed it can’t be. “Look at my hand; whiter than yours Armand.”) Black people are shown as slaves in the field working until sunset, and obviously are of a lower class. The wealthy are depicted as white or presumed to be white.

Chopin explores class, race, and gender in a unique way I could have never thought of. It reminds me of Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhyss which explores race, class, and gender. I did not expect to get so much out of this close reading because I wasn't sure if I could analyze well enough to find anything. By reading between the lines and remembering how we did it in class helped me discover what Chopin was saying in Desiree’s Baby.

The Karate Kid: Daniel & Ali's First Date

Title: The Karate Kid

Director: John G. Avildsen

Analysis:

    From the moment Ali’s parents drove around Daniel LaRusso’s mother’s car, there were contrasting class signifiers. His mother’s beaten up station wagon, the sleek silhouette’s the Mill’s gray car, the clean streets, and lack of noise and bustle. Then slowly, the camera pans up to the columned white house with pruned shrubbery, and clean brick walls. Ali emerges from two great white doors in a nearly all-white ensemble, and smiles brightly at Danny. She doesn’t hesitate presenting her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Mills, which reveals another short but nice view of their home.

“That’s a beautiful house you have.”

Mrs. LaRusso recognizes Ali’s economic standing to some degree. The camera work seems to suggest this as well. The Mills are seen standing on the porch showing their literal higher standing than most people. While Mrs. LaRusso is confined to an old beaten down car. Yet, what surprised me the most was how she acted after the statement.

She continues living.

She could have slumped back in her seat reminiscing on her daydreams of owning a big home. Or she could have complained about her conditions and sulked for a good thirty seconds, but she didn’t. Even when the car broke down, she laughed and fix it as if it was nothing.

Her reaction and actions are vastly different from the Mills. The two recognize Danny’s lower standing as the camera pans down to his mother’s car, literally showing they are at the bottom of the economic ladder. When they ask about where he lives and discover it’s most likely a less-than-reputable neighborhood, they become colder toward him. They didn’t talk to him and turned their daughter instead. They didn’t ask any more questions about him or to him.When the brick fell, they panicked because they didn’t want to show that they were broken. They wanted to remain put together and perfectly packaged.

I think the main insight the quote depicts is how the poor view wealth. Granted, this is one large generalization drawn from a movie, but it could apply to at least a few thousand people. LaRusso’s mother noticed Ali’s wealth but it didn’t appear to have an effect on her. She didn’t treat Ali differently and instead sort of let her “jump into her life” when the car broke down. Whereas the Mills noticed LaRusso’s lack of wealth and appeared to presume he wasn’t worth talking to.

Small details and what isn't said often reflects people’s  true nature better. This small scene does depict the “rich parents don’t like child hanging with poor child” trope, but it does a good job.

It even makes me a little interested in watching the movie. It’ll bring me a little closer to joining my older sisters’ 80’s parade. I’ll finally understand all her Ninja Turtle, Chuck Norris, and Karate Kid references.