Untitled

Blog Post #8: CYOA Oscar and the "Player" Mentality

This scene in the book takes place on page 265 is a good example of the real reason Oscar is single. Certainly the fact that he is in poor shape and socially awkward is a factor, but I would argue the fact that he views women as purely sexual objects is an even greater factor in his loneliness. Any woman that would date Oscar, he considers a woman that he can't "date openly". If he were more physically attractive, he would have no issue dating (see Yunior, Abelard, etc.), but he is unwilling to date anyone that is "in his league".

Blog Post #7: CYOA Americana and the Death of Plum in Sula

Plum's death scene, which takes place on pages 45-48, was one of the most powerful scenes for me when reading through the book, and I think this has to do with how Morrison constructs the scene, and invokes certain images of American consumerism within this scene. What I find particularly interesting are the items Morrison chose to place in Plum's room, "a half-eaten store-bought cherry pie. Balled-up candy wrappers and empty pop bottles peeped from under the dresser. On the floor by her foot was a glass of strawberry crush and a Liberty magazine." (46). Each of these items conjures a strong image of classic Americana in the mind of the reader. What's more is, excepting the magazine, each of these items is a sugary, unhealthy snack food that can be bought for cheap at any convenience store. Plum is a Heroin addict, and he uses Heroin as a coping mechanism to escape his memories of the war, and in this way, we can see these cheap, sugary foods as another coping mechanism that is made readily available to Plum. The strawberry crush on the floor is not actually soda, but blood and water. I find this really interesting as this classic symbol of Americana, the glass soda bottle, becomes a testament to the horrors Plum has endured; his pain and blood is now stored within this icon of American consumerism.

I was unfamiliar with Liberty magazine, but after looking into the magazine, I found that it advertised itself as "A Weekly for Everybody." Morrison's use of this particular magazine feels interesting in this regard, as it plays into a theme that pops up a lot throughout the novel: African-Americans, and as an extension of this minorities in general, wanting to have the same freedoms and equality that White Americans enjoy, and having to contend with the fact that this equality feels eternally out of reach (Jude's desire to work the tunnel, and Helene's desire to conform to the "right" way of living are both examples, but there are countless others). Is this weekly truly for everybody? Does the magazine have a diverse writing staff that can create content that allows for a variety of cultural views? This scene takes place in the 1920s, so I think not. I also find it conspicuous that as the fire engulfs Plum, he imagines an "eagle pouring a wet lightness over him." (47). The eagle obviously being the bird that is symbolic for America, as if only in death is this dream of equality is recognized.

The invocation of American imagery in this scene really provides a lot of insight into Plum's character, and the ways that war can permanently change people. It also examines what resources people dealing with trauma have at hand. Plum turns to Heroin and cheap, accessible food to deal with his pain, as he does not have access to the resources he needs. In many ways, Plum is consumption; all he does is consume. Perhaps this is why he doesn't get the help he needs, as society values him more as a consumer than as a human being.

Studium & Punctum

For the image that most spoke to me in regards to the studium and punctum in the image, I had to go with the scene where Adrian Veidt analyzes the tv screens to decide what he should invest in. When I first saw this image, I immediately focused on the studium: Adrian, Bubastis, and his servants and then briefly looked over the screens before moving on. Initially, I wanted to take another look at this image because I thought what was on the screens would be interesting, but what I noticed upon examining the punctum of the image is the framing of the entire image. This framing makes it seem as if Adrian and company are within a tv screen of their own, and we are the viewers. Touching on the tv screens, there is one image that stands out, and it is one of the ones that Adrian mentions, namely the "oiled muscleman with machinegun". What I find interesting about this image is, whether intentional or not, the figure resembles Adrian, and I think this can be interpreted as a demonstration of Adrian's inflated ego. Considering the framing I mentioned earlier, when I first saw this panel, I didn't even realize there was a framing, but the fact that the entire image is surrounded by pillars and flowers not only frames Adrian, but also somewhat reflects what Adrian sees on the tv screen; "violence and infantile imagery". Perhaps it is just me, but I associate pillars and a lot of the décor Adrian chooses to use with a history of violence, like the Romans and Egyptians. The picture of the statue on the wall creates another frame that deals in a similar subject matter.

The final interaction between Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan is a really interesting one that frames both characters in a really fascinating way. Both characters show change in a major way in this scene. Rorschach is incredibly emotional, no longer using his monotone, emotionless voice and instead letting down his mask, both literally and metaphorically. Dr. Manhattan acts with purpose and momentarily sheds his apathy. I find Jon's decison to kill Rorschach really interesting in this final scene. What are the chances that Rorschach is actually going to make it back to America from Antarctica. Wat's more, his pose resembles the same pose he has when he watches the Comedian murder that woman, and the Comedian asks him why he didn't stop him. When Veidt asks him about Rorschach moments later, he sidesteps the question and doesn't tell Veidt that he killed him. This makes the murder seem more personal, as if Jon killed Kovacs for pleasure rather then in service of protecting Veidt's secret.

It is also worth noting that the palm tree is clearly in view in this shot, and Rorschach had previously called attention to this palm tree, before Dan refocused him. This really makes readers reflect on just how pointless Rorshcach's investigation was, he didn't accomplish anything and all of his leads were wrong. In the end, he is completely powerless in the face of the stronger powers before him, and all he can do is stick to his ideology. Even then, the fact that he decided to take his mask off as he died shows that he no longer sees the world in black amd white, and he soesn't want to live in a world of gray, even though he sees that Veidt may be correct in his solution to the mounting tensions surrounding the arms race.

Blog Post #5: CYOA Frames of Reference in The Picture of Dorian Gray.

In The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde often plays with the way characters are referenced in the novel. This is so frequent that oftentimes Wilde will refer to the same character in a variety of different ways in the same paragraph. Early in the novel, for instance, Basil Hallward is referred to by his full name, his first name, his last name, and simply as the artist. I would like to think of this as a framing of the characters, and how there framing changes how we interpret them; how is Basil Hallward different than the artist?

In many ways, I think our society relies heavily on labels in order to organize and understand the world, and the way Oscar Wilde decides to refer to characters highlights this. I would like to consider these labels as frames for our understanding of what, or who someone, or something is. Dorian is also referred to as the painter, and what is the difference between an artist and a painter? Our associations with these words can paint our perceptions of the characters in subtle ways. The artist is much less personal than Basil, and Basil Hallward is much more formal. We label ourselves, and others, constantly in our day to day lives.

When you Google The Picture of Dorian Gray, and I find this somewhat amusing, one of the first things you see is the question, "Is The Picture of Dorian Gray inappropriate?" And within that there is a blog that has collected bad reviews of The Picture of Dorian Gray. The review that Google finds the most prescient to this question is one that espouses how "corrupt" and "disturbing" the novel is because it is, as the writer of the review puts it, "homosexual fiction". My point with this example is that the writer of the review does not refer to Oscar Wilde as an artist, or author, but instead simply says that "it was written in the 18th century by Oscar Wilde". This may seem minor, but by referring to Oscar Wilde in this way strips away the artistry and authorship. Anyone can write something down, and so the writer of this bad review has created a frame of reference for Oscar Wilde that defines him in our minds as we read the review. Wilde does the same thing when he changes the reference of a character, such as when Basil and Lord Henry attend Sybil's play with Dorian. As they get up to leave they are referred to as, and I'm paraphrasing here, two young men, and only two days later when Basil speaks with Dorian at his house, Basil is described as the old man. These frames of reference and how we choose to label things says just as much about ourselves as it does about the things we label.

(Sorry this post went a little long, I struggle sometimes condensing larger ideas and concepts like this one. Every pun was very intentional.)

Link to the bad review below: