Keeping a Blog

For me, this semester of blogging has generally been a productive, idea-nurturing task. By maintaining a blog, I was able to explore the books I read in a more formal, in-depth manner. I feel more driven to read the novels more carefully and take mental notes of important parts. I also feel that I get more practice in writing because the blog forces me to take time to analyze my thoughts and structure my ideas. I would feel less incentive to do so if I knew that my writing was for a limited audience, but on a blog, nobody knows who could be reading what. For this reason, I highly appreciate the mandatory blog assignment and believe that it is a very effective requirement for any variety of courses.

Milkman's Hidden Passion

One thing I overlooked throughout my reading of Song of Solomon is Milkman's brief moments when he displays somewhat of a longing for the future. The impression that Milkman gives in the majority of the novel is that he lacks drive for life. In very short instances (I remember only one time before chapter 10), the reader sees Milkman mention the future: Milkman tells Guitar about how he worries about the stories he will tell his children when he is old. This small detail stands far away from Milkman's general image.

In chapter 10, the reader sees a change in Milkman. As Milkman hears more about his father's father from Reverend Cooper, he begins to feel more than nothing for his father, emotionally. He begins to see his heritage from a different life, and even denies that this change of feeling was due to the strong whiskey he ingested. In fact, he begins to feel genuine feelings of "anger" towards the whites that killed his grandfather among other feelings.

Chapter 10 marks the time when Milkman begins his coming of age. He grows up in the fact that he opens his self to his given life. Before he ignored it or took it for granted, but during his 4-day long stay at Reverend Cooper's house, he becomes stronger and braver. Instead of just accepting the events as they come, he begins to feel passion. He feels passion to take the gold from those that killed his grandfather. He feels passion in telling (bragging to) the locals about his father's life. And these are all signs of his development into someone knew. It is hard to say that he strictly becomes a Man, but Milkman definitely becomes something else.

Monsieur Milkman

As I've been reading Songs of Solomon, a huge similarity between the characters Milkman and Monsieur Meursault from The Stranger dawned upon me. They both carry the same mentality which trivializes life. They both act according to physical pleasures and have this idea of the meaninglessness of life nested into their heads. In fact, both portray their disdain for emotional matters: Meursault believes that marriage does not symbolize anything of importance; Milkman similarly believes that his life is just an extension of the present rather than looking to the future.

The two characters' nearly identical ideals help morph my impressions of Songs of Solomon as I continue reading. Meursault is generally admired until the incident at the beach, which brings havoc and shows that society does not accept humans without what is considered normal emotions. At this point, The Stranger ends, and the reader becomes incapable of exploring the circumstances further. On the other hand, Milkman faces "society" with his beliefs (as evident by his situation with Hagar) in the middle of the novel. As we progress further and further into Songs of Solomon, we see Milkman who is forced to face the things which he regarded as unimportant. Perhaps a similar situation would have arose in The Stranger if Albert Camus had not ended his novel at that point.

From my interpretation of The Stranger, I strongly believe that Meursault held on to his belief that emotional matters are of less importance. In Songs of Solomon, I think that Milkman is headed in an opposite direction. As Milkman continues to face more and more consequences of his life, he will change in unforeseen ways (which happens in all coming of age novels). Assuming this is true, I predict that Milkman will learn to settle down and become more aware of those he interacts with (for example, Lena and Corinthians).

Songs of Solomon

First impressions:

Songs of Solomon presents a perspective similar to that of Wide Sargasso Sea. I have noticed many similar parallels between these two novels. Most importantly, the main character Milkman is extremely similar to Antoinette primarily because they both are childish (at least through the eyes of the reader), even as they grow into the early stages of adulthood. One small difference is that the perspective in Wide Sargasso Sea changes throughout the novel to give different views of the characters while so far into the novel, Milkman has not been presented in such a multitude of lights. Another similarity is the importance of names. As I mentioned in a previous post, names played a prominent role in Wide Sargasso Sea, because they define characters. For example, the fact that Mr. Rochester remains unnamed symbolizes his alienation from the culture in Antoinette's world. In Songs of Solomon, the name Macon Dead contains a myriad of interpretations such as how the initials are M.D. which could imply that Milkman was named in hopes that he'd become a doctor, similar to Ruth's father.

The similarities between the two novels is personally encouraging. In Wide Sargasso Sea we were able to see how polar societies intertwine and react which results in peculiar characters such as Antoinette. I feel that in Songs of Solomon we will see a similar development in Milkman, but instead of being an outcast, we will see how this particular type of peculiar character develops in a welcoming environment.

Perspective in Wide Sargasso Sea

In Wide Sargasso Sea, Jean Rhys maintains a static form of narration. In the novel, her tendency is to write from the perspective of the stranger. In part one, she writes in Antoinette’s point of view in which Antoinette seems estranged from everyone, somewhat even from her mother. As one enters part two, one notices that the perspective moves to someone (Mr. Rochester) who is even more of a stranger. In part two, Antoinette is portrayed as in her element while it is Mr. Rochester’s turn to feel distant. In part three, the narrative voice returns to Antoinette who has been moved to England. She feels so out of place that she doesn’t even accept the environment she is in.

For what purpose does Jean Rhys write in the voice of a stranger as opposed to staying consistent? I believe Rhys is attempting to portray the transformation of each character through multiple perspectives in order to set-up the final connection to Jane Eyre. There is no way for me to verify this until I read the other book, but I can reasonably guess that Rhys wants to provide a new perspective to Jane Eyre readers by taking minor characters from the other book and giving them a greater role in both novels.

By speaking from an isolated perspective in each part, Rhys gains the ability to heighten the reader’s understanding of both the narrating character and the characters to which the speaker relates. For example, in part two, by narrating through Mr. Rochester, the reader learns a lot about the way Mr. Rochester thinks and feels, and what Antoinette looks like from the outside rather than from what she says she is.

On the other hand, the reader is also able to experience Antoinette’s transformation on a greater level. One can see the way she changes from a child to an adult from the perspective of both herself, and from others. As a child, she says she is an adult, but I feel she retains many childlike tendencies. In part two, one can see how she changes and becomes more adult-like in her manner. In part three, she seems to grow even older, losing faith amongst other things.

I feel that Rhys’ writing style helps the reader see aspects of characters that would have otherwise been invisible. For me, this is both enlightening and saddening. I appreciate having novels hide small things for me to openly interpret and imagine, but it is also very interesting to be able to fully understand a character’s perspective and image without being unsure.

Who is Sympathetic?

Is Antoinette or Mr. Rochester a sympathetic character? I believe Antoinette is the sympathetic character. In part two of the novel, Antoinette is stuck in a situation with Mr. Rochester. They seem to settle down kindly, but then Mr. Rochester begins to become very skeptical. In Granbois, Mr. Rochester feels out of place, and the treatment of the locals towards him cause him to wonder what is wrong. When Daniel Cosway tells him of Antoinette’s situation, he tips and becomes almost completely estranged from Antoinette. Even though they share an intimate moment later on, he lacks the true trust of someone who believes in another. More importantly, the following morning when he wakes up sick, he immediately suspects that he has been poisoned (which he has been), but it is such a sudden realization that one has to wonder how he really views Antoinette. Very few people would immediately think that they have been poisoned when sick, and especially suspecting that the person who you are with was the one who did it. His obvious suspicion and the fact that he sleeps with another person right afterward makes him an unsympathetic character. Instead of doing what a normal person would do, which is finding out why someone would poison them (or whether or not they were poisoned), he gets his revenge by sleeping with someone as soon as possible. Antoinette, on the other hand, we know had good intentions by poisoning him. She was convinced that the “tonic” which she was giving him would make him love her. Even though one can say that her intent is somewhat malicious because she intends to change Mr. Rochester, one must consider the situation which she is in. She grew up without happiness and Mr. Rochester gave her some but then took it away.  Antoinette is sympathetic because of her innocence in this situation. On the other hand, Mr. Rochester is not sympathetic because of his rash and harsh response to Antoinette’s good intentions.

Wide Sargasso Sea: Mystery Man

The voice of the narration of the second part of Wide Sargasso Sea is mysteriously unnamed. Many critics interpret him as Mr. Rochester of Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre. I believe that he remains unnamed as a symbol of distance. Throughout part two, Mr. Rochester is depicted as a stranger who knows nothing of the culture/social circumstances in which he lives with his new wife, Antoinette. In many instances, people are described as glancing askance at Mr. Rochester and other at times the people who serve him are described as suppressing a mocking laugh. In addition, there are many people trying to sway his perspective. Daniel Cosway (Boyd) attempts to skew Mr. Rochester's impression of Antoinette by telling him that she will become crazy as did her mother.

It is obvious that names play an important rule in character depiction. The fact that Daniel Boyd refers to himself as a Cosway may be his way of increasing his appearance of disdain towards white people (because it greatly discredits the Cosways if he is seen as both a relative and a slave to them). Even the name Antoinette plays an important role in associating Antoinette to her mother, Annete (causing people to predict that Antoinette will end up just like her mother, that is, insane). Mr. Rochester, who lacks a name in this novel, is thus seen as a stranger. He has no place in a land such as Granois and is seen as a complete alien.

If he were to be adressed as "Mr. Rochester" in the novel, it would seem as if he were accepted which is not true. The people in Granois are hiding things from him. Even the land "kept its secrets." (52. This version of Wide Sargasso Sea was edited by Judith L. Raiskin) and Mr. Rochester has no way of discovering them because he is a true stranger: someone who does not understand the culture.

Wide Sargasso Sea: Tia

Antoinette is full of naivety due to her isolated upbringing. Even though she recognizes the harshness of the world, she is easily deceived by the slightest changes that are made to seem like miracles to her.

Tia, the daughter of Maillotte in Wide Sargasso Sea appears for short amounts of time in the novel. She is supposedly Antoinette's only remaining memory of her childhood. After having her first home burned down, Antoinette even said that "she [Tia] was all that was left of my life as it had been." (45) But Tia treats her so maliciously. Antoinette was isolated from others as a child because she was an alien within her community. Tia, the only person who would spend time with Antoinette, turned against Antoinette. Even though Antoinette recognized Tia as a "friend and I [Antoinette] met her nearly every morning at the turn of the road to the river." (23) Tia, one day, unfairly steals both Antoinette's dress and her money. She does this because she realizes how culturally different she and Antoinette are from each other and believes that they are in no position to be in each others' company due to their different statuses (Annette comes from a family of slave owners).

Later on, after Antoinette had all of her childhood burnt down, Tia, the last memory of Antionette's past, assaults her with a rock. Antoinette said that "When I was close I saw the jagged stone in her hand but I did not see her throw it. I did not feel it either, only something wet, running down my face. I looked at her and I saw her face crumple up as she began to cry. We stared at each other, blood on my face, tears on hers. It was as if i saw myself. Like in a looking-glass" (45). Antoinette states that she did not see Tia throw the rock that injured her. It very well might be possible that it was a 3rd person who hurt Antoinette, but knowing Tia as who she is, it is very likely that it was Tia who hit Antoinette. Antoinette, who desperately longed for a friend, responded very calmly to the situation. She even saw that she and Tia were very similar.

Antoinette led herself to believe that she and Tia would reunite the night of the house burning, but their history should have led Antoinette to realize that them two could not be friends because of their differing backgrounds. Antoinette definitely displays naivety as a character because she allows her wants to precede the reality. I am not saying that this is unbelievably true, but due to Antoinette's childlike ideals, Wide Sargasso Sea may turn out to be somewhat of a coming of age novel. Of course, this is just a speculation of what the following parts will be about. Who knows what will happen!

Meursault's Change?

After listening and reading much discussion, I stand my ground on my perspective on The Stranger. There is a specific impression that retains in my thoughts of Meursault. I believe that Monsieur Meursault is generally a static character. Whereas many people argue that the transition between parts 1 and 2 marks a large change in character for Meursault, I beg to differ. In fact, I challenge that Meursault continues to maintain his character all the way until the finale (that is, the end of the novel).

Throughout the novel, Meursault carries around a sense of contentment. He does not falter when faced with distress until he is bent by something extremely frustrating (for example, the Arab that provoked Meursault with the knife at the end of the first part). Similarly, in part 2, Meursault remains distant during his trial up until the ending pages. There is no obscene description of Meursault’s condition during part 2, thus it would be false to assume that he was extremely distressed or extremely calm. I believe that Meursault generally maintains composure during the majority of the second part with some moments of distress here and there. It is at the end that Meursault becomes enlightened after the confrontation with the chaplain. Meursault realizes his contentment with his life, in that he lived happily, and looks forward to leaving with a bang.

Meursault may seem like a different character between the two parts of the novel, but the lack of description leaves us to only wonder how he really seemed to others. I believe that Meursault is a person with rational beliefs that are set in stone. He lives by these ideas, and when he is challenged, his walls get weak, allowing a few emotions to overcome him. This goes against the idea that Meursault becomes more open to his emotions in the second part, which is what I argue against. I say that Meursault has always been one to hold against his emotional state (which he even says himself) and that the display of emotions in the second part does not prove that Meursault has changed. It is completely possible that he has had similar experiences in the past, so it is incorrect to say that the trial changes Meursault.

Monsieur Meursault

The Stranger by Albert Camus, begins en media res with the protagonist Monsieur Meursault discussing his mother's very recent death. Meursault attends the funeral and follows through with the common ritual for the deceased, but there is an uncharacteristic ambiance about him and his attitude toward the whole situation is questionable.

His contentment with life and complacent attitude during the ordeal and after seem to irk many people. In fact, a few argue that it is inhuman of him to be so unresponsive to his family tragedy, even saying that he could have a mental handicap.

The fact that the book begins during this event of the loss of a loved one makes it difficult to identify Meursault's true personality. One could presume that Meursault's actions following the funeral reflected his normal behavior. But I argue that this is not the case. In fact, Meursault's decision to flirt and fondle with Marie, a "love interest," and his many other decisions only reflect his coping mechanism, which is to build a wall in opposition to emotions of intimacy and drama.

Throughout the first part, rather than addressing deep feelings of grievance as expected by most of society, Meursault takes time to enjoy the simple pleasures of life, in fact spending a whole Sunday afternoon gazing at the vista. Furthermore, when the topic of the death of his mother is brought up, the conversations are consistently short and Meursault is quick to return to enjoying life, living on the edge. For example, when Marie is told of the tragedy, there is just a fleeting moment of sorrow, and then the two return to enjoy themselves.

In addition to the brief moments of discussion about Meursault's mother, Meursault is surrounded by references to intimate relationships ending poorly. One of which is his aged neighbor, Salamano's relationship with Salamano's mangy old dog. When Salamano loses his dog, he is devastated, even though the two's relationship was portrayed negatively, as if the dog were being abused. Rather, it is later revealed that Salamano and the dog were content with each other. A second reference would be another neighbor's relationship. Meursault "gains" a pal named Raymond who is very abusive to his wife and other people in general. During the later half of the first part, Meursault sees (technically hears) Raymond's intent. During these two encounters, neither seem to phase Meursault a lot, rather, there is hidden tension being built up inside Meursault.

Finally, in the sixth chapter, my suspicions were confirmed that Meursault had suppressed his emotions about his mother as a defense mechanism. At the very end of the part, he becomes enraged and shoots a Moorish man five times, not only because he was avenging Raymond (who had been injured by the man), but because memories of his mother's funeral began pouring over him such as the massive heat under which he similarly marched behind his mother's casket.

The last words, "And it was like knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness," referring to the four extra shots he took, signify that the barrier against his grief for his mother had been broken.

Not just at the end is this idea of a defense mechanism apparent. In the beginning while Meursault and others kept vigil over Meursault's mother, as he was sitting with the other mourners around his mother, a friend of his mother was the only one crying (because his mother was her only friend). When she finally stopped, Meursault thought, "Then finally she shut up," which may implicate feelings of bitterness towards the people who were closer to his mother than he before her death.

Perhaps my interpretation of Meursault's feelings is completely incorrect. That would be fine because I have only completed the first part, but given the information, I find it much more probable that Meursault is so emotionally troubled by this loss that he does not deal with it, and rather indulges in the physical/simple pleasures in life.

Kafka, What I Missed

The Metamorphosis is filled with ideas given its short length, but one major idea was missing for me to consider the novel complete.

Each (major) character in the novel is given an extremely rich and unique personality. Every member of the Samsa family had their own quirks and traits which become clearer and clearer through the novel. For example, Gregor Samsa's father is portrayed as an easily angered, frail yet strong, and aged man. His encounters with and treatment of Gregor say a lot about his virtues (that he relied on his son quite a bit and expected as much).

While each character had their unique traits, none of them, the father, mother and sister of Gregor, seemed inhuman. In fact, Kafka gives the family a very strong (and expected) family-type bond, in the way that they rely upon each other. For this reason, I do not understand at all why nobody in the whole novel ever even showed the slightest sign of action towards curing Gregor's condition as a cockroach. Sure, Gregor's sister Grete takes care of Gregor by bringing his food and complying to his apparent needs, but never does she interact with Gregor directly, as if assuming that watching over the insect would truly do anything progressive. The only moment of the novel in which anyone considers the possibility of Gregor changing back into a human is when Gregor's mother worries about taking away Gregor's humanity by removing his furniture. This thought (which should have lasted much longer in a normal situation) is short lived when Gregor remembers his humanity and ends up getting in trouble. In fact, even Gregor takes for granted his situation, on occasion, even enjoying his condition. This completely inhuman ignorance of the situation is quite confusing and my only explanation is that the mother and father already gave up hope, and there was a mutual expectation that the situation would resolve itself (which is outrageous).

Everyone continues to wonder if the treatment that Gregor's family gave to him nearing the end of the novel was fair, and I plead that it was. Take a step back and look at the irrationality of this situation, in which Gregor, not once, seems to want to be proactive and find a way to fix the problem. In fact, I believe that Grete's kindness towards Gregor at the beginning of the book was only a product of hope that Gregor would find a way to repair himself. After months of waiting and realizing that Gregor was not showing any signs of trying to fix the problem, it was only logical for Grete to stop caring and truly wonder if there was any humanity left in Gregor.

I felt as if Gregor and his family were just waiting for his life to end. None of the family members showed any expectation of having the sudden transformation fixed. It was as if Gregor had no capability of rationalizing the fact that he was an insect, and that his family was just deluded into sheltering some random, over-sized cockroach in their spare room.

However strange it may be that nobody showed the will to seek an answer to Gregor's transformation, the characters of The Metamorphosis indubitably symbolize something greater than just the members of a family that fosters bug-children. It may be unclear to myself and my narrow mind, but I feel that there must be a reason why Kafka excluded such a vital part of humanity: the will to face such a problem (or maybe it was because the situation was so absurd that the Samsa's did what many people would do, which is nothing).

Response to Previous Post

I had previously written a post exploring the familial relationships in The Metamorphosis based on first impressions of the novel. The first section somewhat introduced the characters in a different light in contrast with the more intimate view of the characters later on.

I gladly retract my statement about the intent of Kafka writing this novel with this premise. In the following few sections, I found the characters to be even more profound and mysterious that initially presented. The progress of time is quite subtle in the novel, but over the apparent month since Gregor's realization of his transformation, I find that he is comparable to Howie from The Mezzanine due to their similar curiosities. Gregor for his fascination in his new life of being a bug, and Howie for his interest in the small details of daily life.

Kafka could be writing this novel based on personal matters rather than going as far as to criticize society but so far, the progress of this novel has been shown to be nothing less than surprising. For all I know, Kafka could have written The Metamorphosis because he actually secretly wanted to live as an insect rather than a human.

Creepy, Strange Kafka

The Metamorphosis begins with Gregor Samsa awakening to his "surprise," as some form of vermin. His astonishment, or lack thereof, is what tips me off. At first, the composure Gregor displays during this situation induces a dream-like state of mind, but when it becomes apparent that Gregor has actually become a bug, I have to question Franz Kafka's (the author) intentions.

Following the shock of realizing that Samsa has truly become something otherworldly, I ask myself, what is the point? There is a myriad of possibilities as to what message is being sent by Kafka, but what strikes me the most is the possibility that Kafka is judging some aspect of society. That aspect, which is not completely clear to me as of now, is blown up in a situation in which a person and an insect are interchangeable. Perhaps Kafka is mocking the idea of children subduing to the parents' bidding as shown by Gregor's otherworldly devotion to his responsibilities to his parents. By turning Gregor into an insect, Kafka is comparing children who live for their parents to insects (which, in my view, has a negative connotation).

Kafka stuffs so much into just the first few pages that it is hard to pinpoint the main premise of the novel, but this type of open ended chaos allows for reflection upon personal ideas and ultimately results in a new perspective, like how I now know that I will not be 100% responsible for my parents when I become independent in fear of being changed into a cockroach.

Brett.

To me, there were things I disagreed with as the novel pulled to a close. The novel ended with Brett and Jacob being "together", but not really. I especially did not like how that would be the closest to which Brett and Jacob would get. 

There is much evidence that Jacob enjoys life more when he is away from Brett, minding other things, while when around Brett, Jacob readily drinks to his content. The fact that Jacob realizes that he is being strung along by Brett may prove his loyalty or may just be the fact that people want what they cannot get. Either way, evidence shows that Jacob is happier away from Brett (such as when he goes fishing). Brett may have an excuse for distancing herself from men when the relationship grows too strong, but to use her history (the abuse by Lord Ashley) as an excuse for such actions is not justified in the least, which is why I do not like how she always expects Jacob to be at her side when she is in need. I say her excuse is not justified because to be set on this path of constant swinging and stringing along different men is not reasonable. Sure, for a while, she may feel the need to distance herself in her (many) relationships, but to continue this trend based on one experience is not plausible because humans are adaptable. 

For Brett to be pulling Jacob into everything she does and be so passive about it just unnerves me. If I were to end the novel, I would have preferred closure: an ending in which Jacob and Brett establish larger boundaries because obviously, Jacob is incapable of being Brett's lover, so it would only be fair to Jacob that he not have to be her emotional support.

Ernest Hemingway's Voice

Ernest Hemingway has a destinctive voice. In The Sun Also Rises, Hemingway speaks with a subtle yet alluring tone. The words are not excessively descriptive nor profound, which is exactly the cause of the fluidity of his text. When novelists focus on intense moments, they employ precise and forceful words, yet Hemingway uses concise and simple words to expand on thoughts in The Sun Also Rises. Not only are the adjectives in The Sun Also Rises vague, so are the adverbs (or the lack thereof). Very seldom does one find adverbs in Hemingway's sentences, yet the novel retains a profound feeling.

The remaining effect of using simple language is that the reader is free to interpret the sequence of events on a deeper personal level. With the lack of descriptive words, the imagination is set free to wander on a broader range of possibilities and Hemingway is especially effective at enforcing this because he is simple and straightforward in writing. The manner of speaking is so down to earth (perhaps contrast The Sun Also Rises with Mrs. Dalloway to get a better sense of Hemingway's ability in speaking with simple language while at the same time, capturing such a broad picture) that it makes it easy for the reader to catch the small details which make the story so rich. For example, in The Sun Also Rises, Hemingway is able to make a three dimensional character without even talking to the reader. The simple thoughts that pass through Jake Barnes' mind (the protagonist in The Sun Also Rises), such as the snyde, yet seemingly unintentional comments about Jake's Jewish "friend" Robert Cohn, are perfect examples of how Hemingway employs simple language, which helps the reader create his/her personal image of each character (especially of Jake) of how they act and think.

Even without the eloquent words that scholars throw around, Hemingway is able to construct a vivid novel. Perhaps he sought to play with the reader's mind by having them be the ones who build the characters while he acts just as a messenger of events.

The Hours: What's Happening?

My first impression of the novel/movie was rather distasteful. The constant jumping around three different perspectives not only confused me, but also made me lose track of the connections between Virginia Woolf and the story being told in The Hours.

After some post-review, many of the small things in the movie began to give light to new connections. In the movie, Woolf seems disconnected from yet trapped in the world around her and writing Mrs. Dalloway is an outlet for her "wild side". The Clarissa in the movie is perhaps the Clarissa that took the path not taken by the original. The most important differences between the Clarissa in The Hours and the Clarissa in Mrs. Dalloway is, one, she marries a woman, and two, Richard (who, in Mrs. Dalloway, was married to Clarissa) is the character with disease that prevents him from going out. 

Going back to my previous post where I mention that Clarissa's choice in marrying Richard Dalloway cannot be judged fairly because the reader does not know what would have happened if Clarissa took a different path, I believe The Hours attempts to portray a different path that Clarissa took.

The third perspective (the first and second being the perspective of Virginia Woolf and the perspective of Clarissa, in no particular order) is from a woman named Laura Brown who is reading the novel, Mrs. Dalloway. The way she acts is completely mysterious, but as the movie progressed, I felt the vibe that Laura was applying situations from Clarissa's relationships to her own. For example, when Laura's neighbor, Kitty, arrives at her house for a favor, Laura sees confidence masking the Kitty's true feelings, so Laura kisses her, which may be Laura perceiving her neighbor as a Clarissa-like entity who is hiding many things and needs reassurance in her life. The importance of this perspective is that it reflects the effect the novel, Mrs. Dalloway, has on people's perceptions.

The three different plots working in conjunction provides a thorough portrayal of Clarissa Dalloway, and leaves it to the viewer to decide which choices Clarissa should have made throughout her life: whether to live with her first lover, or whether to choose to live the epitome of a standard middle/upper-class life.

Clarissa's Choices

In Mrs. Dalloway, Peter and Richard play Clarissa's opposing love interests. Why did Clarissa terminate her relationship with Peter after he returned from India for her? I believe it is due to her aging personality. She may have been marginally wild as a young girl, which would have been compatible with Peter's beliefs, but after aging, she has lost a large portion of ambition. She may hold onto memories of adventure, but she acts on these feelings with only a portion of her gusto (it is not known whether she is capable or not of doing so). For example, she kisses Peter only to follow by rejecting his proposals and putting a wall between herself and him. Instead, she remains, distant but together, with Richard. Human compatibility is a mysterious topic but one simple explanation for Clarissa's decision to remain with Richard is that she seeks to lead a stable life. This typical habit of seeking a stable partner is evident in real-life representations such as The Bachelor. On The Bachelor, the (wo)man starts out with selecting the (wo)men he/she is attracted to, but in the end it is the person who seems most husband-like that is selected. In the time period which Clarissa lived, Richard's status and occupation made him an ideal husband, as opposed to Peter, who represented a relatively less-dependable source of support.

Of course, in the end nobody will know whether Clarissa's decision to stay with Richard was for the better because of the dynamic of human nature. Who knows what Clarissa may have become if she decided to marry Peter the first time around. We will never know, except that Clarissa did only what most vanilla people would have done.

Septimus' Death

Septimus is a major character in Mrs. Dalloway. He is a troubled man who's experiences have completely changed him, but for the better or for the worse? At first glance, Septimus' gawky behaviors and the way he thinks are too bizarre to be considered potentially sane. But when you take a step back and look at what Septimus is attempting to bestow upon the reader, his insanity becomes legitimate. Extrapolating from many different interpretations of Mrs. Dalloway, an important idea that many critiques have in common is that Septimus is about mutual love. Being a veteran of World War I, Septimus' longing for peace and love throughout society is a completely sane and valid request. The fact that he is mentally unable to do anything to truly impact society with his seemingly modest and humble ideas is what induces this question of whether or not Septimus' goal is legitimate. By extension, Virginia Woolf could also be questioning society: if it takes a mentally ill man to dream of love and peace, then how healthy is mankind, really?

Virginia Woolf's Intentions

When processing interpretations of Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway, you have to keep in mind her intentions in writing this novel. The major point that invalidates a large amount of arguments about the meaning of Mrs. Dalloway is that Woolf's goal was to create a novel that perfectly portrayed the natural human being down to the smallest specks of detail. Even though this idea may not completely invalidate arguments about the purpose of the novel, it is pertinent enough that people should keep it in mind when reading critiques. Ideally, if Woolf's true intentions for the novel were somewhere else, the plot, setting, and characters can definitely be said to not be ideal. In fact, the factors that make up Mrs. Dalloway are exactly right if you evaluate her writing as a depiction of the true state of the mind.

This argument against the many critiques of Mrs. Dalloway is in no way completely correct, nor is it negligible. But sometimes it makes me wonder whether or not people are extrapolating too deeply into novels of which the author's actual intentions are plain as day.

Peter Walsh

Peter Walsh is a major character in Mrs. Dalloway. He contrasts with Clarissa Dalloway's character in that his and Clarissa's personalities create a new depth to each of the characters. Clarissa, in the present moment, represents a socially-bound character whose outer life is much more tame than her self-conflicts. On the other hand, Peter represents the opposition to Clarissa's lifestyle. One particularly interesting trait about Peter is his tendency to fiddle with his pocket knife. Whenever he is conflicted or nervous, he pulls out the knife and fiddles around, following the curves of the knife with his fingers, which possibly represents his instability. I think this is an important aspect about Peter, because even though Peter seems narrow-minded and set on his ideals when the novel follows his perspective, the way he fumbles with his knife shows that he is uncertain about what he is usually very straight about. This shows how similar Peter and Clarissa actually are, because on some level, they both are very self-conflicted. Even though they seem so different at first glance, they really do share similar traits. This is why Peter plays such an important role, he aids in categorizing the type of person Clarissa is by acting as a skewed reflection of Clarissa's self.

Mrs. Dalloway and Sally Seton

Sally Seton, in Mrs. Dalloway, is shown to have lived a very dynamic life. She was portrayed as wild and free-living when she was younger, and yet she calmed and settled as she grew older. Sally plays many roles in the novel. Right off the bat, Sally seems to be the woman in the novel that helps build Mrs. Dalloway's (Clarissa Dalloway) character. The pair has shared intimate and personal experiences which aid in character development, for example the kiss the two shared, or the plans of reforming the world that they shared together.

Sally, may have played the role of a foil character, but I believe she has her own story to express. As Virginia Woolf tends to do in her novels, she uses each and every possible being to its full effect. In the case of Sally Seton, Woolf not only uses the character to enhance the portrayal of Clarissa, but she also creates a new story all together with a specific theme: in society, the norm is that with age leaves naivety and ambition. This theme ties in with the story well, as it accurately reflects society in its most candid form, unlike other novels in which the plot runs on nearly unbelievably coincidental events. This theme about aging is exemplified by comparing Sally Seton's adolescence with her current state in the novel. She was a free, boundary-breaking girl who lived to her own accord, who, together with Clarissa, did things that society could not imagine at the time. For example, the intimate relationship between the two. As the reader is returned to the present, Sally had settled down with a husband and five sons. Even though she questioned Clarissa's way of living, even at the present (with the parties and such), Sally is the symbol of human aging and how even the wildest of children become disciplined.

Howie, Offended? No Way!

On page 120 in The Mezzanine, Howie showcases a unforeseen side of his self. Whilst eating a snack nearing the end of his lunch break, Howie breaks open his black Penguin paperback and after a few moments, promptly sets it aside, with obvious discontent.

          I found my place on the brilliant page and read:

                    Observe, in short, how transient and trivial is all mortal life; yesterday a drop of

                    semen, tomorrow a handful of spice and ashes.

          Wrong, wrong, wrong! I thought. Destructive and unhelpful and misguided and completely

          untrue!  but harmless, even agreeably sobering, to a man sitting on a green bench on a

          herringbone-patterned brick plaza near fifteen healthy, regularly spaced trees, within 

          earshot of the rubbery groan and whish of a revolving door... I was nearly tired ready to

          abandon it entirely, tired of Aurelius's unrelenting and morbid self-denial. This latest thing about

          mortal life's being no more than sperm and ash, read two days in a row, was too much for me.

It would seem that Howie, who at first apparently had a good impression of this writing by Aurelius, completely disagrees with the ideas presented. At first it would seem that this irrational reaction is only a simple character development in this novel, but Howie's reaction actually works in harmony with the development of his character so far throughout the novel. The perspective of Aurelius's statement is that each and every one of our lives is insignificant. This perspective holds truth when one holds his/her own life in comparison to the massive universe. While what Aurelius says is harsh but true, Howie believes otherwise. The fashion in which The Mezzanine is written allows readers to get a true grasp on how Howie's mind operates and the readers get a strong impression on how Howie thinks. When Aurelius says life is transient and trivial, readers should not be surprised that Howie begs to differ. From what has been told in the novel, Howie would be the type of person to believe that human contribution and action is extremely pertinent to mortal life. Example: Howie sees even the smallest technological developments as huge steps for mortal life, like the creation of perforation or paper towels. His fascination for these small developments made by humans on Earth (which, when you think about it, it is quite amazing how humans were able to completely peruse natural resources in order to create artificial order) proves his supportive feelings towards mortal life, and shows that he believes that mortal life is actually significant. For this reason, I truly believe that Howie reacts with frustration and annoyance to what Aurelius states because of his personality. 

The Mezzanine: Howie, Your Rare Non-Average Strange Guy in a Suit

The Mezzanine written by Nicholson Baker is a novel with a goal, yet a simple glance at the story says otherwise. The story may seem like just another ride up an escalator, but Baker actually aims to give the reader new, profound insight of themselves, that being that everyone is weird. The protagonist in the novel is known as Howie. He is not your average adult. While I recount the story in my mind, I see him as a grown adult sharing a personality with Curious George. He over analyzes everything, from paper towels to shoe laces. His memories consist of childhood habits which seem alien enough to almost everyone deemed average, and he ambitiously celebrates the things we "normal people" pass as insignificant in life such as perforation and sinking plastic straws. Hopefully this is convincing enough to say that Howie is a strange man. And apparently for Baker, a strange primary character deserves an equally strangely structured novel. 

Instead of the massive land of adventure where protagonists of a novel get to pilfer the caves of mountainsides or solve a crime, this book takes place during the 20 seconds of an escalator ride. Instead of using conflict of the now, Baker uses a basket full of memories and ideas belonging to a character and with it, mixes up a "plot" in which the character's quest is to fix his shoelaces during his lunch hour and his conflicts are with the constant questions that flicker up in his head.

To make this idea simpler, imagine an orange, or any other type of fruit for that matter, in place of this book's literary structure. On the outside, the story is plain and simple: a man's journey following his lunch break up an escalator to the mezzanine where his work awaits. Peel away this bland, bitter, disappointing layer of skin and you find the truly sought out contents (in plentiful amounts) of the story: a collection of memories and thoughts. Finally, right in the center of this chaos, you discover a seed: inedible because it will give rise to future fruits which will also display nothing of significance, yet contain a rich supply of history and ideas.

Let's continue with this analogy and look at this novel more deeply. As I stated, the escalator ride is parallel to the rind of an orange. Both are one-colored and simple (unless you want to be technical and talk about how orange rinds are used in Orange Chicken and such. We are not going to go there). But peel away this layer and you are presented with what makes up the majority of the story/fruit. The story largely consists of unique memories and ideas, all of which are triggered by occurrences and traits of and surrounding this particular ride up the escalator, for example, the loop of motion that the escalator performs triggers memories of being in gas stations watching hot dogs rotate around on the slowly rolling metallic row of metal bars (Page... Somewhere in the book). Similarly, the orange has carpels, each carpel itself, but are shared in the one orange. Finally, in the center there is the main purpose of the story which is to show the impact of your every single experience on your life. This purpose is unique, and also why the analogy to fruit works so well: this plain escalator ride will become a memory in itself, which will be part of the fruits that its seeds create.

For this reason, Howie is not "your rare non-average strange guy in a suit," because all the rest of us are like Howie. Baker wanted us to realize that we are just as strange as everyone else, including Howie. On the outside we may grow, but our memories are eternal, and surely, everyone has embarrassing memories or interesting traits that make them who they are as adults. These memories build on top of each other, creating new memories, ideas, and experiences, similar to one of Howie's thoughts: as we grow, brain cells die allowing for more connections to form with the old brain cells. Nicholson Baker may make Howie seem like the strangest office-worker on the planet, but he writes in hopes that readers realize how similar they are to Howie and to show that we, ourselves are all strange due to growth and experience, all of which expressed in a single memory up an escalator.