Finally Blue

I couldn't help but relate Pecola to Precious. Plus, both start with P.

Although it had a connotation (or denotation?), The Bluest Eye, literally meant Pecola's fervent desire for blue eyes. Not only did she want them, she wanted them to be the bluest. From this, many things resulted:

1. Wanting those blue eyes so much made Pecola blind. Blind of what really imported in life: the essence. Not beauty.

2. The famous "price of beauty." Her eyes cost her her sanity. To the reader she isn't yet free, like she thinks she is because she has blue eyes. We can see at the end that she doesn't get away with freeing Cholly from her mind; she hash't escaped her demons. And supposedly, with those eyes she would finally be free, which she clearly isn't, because, going back to what I said, she is imprisoned by other people's perspective of beauty.

3. The blue eyes didn't satisfy her fully. It will never be enough. Even with blue eyes she couldn't escape jealousy because she felt that someone had bluer eyes than her. She hasn't escaped her demons.

4. Since everyone told Pecola she was ugly and treated her harshly at the same time, she paired both behaviors and got conditioned to think that people treated her badly because she was ugly. This is why at the end she tells her imaginary friend, "The bluest eyes. Will you come back if I get them?"(204). At this point she already has blue eyes, she just wants to have the bluest fearing the friend will leave her.

In the final chapter, Morrison shows us that even if a person has had the most unfortunate life, their "end" (because Pecola didn't die, but there is is some sort of ambiguity there) still isn't going to be happy. Claudia, then, proceeds to juxtapose Pecola's and everyone else's states by saying that "her awkwardness made [them] think [they] had a sense of humor, her inarticulateness made [them] think [they] were eloquent."(205). As Claudia begins to analyze the whole situation, we understand that she has her own version of what seems to be the "ending." This is why there is an unsure feeling; we don't really know what happened to Pecola or how she really felt, all we know is Claudia's version of it.

Another interpretation of the ending may be Pecola's death. Yes, the texts around that final chapter tell us that she isn't dead, but once she starts talking with her imaginary friend and bragging about her new blue eyes, we can infer that she went to heaven and got what she wanted. And although she may not have died, the bluer her eyes made her blinder and more invisible to others. That is some sort of death.

If at the end, her eyes are finally blue, she is blue with them as well.

Who is Pecola Breedlove?

Pecola's identity crisis vlog:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKyWl2mrnUU

Pecola: the Object of Pity

Aesthetic interpretations are socially imposed, right? So then, the word aesthetics could stand for a lot of things, right? It doesn't only refer to someone that is pretty, but something that fits; that looks good in a certain context. 

I just really wanted to get that off my chest. Thanks. 

*cough*Pecola*cough*

Today we will try to understand why Morrison fooled us into Claudia being the principal character and suddenly demonstrating favoritism towards Pecola. 

First of all I would like to clarify: I hate when that happens. Just because Pecola is a victim of everything - literally (and somehow she's still perfect to the cliche viewer's eye) - it means that everyone, including the narrator have to turn to her side. She isn't trying to victimize herself, I know, but she does incite people to either feel pity for her or to bully her. This is why I came up with this theory: everyone thinks Pecola is much more interesting because she is poor, ugly and needs someone to help her. I am not trying to be mean or anything, I really am sorry for her harsh reality (it is, in fact, the toughest reality for a little girl) but she isn't as interesting as Claudia. Pecola is easily driven away by the rules of aesthetics while Claudia has an opinion of her own and isn't always demonstrating vulnerability. But I figured, Claudia kind of knows that she is ahead of Pecola, so she decided to "tell her story." All with a specific purpose, of course. 

Also, it's always Pecola who steals Claudia's light. Well, a little bit. The MacTeers wanted Claudia to love the doll they had given her but they were disappointed when she teared the doll apart because of her not finding any beauty in it. And there was Pecola, innocently desiring blue eyes and blaming herself of being ugly, needing someone to congratulate her for liking blue-eyed Mary Jane.

Another time was when Maureen bought an ice cream only to Pecola because she felt pity for her. What about Claudia? Just because her life wasn't entirely dysfunctional she didn't get an ice cream? As Frieda and Claudia waited for Maureen and Pecola outside the ice cream store they were  "thinking that [Maureen] would treat [them], or that [they] deserved it as much as Pecola did." (69). Did you see that? Pecola deserves stuff because she lives it tougher. And somehow, even though she lives in an environment with so much conflict, she manages to be a harmless little creature full of curiosity and love. 

Pecola is the perfect way for Morrison to demonstrate the irony with innocence that occurred at the time: the context she lives in would typically make her a bad person, but she turns out to be completely the opposite. 

Such a good metaphor. 

Hoez, Hoez Everywhere

As I was reading The Bluest Eye where Pecola interacts with the "whores," I noticed the whole scene was very similar to Edith Piaf's experience in La Vie En Rose. In both works, the authors' perception of these prostitutes congrue. They "did not belong to those generations of prostitutes created in novels, with great and generous hearts, dedicated because of the horror of circumstance...they weren't young girls in whores' clothing, or whores regretting their loss of innocence. They were whores in whores' clothing, who had never been young and had no word for innocence." (57). These are whores that hated men, not in a cliche-kind-of-way, but in a ain't-nobody-got-time-fo'-that way. These are whores that prefer spending time with a little girl and teaching her about life and men, like she was their own little girl. They take the reality they are given as it comes, and are fine with it. Coincidence? I DON'T HAVE A CLUE.
That's the thing with this book. I never know. 

I just wanted to say that word corrected me when I typed ain't. It suggested I should type Ann's or Anita. Racist word. 

I figured this novel has a lot of irony. It often intends to be funny with topics that are actually very harsh and difficult to talk about. For example, in this same part with the prostitutes, the three women laughed and made jokes about their poverty and loss of dignity as Marie "threw back her head. From deep inside, her laughter came like the sound of many rivers, freely, deeply, muddily, heading for the room of an open sea." (52).  It is not funny, it's actually pretty sad how easy it is to come down from all to nothing. Yet Morrison insits in making them laugh about this. A bit cynical. 

Going back to aesthetics, in this part a great influence of it is found. They're all old, trying to look like they are twenty again, but the more make up they put on (a social construct made for people to think they will fit in if they use it) the more harassed they looked like. Contradicting, huh? How society uses the enemy's strength at its favor. 

What I don't get is, how come a book narrated with such innocence contains absolutely the opposite? R-H-E-T-O-R-I-C.

Morrison and Aesthetics

I don't know if Claudia's mind is shaped by "the eye of the beholder" (which is the culture, the magazine editors and video directors) or not. Therefore, I decided to carry out an investigation that will define if Claudia is or isn't following the ideas of the way in which aesthetics are being imposed to her.

When she receives a blonde-blue-eyed doll for Christmas, she destroys it. Her parents tell her that this doll is astonishing and imply that having that doll will classify her as a normal girl. I have two theories for my investigation:
1. Claudia thinks she doesn't fit the mold, and because the doll represents that whole media, she is angry she can't be like the doll.
2. She doesn't agree with the beauty scheme she lives in. She purposely doesn't think the doll is beautiful as everyone says so. 

The first one implies that she is, in fact, shaped by the beauty scheme because she is already judging herself based on other's opinions of "beauty." The second one shows how she doesn't "go with the flow." Well let's see...
Claudia is a little girl who doesn't understand much about the harsh reality she's living. This mentality would lead her to actually nodding and yielding to what she's told. But remember what I had said in my previous entry: she isn't just any child, she's a prodigy. Prodigies often go against the flow. They don't let their society manipulate their thoughts. Claudia doesn't let anyone alter her perception of beauty. Look at how she destroys that doll.

Oohh but wait a second...why would then Claudia describe, thoroughly, her family's ugliness?
Would this mean that she isn't part of it but wants to be? Well, I am not sure but even if she's not shaped by it, she is till being influenced by it. It's inevitable to avoid and not-surrender.

A Little Bit of Behaviorism

It all has to do with our childhood.

It's funny how everyone victimizes themselves when talking about their childhood. When someone has to synthesize their life as little kids, somehow they were never cool, they were always bullied and pressured by their other friends. Well, just for the hell of it...I WAS A FOLLOWER AND MANIPULABLE AND WEIRD TOO. When Claudia puts herself in that weird, freak-like position, I imagine myself, physically, doing the exact same thing. I imagine myself with the typical awkward face, looking around to see if someone is watching me, not because I'm doing something wrong, but because I know that what I'm doing is extremely queer and am uncomfortable to watch (whoops, victimizing again). Yes, little Claudia inspires that type of inner child in me. Child reasoning is very, very tangled. 

Everything is manipulable. Even our behavior. Well, actually only manipulable if we are trained since little.

Let's see if AP Psych actually served me something.

Claudia's way of interpreting stuff is also very...different. Her type of behavior approaches our instinctive kind-of-behavior. When we are little, we are less influenced by humanity and its rules to everything. These are the times in which our inner animal is let out. When Claudia doesn't understand something, she twists and adapts it to her own comprehension. For example, while watching two people have a conversation,  she immediately catches their gestures and says that "their conversation is like a...dance: sound meets sound, curtsies, shimmies, and retires"(15). Did you see that? You just experienced the way of processing thoughts and encoding them of little Claudia. Interesting huh. Those brains are full of wonders. 

You may wanna write that down, it all has to do with classical conditioning. (Old guy in pic). 

Okay, we don't want to drive off too far from the topic. Think Great Depression. Think different ways of interpreting crises. Think genuine imagination. Think modesty, incomprehension, and mostly, failed love attempts. Conclusion (for today): corrupted childhood and innocence because of the evil ways of humanity. 

Different Claudia is Different

So there's this girl called Claudia. She's kinda like the typical prodigy that sees everything differently. You can tell this by the way she narrates the events. She seems so naive and questions everything like a child would, but her questions are often about humanity at its worst, without her knowing of course.  Poor kiddo. 

You know how Harry Potter's family thought he was weird and dumb and he turned out to be wizard Gandhi? Well, this book is kinda like this, except for the magic. Claudia is a special/weird nine-year-old, African American that narrates her tough present (and past?) through the Great Depression. I imagine you can imagine what she imagined at that time. She lived it tough and she didn't know that until she compared her Great Depression reality with the one she lives in the present. The Bluest Eye, is told from that perspective: a tormented past. 

While in some parts the book addresses innocent, casual everyday life situations, in other parts, it introduces dark topics such as oppression, fear and inequality. 

Although the way Ms. Morrison writes at the beginning doesn't continue, there is still an infant-innocent-like tone going on, which, I think, is there to create empathy. Also, let's have in mind that we read whatever Toni wants us to read. Therefore, the way she writes tells us something about her that she wants us to know but can't directly say. 

There is much more to this novel than just a little innocent girl trying to understand the world.

Unintentionally a Hipster

People say not to judge a book by it's cover. Well, that I don't agree with. You can perfectly judge a book by it's cover, more precisely, it's title. For example: The Bluest Eye. There is an eye that stands out from others. Not because it's blue but because it's the bluest. But, why would Toni Morrison write about only one eye? Is she referring to a certain type of person? Like specifically someone that doesn't fit in with the standard model of fitting-in...?

Any who, I really enjoyed how in the first chapter, Toni Morrison arranged the punctuation and proved us that just with this, the tone of the story can change enormously. At first she narrates a her trying to find someone to play with. It all seems very innocent and playful. When she finishes doing both (playing and narrating), the story begins all over again, but this time with no punctuation whatsoever. Reading this non-stop, gives the reader the sensation that someone, not the girl, is reciting the story by memory. After this paragraph, the same one is introduced with the exception of spaces between words. The fact that the author repeats the story three times and each time it gets faster and more monotonous, gives the sensation of "that's soo freaaaaky." Each time, the image of her telling the story becomes darker, and the camera in your brain starts to close-up her face. She's in a dark room, reciting this story non stop. MAKE IT STOP.

We are already seeing a pattern here: there is something that doesn't fit the mold. For now we have a queer little girl and a bluest eye. 

Let's dig. 

Next or The Real Housewives?

In my previous blog I talked about how we don't know what's real and what isn't. That is, philosophically. Now, we will see this topic from another point of view: reality TV. It is exactly the same issue Descartes posed, just that instead we have Kim Kardashian, girls and sweet sixteen parties and Flavor Flav. With reality shows, we are not certain if the material presented is actually real.

Oh come on, like you don't know who New York is. 

"I don't think our viewers necessarily differentiate between what's scripted and what's not. Our primary goal is to make a show that is compelling." (110) That's how reality tv directors think our small brains work. That's how stupid they think we are. Sad truth, that's how we are. We don't actually care how real a reality tv show is as long as it has fights and catches our attention. The worst thing is, these shows don't actually depict reality. They just show us, as Shields said, that they are "worse than what [we actually] experience" and "what someone else would do if things turned really bad." (107). And...we dig it. 

The article Brief Lives by Kate Salter from The Guardian talks about a guy who synthesizes a random person's story and writes it in the back of a postcard. He seems to feel so special because people open to him with all these stories, but how does he know they are true? How can he tell what is real and what isn't? He doesn't know who he's dealing with; never met the person and probably never will. That's why it isn't weird when someone talks to him about the presence of aliens, he directly assumes they're crazy, lonely or really desperate. There is no guarantee that there is always certainty in the tales told to us. But since they are completely external to us, at least in this case, we can't judge. Therefore, we go ahead and choose to believe exactly what they told us. 

Reality is in the eye of the beholder, the public. And we distort reality according to how much we want it to be real or not. Unconsciously, we believe what we choose to and adjust it to our own perception. But, have in mind that we also tell what we want to. 

ABCDEF

Considering his answer didn't have but one centimeter of reasoning, I've never been able to figure out the answer to Descartes' question: how do we know what's real and what isn't? The logical answer would be "our senses." Well, our senses cheat us. They do so through psychoactive substances and unconscious states of mind. Memories can be designed, and if they are already part of our hippocampus, we will perceive them as something that did happen. What I'm trying to say here, is that reality is (informally) what we perceive is true and not what we know is true.

G
At least I know I'm not alone, David Shields is with me. In his memoir Reality Hunger, as he describes it, he says that he's "interested in the generic edge, the boundary between what are roughly called nonfiction and fiction." (191) We can't distinguish those to words that easily. He then says "Art is real. I make it real by putting it into words." (200) This supports my argument because he is saying that basically what is real is what there is evidence of, what is recorded. Just like memory. Just like the truth. When he puts art down into words (art being writing) he is making a statement that even though it may be refuted, it is true. It is true simply by the fact that it's a statement. He said it. It already exists.

This is why we should live our live assuming everything is a lie. Just like this guy.

H

We live not in our lives but in the lives we are told to live in. Wait, but doesn't that mean that those lives are actually our lives...? Don't worry, I'm not disagreeing with Shields; it is tremendously worrying that we are living off and in the popular culture. I'm sorry Camille, I think I'm going to use your aphorism. Wait a second...it's not yours. It's not even Shields' either. Woah. Anyways, "our culture is obsessed with real events because we experience hardly any." (242) As I said, our moments aren't ours. They are High School Musical and E! News' creation. Just for the hell of restating: "The 'ordinary' person's cult of personal celebrity is nurtured by these new models of communication and presentation and representation." (245)

I

"We live in difficult times: art should be difficult (my goal is to make every paragraph as discomforting as possible)." (249) Why do we lives in difficult times? Because what should be difficult (art) is now tremendously easy. For example, in The Intouchables Driss asks Philippe why he buys an such an expensive painting if it is just a red stain. The typical response would be "because it resembles reality and depicts the point society has reached to." Well, a clever way to use Shields aphorism, is by saying that recognition through that kind of art is very easy to achieve. Everyone appreciates simplistic art because it "shows how crude this world is" and all those not-really-deep reviews. Basically, I can draw a line with a marker right now, name it Greed and become famous. These are indeed difficult times. 

We are now, officially, lost. 

Actually that's from Shields but im not citing just 'cause I also came up with it. 

Commentary Metacognition

Yeah, now that you mention it, the title should've been more specific. I gotta give it to you Mr, it's more towards the "part of the reason why people can use spanglish is because there are so many people that speak both languages." It was kind of hard to have three topics about one that is so similar in many ways.

Also, I should've used some kind of text I could refer to regarding spanglish, a student's paper, a conversation, something. I was originally going to do the conversation but I thought it would be too confusing so I decided to stick to something more more well known, that everyone uses and general.

Thanks for the writing and the conlusion, I actually wrote the whole paper thinking about the conclusion.

I understand what you mean by coherency, I also think I should have stuck onto something more specific and have gone deeper regarding the topics.

"Oversoul" Questions

A. What is the mind according to Emerson?
The mind is something that doesn't concord with with what the soul does. Our actions are different if they are based on mind than if they are based on soul. It is like comparing reason with passion. As Emerson says it, it is the "scale of the senses and the understanding."

B. Define "beatitude" as it is used on page two.
Happiness and/or blessing.

C. On the first paragraph of page four, why does Emerson employ a parallel structure? Explain.
He accentuates his ideas and shows that together they form a main idea.

D. For Emerson, how are revelation and creation related?
Emerson says they are both related to questioning life and arguments it by saying that "revelation is the disclosure of the soul" and creation, well, it's self-explainatory.

F. What's God's role in all of this? Do you think Emerson's theory is feasible?
God's role is to provide a "shoulder to cry on." That is, to be accessible to all who need him. Even if they don't believe they need him. He is in each of our souls. Emerson doesn't talk about the Catholic god himself, but about a miscellaneous God that is inside all of us; a God we are unaware of. He says that the only way to notice him is by living our lives, and we will eventually see his effects on such.

I don't think Emerson theory is feasible, at least not fully. Maybe it is true that we have some sort of energy or soul within the soul that is named "God," and it is its duty to be accessible when needed. But that doesn't mean that to unleash it we must live our lives. Our purpose to live is solely to live, not to discover the God within us.

Not-"The Communist Manifesto"

Whenever I heard the word "manifesto," it takes me back to dark-APUSH stage of my life full of Republicans and Democrats, and primary resources that never really made it to my hippocampus. The only thing I can come up with when I hear this word is famous "Communist Manifesto." Solely with my use of logic, I understand manifesto as a form of -as the name states it- written manifestation by someone involved in a current issue and wants to make a declaration. Since everyone posted its meaning in their blogs, I don't feel the need to do so.

Basically there is a book named Reality Hunger by David Shields that talks about the appreciation for art, and how no matter what area of art it is, it always ends up involving reality. And then there is a manifesto (omg) named "The Futurist Manifesto" by F.T. Marinetti that talks about the involvement of technology in the future and how we shouldn't ignore it. This is why it is named "The Futurist Manifesto," it is futurists who want to change the world. As I read this manifesto, I thought about the chemistry lab that I had to finish. Don't worry, I kept fighting for my right to understand. So I did. That was my intent of comprehension I came up with. 

Anyway, both authors somehow want the readers to understand these topics in a different way and maybe even embrace it. David Shields shows us art as a form of reality, and talks solely about art (this is, in the first chapter). But since he is beginning to get into the "reality topic," it is obvious that he will lead us to a deeper meaning involving society; all that controversial stuff. This, of course, will be transmitted to us through art. Maybe. This will lead us to a reflection of how we live and how this will make up our future. Something we should be concerned with. 

Documentary

Trends documentary. 

Scotland, Ireland, England

Scottish, British, Irish.

Yeah I thought so too.

They're not.

Actually these different dialects (because they are dialects, not accents) are not the same. They even have a historical background! Wow, this world really is full of information. That type of global ignorance is really common in cases like these. People think the population in Africa is composed by starving kids, Colombia is a jungle, Israel is a war force and that Scotland, Ireland and England are the same. We divide the English language into two worlds: the U.S. and not the U.S., which would come to be all of these English-speaking countries that to the worlds eyes (except themselves) are England but not so pretty.

That North American egocentrism is rather a small contradiction. Scottish - and Irish as well - was responsible for the spread of English through North America and added an accent to it.

Yay! A little bit of Scottish, Irish and Enlgish folk for us. 

One does not simply understand Irish. If one does not understand Irish, how does one understand Scottish? One does not either.

I saw a comment in the video (kintakintyea) that caught my attention, because that is how these dialects look like through our non-comprehending eyes:

Weel aat weis verra gweed ma freen' thunken yea fur posten aat veedio' eit broacht a greet tae ma een!

Lang meiy yer lum reek ma freen!!

Gordon

Typical ignorant but funny and relatable joke. 

Hollywood Vs. Bollywood

So basically there are two types of people in the world: the ones who speak english and the ones who don't.


Did you know that "India's first prime minister...declared that English should be replaced by Hindi"? (The Story of English episode 1 - An English Speaking World - Part 2/7) Imagine how weird it would be...

Just think about it for a sec.

K.

Good.

I started off by thinking this documentary was extremely pro-english and didn't give any space to other languages. Then, I started meditating the fact that maybe it used some irony, suggesting that we idolize  English too much and proceed to idealize it afterwords. The thing is, there will always be a globalized language. Two thousand years from now, there will be much more other languages and English will be replaced by another one. Language is constantly changing.

Comparing English with Hindi is not very fair; "English has some advantages over Hindi (The Story of English episode 1 - An English Speaking World - Part 2/7). But also it is because English has had much more impact and adoption of culture in the world. Hindi, on the other hand, deals more with ethnicity and religion, while English doesn't. The documentary shows some well-educated Hindu school girls talking about how "english is also socially desirable" and "[it] represents class"...talking in English. It is such the power of this language (which is solely a language) that it has become a culture. Just because you speak English doesn't mean you are as funny as you are with your native language. 

We must be comfortable with certain language as the lingual power because I don't think we will be able to ever not have one. 

"The Story of English episode 1 - An English Speaking World - Part 2/7" YouTube, YouTube, Aug 27, 2009. Web. Jan 13, 2013

The Lingual Mount Olympous

English is seen as a lingual deity. It is true that it takes an enormous part in worldwide communication, but other languages are able to transmit different things that english can't.

There are five different types of extinguishers.
They all serve for a special purpose (solids, flammable liquids, radioactive substances, etc.) but there is one called the "multi-purpose" that as the name states it, can be used with all types of materials. The problem with this extinguisher is that it isn't completely effective. When wood is burnt and carbonized, it will extinguish the flame but won't turn off the fathom and the chance the fire will restart will still exist. With the English language it is similar.

The The Story of English depicts English as the language of the gods. To me, being Latin American, the English-speaking countries have always been an unquestionable supreme being. Here, knowing English in most cases determines your social status. But I have discovered this isn't entirely correct as it is true. We were raised to look up to those kind of things but we then realize that there are other languages too, and we mustn't refer to English as a god anymore. In my case, I find Spanish more poetic, French more formal and Greek more intellectual. The Story of English says that "it is more influential than any language the world has ever known...an english speaking world." (The Story of English Episode 1 - An English Speaking World - Part 1/7) English speaking world. You don't survive without speaking English. How's that? Not true, duh. 

Reflection:
Why do we look up more to living the American dream and not the Chinese dream?



Yes, I do realize I wrote this in English.


"The Story of English Episode 1 - An English Speaking World - Part 1/7" YouTube, YouTube, Aug 27, 2009. Web. Jan 12, 2013