Proper Paper #2: Finding the ‘World’ (Final Exam)

INTRO: The last three books in this class are truly works of ‘world’ literature, meaning they represent the perspective of cultures and languages outside the normal American/European orbit. Additionally, each one tells a coming-of-age story as each narrator (they’re all first person, too) attempts to negotiate the responsibilities of adulthood through largely innocent eyes. But beyond these generic similarities, how much do they really have in common? Is anything “not us” by definition “World Literature”? Or do works from postcolonial societies offer a unified critique of the Western world, as well as the forms and languages it has bequeathed us?

PROMPT: Using these three works as a basis, how might you define ‘World Literature’ as a perspective? How does it differ from the other works in class (Manon, etc.), or from other works you’ve studied this semester? What unites works of 20^th-21^st century literature from other countries and traditions outside of Europe? Do they share certain approaches, themes, identities, and values? Or could the very idea of lumping them together as “World Literature” be limiting, dismissive, or even racist? In other words, are they ‘World’ by default, or are they ‘World’ by intention? Do we gain more by studying them together rather segregating them to their respective counties or languages (Duras as French lit, Naipaul as British lit, etc.)?

REQUIREMENTS: This is your final exam, so to speak, so I want to see you use all three books to some degree (though you can use one more than the others). Quote and analyze passages to make your point, and don’t summarize any more than necessary (no need to recount the plot of each book). You’re not required to use secondary sources, but you certainly can if you wish. I’m most interested in how you can use the books to defend this term and explore how it helps us read the literature in question.

There is no length requirement. Write at your own peril! J

Due no later than Friday, December 11^th by 5pm (no later papers accepted—it’s this or bust).

Last Video: Reading the "World"

NOTE: This is your final video for the class, so don't forget to leave a response below (a lot of people are forgetting to do this, so be careful!). However, this video and the response are geared to prepare you for your final paper, the so-called Proper Paper #2. I'll post that early next week so you can start thinking about it, though it won't be due until the last day of finals. Don't forget the final set of questions for The Lover below this post as well.

Final Questions for The Lover (and final questions for the class!)

NOTE: These are the final questions for the class, and all that's left is a short video I'll post later today that will introduce the Proper Paper #2 assignment (your Final). So stay tuned! Remember, no more face-to-face classes, so just focus on finishing the reading and planning your final paper. Let me know if you have any questions.

Q1: The narrator is obviously infatuated with her roommate, Helene Lagonelle. She writes of her that she "worn out with desire" for her, and that she "wants her to give herself where I give myself" (74). Since she has clearly flouted so many of the taboos and social conventions of her society, why doesn't she have a relationship with Helene? What seems to stop her? 

Q2: Why does colonial society seem to destroy young men as readily as it discards young women? Why might men, in particularly, have a difficult time finding a role in this society? Why might the older brother's life be the rule, rather than the exception, in Indochine society? 

Q3: The Narrator does something strange in the book, conflating her stillborn child with her dead younger brother. Why does she do this? Does the brother's death allow her to mourn her child properly (openly)? How might this also relate to the Lover's desire of her being similar to his desire for a child? (she says a few times that she became his child). 

Q4: Finally, most importantly, does she love "the Lover"? Is the book really about him, as its title claims, or is he merely the means of kindling her memory to who she was at this time? Or does "the Lover" refer to someone/something else? 

A Reminder...

Just a reminder: Rough Paper #2 is due next week on the day you don't have class. So for Monday classes, it's Wednesday; Wednesday classes is on Monday. Why? Only so you won't have two things due on your class day (a paper and pages from The Lover), and so I can divide the class in half as far as the grading. Remember that this is a ROUGH paper, so I'm not expecting miracles. I want you to get ideas on paper, nothing more. Just follow the basic ideas on the assignment and you'll do fine...but please, for the love of all that's sacred, QUOTE from the book! :) :) :) 

ALSO, I've decided not to post a video this week so you'll have less to focus on. Just do the paper and the reading. I'll give you another video (a final one) next week.

Good luck and let me know if you have any questions!

Reading & Questions for Duras' The Lover (pp.1-60)

 

From the 1992 film of The Lover 

NOTE: I apologize for the delay; I've been under the weather, and somehow managed to delete the video I made to introduce this book. Rather than making it again with other deadlines looming, I'm just going to post the questions for now and post the video tonight or tomorrow. But luckily the book is a short and quickish read, so you shouldn't get behind. After all, we're almost done with the semester!

Q1: The book takes place in French Indochine (Indo-China), a French colony since 1887 (which is today Vietnam). Like Miguel Street, people of many races and cultural identities live here, including the narrator, who is the child of a French schoolmistress. How does race play a factor in this society? How is she seen by others, including her lover, the mysterious Chinese businessman? Also, how does she see herself in relation to others?

Q2: How is the narration (and the Narrator) of this book very similar to Miguel Street? What similarities do they have in their relationship to the area and to the way they tell their story? Why do you think many postcolonial works might adopt this narrative style? 

Q3: On page 34, the Narrator writes that "And I'll always have regrets for everything I do, everything I've gained, everything I've lost, good and bad..." Why do you think her affair with 'the Lover' begins this endless stream of regrets? What does she feel she has gained and lost? And why might it still affect her so many decades later (since she's writing the book in old age)?

Q4: On page 54, she describes the stiflingly cruel atmosphere of her family, writing that "It's a family of stone...Every day we try to kill one another, to kill. Not only do we not talk to one another, we don't even look at one another." What clues do we get for the family's disfunction? Is it their mother? The status? The country itself? Or is this being colored by her regrets in the future? 

Rough Paper #2: Literary Apprenticeships

“You people think I not a man, eh? My father had eight children. I is his son. I have ten. I better than all of you put together” (“The Pyrotechnicist”).

INTRO: Both Miguel Street and Botchan are “bildungsroman” (education novels) or coming-of-age novels about the education and maturation of a young man. While the Narrator in Miguel Street is more subtle than the comical blunders of Botchan, we still see him watching, thinking, and growing behind the scenes of each story. In a traditional coming-of-age novel in England, the hero would learn to become a moral and educated man by the end of the story (and probably married to boot). But these are hardly ordinary novels, and all of them take place very far from England.

PROMPT: For your second rough paper, I want you to discuss how each book subverts the typical ‘bildungsroman’ model.  Clearly neither Soseki nor Naipaul was interested in writing a paint-by-numbers story. Instead, they wanted to use the basic template of a bildungsroman to do something else—or to suggest why this model doesn’t work in ‘real’ life. As you write, consider SOME of the following ideas:

• What lessons do the heroes learn (or incorrectly learn) during their stories?
• Who are their role models? Who are their enemies? Why is this important?
• Is the author sympathetic to our heroes? Or are they something satirizing or outright mocking them?
• How do other characters in the stories view the heroes and their education? Are they impressed by them? Or disgusted?
• How do they learn to define manhood (since both are men) through the stories and chapters of each work? What do they accept, and what do they reject?
• Does each hero get a ‘career’ by the end? Is it their “chosen calling”? Or do they settle for something “good enough”?
• Do the heroes receive a universal education…or is it specific to their respective countries/cultures?

REQUIREMENTS

• Page numbers are up to you; it’s a rough paper, so you decide how much is enough (but try to avoid saying too little)
• Quote from both books: don’t simply summarize or paraphrase, and please don’t give us plot summary. Analyze the ideas and language of the stories.
• Try to show connections between the books, even when they don’t agree with one another
• Due Monday, November 16^th for Wednesday Classes
• Due Wednesday, November 18^th for Monday Classes

Reading & Questions for Miguel Street (stories below)

 

Read the following stories for next week:

* B. Wordsworth

* The Pyrotechnicist

* The Mechanical Genius

* Hat

* How I Left Miguel Street 

ALSO: I'll be posting the Rough Paper #1 assignment along with a video at the end of this week--so stayed tuned! 

Answer 2 of the following:

Q1: Why is the Narrator so fascinated with people like Popo (from "The Thing Without a Name"), B.Wordsworth, and Bhacku? What makes them all similar in his mind? Similarly, how does the street 'break' each one during the course of their story? In a way, why can't people like this exist on Miguel Street for long?

Q2: Writing about Morgan and his 'jokes,' the narrator admits that "I felt the joke was somehow terribly and frightening" (86). Why is Morgan such a terror to his children, yet such an incredible buffoon to everyone on the street? Why can't he be "one of the boys" like Hat and Bogart?

Q3: How does the narrator (and by extension, Naipaul) feel about the casual misogyny and outright brutality of the street? Is the Narrator aware of and critical of it? Or does Naipaul make the Narrator accept and even applaud it at times? An example of either one?

Q4: At the end of "Hat," the narrator remarks, "When Hat went to jail, part of me had died" (214). What changed? And how does this lead to the Narrator's fateful departure from Miguel Street (something that not even Elias could manage to do?).