For Monday: Naipaul, The Mystic Masseur, Chapters 9-11

NOTE: Try to finish the book or get as close as you can for Monday's class. We'll have a Book Exam over the novel on Wednesday, so at least finish for then (and bring your book to class). 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: How does Naipaul satirize democratic elections in a ‘brand new’ postcolonial nation like Trinidad?  How does the system not work—and how is the very idea of democracy often misunderstood by Ganesh and others? 

Q2: Once the American soldiers arrive in Trinidad, America begins to have a much more profound influence on Trinidadian life than Britain.  Where do we see the “American” influence in its day-to-day life?  How does Ganesh himself try to institute “American” popular culture? 

Q3: Once Ganesh enters politics he emulates the reforms and ideals of Gandhi, who liberated India from British control.  But is his mimicking sincere or somewhat hypocritical?  Gandhi followed the teachings of the Gita as his polestar: does Ganesh? In general, what kind of political leader does he make?

Q4: How do you understand the end of the book, when the Narrator, now a grown man, encounters Ganesh in London?  Why does he change his name to “G.Ramsay Muir”?  How does he respond to the Narrator’s advances? 

Paper #2 Assignment: Colonial English, due Friday, April 14th!

Paper #2: Colonial English

INTRO: V.S. Naipaul notes that for Ganesh, “It was a strain for him to talk correctly, and the woman noted, with obvious satisfaction, that he was moving his lips silently before every sentence, as though he were mumbling a prayer” (114). He only becomes aware of his ‘colonial’ English when he has to play the role of a proper guru, one that sounds learned, as if he had read thousands upon thousands of books. However, even though he has heard this English before, and probably learned it in school, it isn’t natural to him. The language that he grew up speaking was different, both in sound and in syntax, and merely adopting another English isn’t quite as easy as it seems—as this passage proves.

PROMPT: I want you to write a paper about your own personal ‘English.’ This isn’t something most of us think a lot about, at least not until it’s brought to our attention by someone who speaks differently—or thinks we do! Discuss how you became aware of your own unique dialect of English, and what it means for you to speak this way. Do you take pride in it? Are you ever embarrassed by it? Whom do you identify with because of it? What groups or people welcome you simply because of your language, and which ones might not? What words and phrases are unique to your culture/area, and might not be used or understood by others? You might also think how you picked it up, and especially if you moved around as a child, which ones you were exposed to, and which ones you kept.

REQUIREMENTS: While writing your own personal history with ‘English,’ I want you to find someone out in the world who you identify with because of their language. It should be someone we might know or could see in the media, etc., so that we could hear them, too. Explain why you recognize their English and how it makes you feel you share the same culture. What do they do that you recognize and you do yourself? And do you want to emulate them even more—speak like them, pronounce words this way, etc? Or is it something you want to get away from, and they merely remind you of your secret linguistic ‘shame’?

ALSO: You must quote some passage from The Mystic Masseur to support your ideas and discussion about language and culture. Be sure to explain where the passage comes from, what’s going on, and what the passage means. Just throwing in a quote without context that doesn’t make sense probably won’t be very convincing.

NO PAGE LIMIT—that’s up to you. Be creative and think about how language reflects who you are, how others see you, who you were taught to be, and maybe, who you strive to be.

DUE FRIDAY, APRIL 14^th BY 5pm

For Wednesday: Naipaul, The Mystic Masseur, Chapters 6-8

NOTE: Since a lot of people clearly are behind in the reading, we'll double-back and discuss Chapter 6 again, and only add two more chapters to the reading. Again, if you can't get exactly to Chapter 8 it's no big deal, but get there as soon as you can! 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: Throughout the book, Ganesh claims that fate is working through him, and that like the Tao, he is simply following the 'flow' of its will. As he writes at the beginning of Chapter 7, "Everything happens for the best. If, for instance, my first volume had been a success, it is likely that I would have become a mere theologian...As it was, I found my true path" (101). Does this book have a spiritual element where hidden forces (like the Tao, karma) are working towards Ganesh's success and enlightenment? Or is this another instance of Naipaul's satire? How seriously should we take Ganesh, after all?

Q2: Why does 101 Questions and Answers on the Hindu Religion become "the first best seller in the history of Trinidad publishing"? What makes the public's indifference turn to eagerness and adulation? What might this say about the nature of "best sellers" in any country, at least according to Naipaul?

Q3: How does Ganesh cure the young boy, Hector, from his ailment? Is this scene an instance of high comedy in the novel, or is it supposed to be more profound and spiritual? Is this why people start thinking "that Ganesh was the only true mystic in the island” (128). Is he just better at fooling the locals than the competition? Or does this scene show us the master at work? 

Q4: Where else in these chapters does the author seem to be skirting the line between ridicule and satire? Remember satire uses humor to show us the problems with society, and to point out possible solutions. Ridicule, however, is simply used to mock people and ideas. Are there any passages that make you question his intentions, or that you find offensive? You might also consider the use of a certain work that is taboo in 21st century America, but he uses very casually in a few passages. 

For Monday: Naipaul, The Mystic Masseur, Chapters 4-6

Read as much of the next three chapters as possible, but don't worry if you don't quite finish Chapter 6. We'll spend the entire week finishing the book, so you'll have plenty of time before the Reading Exam the week after next.

Answer two of the following…

Q1: As the hero of our tale, Ganesh undertakes the most heroic task of all: to become a writer of books. What obstacles does Ganesh face on his path? Why is writing a book all that more difficult in a postcolonial country than, say, in England or America (where it's hard enough!)? 

Q2: In Chapter Four, Naipaul writes, “It was their first beating, a formal affair done without anger on Ganesh’s part or resentment on Leela’s; and although it formed part of the marriage ceremony itself, it meant much to both of them. It meant that they had grown up and become independent.” What do you make of this scene and others like it? Is this simply part of the "Indian” culture of Trinidad...or does this result from the conflict of East and West on the island?

Q3: Defending his book to Beharry, Ganesh exclaims, “Is a damn good book, you hear.”  Why does Ganesh so overestimate the quality and importance of his book?  What do we see (thanks to the narrator) that he is blind to?  How might this reflect the colonial limitations of this world as Naipaul sees them? 

Q4: In Jamaica Kincaid’s A Small Place (a non-fiction work about the Caribbean island of Antigua), she writes that “people in a small place cannot give an exact account, a complete account of events…The people in a small place can have no interest in the exact, or in completeness, for that would demand a careful weighing, careful consideration, careful judging, careful questioning.” Why are the people of Trinidad so unwilling to judge and question their world? Is Ganesh the exception to this—or is he just as “small” as the rest of them? 

For Friday: Naipaul, The Mystic Masseur, Chapters 1-3

 

NOTE: A “masseur” is a term denoting something between a sage, a mystic, a spiritual healer, and a prophet.  Part of the comedy of this work is how Ganesh enters into this profession, and whether or not V.S. Naipaul feels there is anything heroic in his career: can a man with the wrong intentions come out right?

Answer TWO of the following…

Q1: What role do books and knowledge (esp. English/European knowledge) play in Trinidadian society?  How might this play into the conflict between East and West that we’ve seen in previous works?  Consider Ramlogan’s comment, “This reading, sahib, is a great great thing” (34). 

Q2: In Chapter One, Naipaul writes that “I myself believe that the history of Ganesh is, in a way, the history of our times” (18). In what way might Ganesh’s early career mirror the struggle of many citizens in the postcolonial world? Why is it difficult for Ganesh to find himself and establish a career and a life for himself?

Q3: When this novel was written, Trinidad had only recently gained its independence from Britain (in 1962). Yet how is Trinidad still very “British” in its ways and ideas, and how it this often comically portrayed by Naipaul? You might also consider why the society clings to these colonial ideas instead of replacing them with more native laws and ideas.

Q4: Naipaul writes much of this work in dialect, capturing the natural speech of the island and the Indian communities of Trinidad. Why might this be important for a book with such a non-English of view? Recall an earlier class where we discussed the great literary debate of postcolonial societies: which language to write in? How does Naipaul have his cake and eat it, too, in this case? 

For Wednesday: Last Two Akutagawa Stories: "The Story of a Head That Fell Off," and "Horse Legs"

Here are your LAST TWO stories before Spring Break! Please read both of these short, but strange stories, and answer two of the questions below for Wednesday's class:  

Q1: In “Horse Legs,” when Hanzaburo abandons his wife and runs off into the wild, a newspaper article comes out condemning the government for “having neglected our urgent need for a law prohibiting insanity” (141). Why does this article seem to think going mad is a choice, rather than an affliction? And what does he seem to think it allows normal, working class men to get away with?

Q2: What do you think Major Kimura means in “The story of a Head That Fell Off,” when he says, “It is important—even necessary—for us to become acutely aware of the fact that we can’t trust ourselves” (119)? Is this the true moral of the story? Or yet another unreliable narrator imposing his view on the reader?

Q3: Despite the level of satire, “Horse Legs” is also a kind of modern-day fable or fairy-tale. What might be the metaphorical significance of a normal man, in a normal job, who suddenly dies and returns to life with horse legs? How might this represent something ‘real’ in our own world? Do people sometimes wake up with ‘horse legs’? (not literally, but symbolically???)

Q4: When the Chinese soldier, Xiao-er, looks back on his life on the moment of death, “he recognized all too well the ugliness that had filled it” (116). What ugliness do you think he (and Akutagawa) is referring to, and how might this connect with previous stories we’ve discussed?

For Monday: Akutagawa, 3 stories: "Dr. Ogata Ryosai," "O-Gin" & "Loyalty"

Instead of giving you another set of questions (really!) I'm going to let you simply read these three stories and we'll do a brief in-class response on Monday. But as you read, here are some ideas to think about to help you:

SOME CONTEXT: These stories both take place closer in time to the present, and showcase a time when Japan is coming into contact with foreign ideas--in this case, Christianity. "Dr. Ogata Ryosai" is a Buddhist doctor who is very suspicious of the new Christian converts in his village (he doesn't understand them, or their customs, which is why he calls the crucifix a "kurusu" and Christians "Kirishitan"). 

In the story, "O-Gin," the narrator is the opposite of the doctor, a Japanese-Christian convert who sympathizes with his fellow Christians, O-Gin and her family. 

In "Loyalty," however, we're back in a medieval Japanese world, with its strict politics and social obligations. 

* Consider how each story dramatizes the struggle between duty and desire, or love and caste. Why do so many of the characters seem to go against their duty and choose love? Is this a 'selfish' attachment?

* What makes the narrators of the first two stories unreliable? Why can't we trust Dr. Ogata Ryosai or the narrator of O-Gin? What makes their views and storytelling a bit too limited?

* Why do the servants respond so differently to the demands of the master of their House in "Loyalty"? Does the story suggest which one is right? What are the implications for each one's decision?

* In these stories, what makes Japanese culture such a difficult society to navigate? Why is it so hard to follow the rules?

* Even though these stories are about Buddhists and Christians, how might the Bhagavad Gita weigh into their conflicts of duty/dharma and love/attachments?  

For Friday: Akutagawa, "Hell Screen"

Only ONE story for Friday, but it's a doozy: the 'horror' story, "Hell Screen," which is equally weird and disturbing. But I think you'll see many of the same themes from "Rashomon" in this story, too.

Answer two of the following:

Q1: "Hell Screen" is a horror story in the vein of Edgar Allen Poe or even Steven King, and is certainly like many of the horror movies we watch today. It's also based on a very old Japanese folk-story that Akutagawa re-told and transformed through his own imagination. In general, why are we drawn to stories of murder, monsters, and hellish torments? What makes them so popular, and why might Akutagawa be tapping in to these very qualities in this story? 

Q2: The painter, Yoshihide, claims that he can only paint what he has personally observed with his own eyes—and nothing else. This often leads him to observe rather gruesome spectacles, such as rotting corpses and chained prisoners (and at the end of the story, something even worse). Responding to criticisms of this practice, he responds, “Other painters are such mediocrities, they cannot appreciate the beauty of ugliness” (48). Does this strike you as a very Tao-like sentiment, that true beauty is also to be found in ugliness? Or is this a misinterpretation of the Tao te Ching?

Q3: Why is it significant that both the painter and the monkey share the same name: Yoshihide? While many claim that each one looks like the other, even the daughter protects the monkey because "I can't just stand by and watch my father being punished." Besides this grotesque comparison, what else does Akutagawa make with this curious reflection? 

Q4: Each of these stories is told by a Narrator, who, like the characters from “In a Bamboo Grove” doesn’t have complete knowledge of the story. For most of them, this is a story they have only heard second-hand, that happened long ago, and might never have happened at all. How does the storyteller in one of these stories color the narrative and influence what we see and how we read it? How might we also read it against their interpretation?