The Other Side.

Meeting with authors is always interesting to me. As a book lover, I find myself asking many questions about the stories I read. How did so-and-so come up with such an interesting idea? How can some small idea spark such a big story? and so on. I've taken writing classes. . . some in high school, some in college. . . lets just say I'm more of a reader than a writer, at this point anyway. I've always thought it would be incredible to have my name on the by-line or on the cover of a novel but. . we'll just stick with the I'm more of a reader thing for now.

I think what I found most interesting, with all of the authors we got to speak to, was their obvious passion for what they do. That idea of mine that it would be incredible to have my name on a by-line, well you could see that feeling in them as each of them were speaking. I wasn't surprised by this in the least bit because, why would you spend all of this time writing something if its not something you're passionate about? 

I also found it interesting that, although they are all writers, they all do things and think about things differently. Not that I thought they were all going to feel the same way about all of our questions, but sometime it was interesting to hear that one writer can think of something in one way and another the complete opposite. Even though, ultimately they are doing the same thing-- trying to get published. 

Lastly, the thing I found most interesting is that in the publishing process, the writer doesn't really have the "final say" or all of the power to make his or her work exactly the way they want it. As each of the writers spoke about this it made more and more sense as to why others had the ability to change the writers work, but I never really thought that the writer would have to give up rights on his or her own work. But hey, if they got to make all the decisions, all these other people in the process would be pointless and out of a job. 

Are Writers Relevant?

Last week in class I was asked if I thought writers were relevant when analyzing a story, essay, novel, ect. I can tell you in all honesty that I had never really thought about this. . . is the writer relevant? I came up with an answer that.. kind of lacks if you're wanting a straight answer. I think it depends. It depends on the writer, it depends on what the person is writing. . . it just depends.

We have read quite a bit this semester and we did look at the writers background when analyzing these stories. This made me first think, well duh, it must be important. With many of the writers we looked at you could see a connection with events in their life and their stories. An example of this is Kate Chopin-- in both of the stories of hers that we read, we could see connection of her life throughout. But it's not always like that. Sometimes a writer just thinks of something about goes from there. An example I have of this (not one from our class) is the writer of the bestseller Gone Girl, Gillian Flynn. I was watching an interview with her the other day and she was asked if her marriage or if any of her relationships inspired her story and she said that it in no way was based on her life-- she is very happily married (unlike the characters in the story).

I think this coming week, we will be able to see differences like this in the authors we talk to. I think some of them will be able to tell us that the stories they write come from events in their lives a lot of the time. Others might say the opposite.

Along with this, I have many other questions I might bring up to these others:
-What/Whom inspires you?
-Are their any particular writers that inspire you?
-When did you realize you wanted to become a writer?
-How long did it take you to become a published writer and what are some struggles that came with that?

Suffering and "The Veil"

“We all suffer alone in the real world; true empathy’s impossible. But if a piece of fiction can allow us imaginatively to identify with a character’s pain, we might then also more easily conceive of others identifying with our own” (Charters 1082).

~

I found that this quote is extremely relevant when thinking about "The Veil (the excerpt from Persepolis that we read last week). The whole story of "The Veil" is a true story based on the life of the writer, Marjane Strapis. Strapis told her story of how her life got completely turned around after a war which ended up changing her whole life as she knew it. Not only did she and her friends get separated (boys and girl were moved to separate schools), and the girls were now forced to wear veils, but life in her community changed as people were torn apart--fighting over religious and political issues that she as a ten-year-old girl did not understand. She also saw change in her own home when her mother was seen fighting for freedom and then feared of what could happen to her and her family, causing her to change her appearance. 

Because we know this story is based on the authors childhood we start to sympathize with the character. We try to understand what she went through at such a young age and we try to connect what she went through with the troubles of our lives--much like what was said in the chosen quote. No matter how many people we have in our lives that we can turn to with our problems, nobody can completely understand exactly how the other person is feeling or going through. As much as we try to connect with someone else's pain, it is not possible to 100% understand or feel what that person went through. Even though Strapis was not the only one going through these changes in her life, she had her own worries and her own feelings that only she could understand (ex. her wanted to be a prophet to help change the bad in the world), which cause her, in some way, to suffer alone.


Charters, Ann. "The Elements of Fiction." The Story and Its Writer: An Introduction to Short Fiction. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 1082. Print.

Magical Realism and Children's Literature

Last week we read two short magical realism stories. I kind of had an idea of what that meant from other stories we had read this semester (Moths, Metamorphosis), but it still kind of surprised me. I'll be completely honest, I'm not a huge fan of this particular genre, but it was nice to have the experience and learn about the genre itself.

To me, it's just odd. I get fantasy novels, like the Harry Potter series-- where the whole setting and all of the characters have some what of a magical being. But, throwing aspects of that into a setting like the one I'm living in was weird. I think I feel this way because I know how I would react to situations like an old man with wings and it would be COMPLETELY different than the reaction of these stories. I feel like magical realism is trying to mix fantasy and real life too much, to the point that its weird and sometimes uncomfortable.  

I also wanted to touch on one of the discussions we had in class over "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings" and how it is known as a children's story. We kind of debated whether it should be or not. I completely see both sides of what was said in class. Yes, these people treated this old man very poorly, pretty much stole from him and then celebrated the day he disappeared. It seems awful, indeed, but there were lessons to be learned from the story. All I wanted to add was that many children's stories have cruel aspects in order to teach the children a lesson. If you really look into those stories you were told as a kid, you might be surprised at what really happened in them-- you were probably too lost in the magical aspects of the story to even see the horrible things going on. My example of this will be Disney's Beauty and the Beast-- do you remember how the beast locked Belle up? How about how he reacted to her going the West Wing? And do I even need to mention Gaston?... the way he lusted over Belle was gross and not very kid friendly. That was just to name a few,

Just go through those stories you loved as a child. . .  you might be surprised.  

"The Heart of Darkness" and Racism

After reading Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" there was that one lingering question that I asked, our class asked, and many scholars have asked and that is, was Joseph Conrad/The Heart of Darkness Racist?

Well, nobody really knows. Conrad himself isn't around to answer our questions, but many have their opinions. Was he really racist or was he just pointing out social issues of his time? Maybe these issues of his time are what make Conrad have racist views. . . Who knows?

In my opinion, Conrad is racist- not because he is an awful person- but because of the time period that he was around, The description of African people in Heart of Darkness is horrible. They are seen and referred to as savages. The narrator says this about the natives in Africa, "It [Africa] was unearthly and the men [Africans] were-- no, they were not inhuman. Well, you know that was the worst of it-- this suspicion of their not being inhuman. It would come slowly to one. They [Africans] howled and leaped and spun and made horrid faces but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity-- like yours-- the thought of your remote kinship with the wild and passionate uproar." From this description, you can see how questions could be brought up about racism and this is only one of the many many things that point toward that belief.

The title itself can also be seen as racist. "Heart of Darkness" is set in the "Heart of Africa". Why must Conrad describe the heart of Africa as "dark". This is somethiing that some point out to be racist from the get-go. Others argue that it is simply describing the setting of the story because it literally was dark. . . the natives just happen to be dark as well.

These are only two simple examples of possible racism in Conrad's "Heart of Darkness". There are many more arguments on the matter out there and they are extremely interesting. As I said before, you can interpret the story however you'd like-- there can't be a wrong answer without Conrad around to tell us otherwise!