ENGL 4310

3/4 cup margarine
3/4 cup creamy peanut butter (I uses honey roasted PB)
3/4 cup brown sugar
3/4 cup white sugar
2 eggs
1 tsp vanilla
1 tsp baking soda
1 1/2 cups flour
1 1/2 cups rolled oats
Spread in an ungreased jelly roll pan and bake @ 350 degrees for 12 min.
Cool and spread with a thin layer of peanut butter and chocolate frosting.

Chocolate frosting topper:
1 cube margarine
2 cups powdered sugar
1 tsp vanilla
3 1/2 Tb powdered cocoa
(or use your favorite choc. store bought frosting-it just ain't as good)

I know that I brought in examples of propaganda posters for our critical lens session on “Pale Horse, Pale Rider” but I am still fascinated by them I guess. Since so many of the posters were targeted towards women, I thought it would be fun to put a few examples of posters up against quotes from the book.

On Liberty Bonds:

“Miranda began to explain that she had no money, and did not know where to find any, when the older man interrupted: “That’s no excuse, no excuse at all, and you know it, with the Huns over-running martyred Belgium.”

“Miranda tried not to listen, but se heard. These vile Huns—glorious Belleau Wood—our keyword is Sacrificed—Martyred Belgium—give till it hurts
—our noble boys Over There—Big Berthas—the death of civilization—the Boche.”

On “Good Works”:

“…she went out to join a group of young women fresh from the country club dances, the morning bridge, the charity bazaar, the Red Cross workrooms, who were wallowing in good works. They gave tea dances and raised money, and with the money they bout quantities of sweets, fruits, cigarettes, and magazines for the men in cantonment hospitals.”

“I do worse,” she said soberly; “I write pieces advising other young women to knit and roll bandages and do without sugar and help win the war.”

With so many similar posters out there advising women as to how they can help “win the war” it doesn’t surprise me that Miranda seems to resent it. So many of these posters are so demanding and are purposely made to be frightening. It would be upsetting to be badgered constantly about buying bonds and saving sugar, let alone have your patriotism and femininity attacked if you did not do so. Or, how would you like this on your front door?

I know that we weren’t applying the Family Relationships lens to “The Lame Shall Enter First” but what we talked about in class reminded me of this story more than anything. The family system in “The Lame Shall Enter First” has changed because the mother died. Sheppard the father however refuses to accept that the system has been altered and insists on acting as if nothing has happened. Sheppard blames Norton for causing problems in the family because Norton keeps crying for his mother. Sheppard has made Norton the identified patient (yeah, I pay attention) and refuses to acknowledge that the family system has changed. Not adjusting to the altered circumstances eventually leads to tragedy. Norton needs someone to fill the absent element of “mother” but Sheppard refuses to fill it, so Norton turns to Johnson. Johnson takes on “motherly” responsibilities of mentoring and teaching Norton, and Norton takes these lessons to heart. Sheppard is too blind to see what is happening with his son until it is too late. Norton has naively accepted Johnson’s advice because he needed guidance. If Sheppard had just stepped up to the plate and had been willing to change his family element because of the altered circumstances he could have been a mentor to Norton to balance out Johnson’s bad advice.

Josie’s blog Language as a Dividing Factor struck a cord with me because it brought back memories of conversations we had in high school while we were rehearsing “The Miracle Worker.” “The Miracle Worker” is of course the play based on Helen Keller’s story of how Anne Sullivan ultimately taught her how to spell and speak.

For almost five years Helen Keller was completely unable to communicate. In her memoirs she described herself as being in the “double dungeon of darkness and silence” until Anne Sullivan taught her to communicate. Sullivan originally taught Keller how to communicate by having her spell things with sign language alphabet, but Keller did not fully comprehend that the things Sullivan was spelling actually were the names of the objects until she had an epiphany at the water pump. Somehow she remembered the word for “Water” from when she was a child, and connected that word with what the object was. From then on, Keller understood and was able to learn and communicate with those around her.

In the facisnating video on this page Anne Sullivan explains how Helen Keller ultimately learned how to actually speak. I just thought it would be interesting in talking about characters that are unable to communicate to remember the most famous example of someone who overcame that inability.

I thought I would do my best to fill in a few gaps in Sara’s The Ten Commandments blog.

IV. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
I am not 100% sure if it happened on a Sunday or not but Parker’s Mother dragging him to the revival could work for this commandment. Parker of course ran out of the meeting, and did not keep the Sabbath holy.

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Ok, this one is a stretch, but because Mr. Shiftlet married Lucynell and then abandoned her, I think it can be assumed that he will eventually technically commit adultery.

VIII. Thou shalt not steal.
Mr. Shiftlet’s stealing the car in “The Life You Save May Be Your Own…” was not mentioned, but I think that could be a valid example of this commandment.

X. Thou shalt not covet.
I think that there is a lot of this in “Good Country People.” First, I think that Hulga covets the life she once had as a scholar, not to mention, she covets the lives of other “normal” people because they do not have a handicap. “Mr. Pointer” obviously, for whatever bizarre reason, covets random tokens, such as Hulga’s leg and the glass eye he had previously stolen.


And I had a question about “Thou shalt not kill” because Sara had mentioned “The Lame Shall Enter First” as one of the stories in which a killing happened and I wondered if it was listed because Johnson effectively “killed” Norton by leading him to suicide, because Norton committed suicide, or both?

In Brittni’s blog Are you feeling it? she brings up the point that an author can sort of feel if a there story is meant to be a short story or a novel. I think this can be true in any art form. A poet chooses if their poem is going to fit into a certain form, or into an open form style. Or, just like Brittni mentioned, sometimes I also have trouble trying to decide if a story is meant to be a play or a short story. I agree with Brittni that I think it comes down to what “feels” right. If a work is pulling in one direction but the artist tries to force it in another, it often gets bogged down in itself.

We have talked about in class how our authors’ illnesses often interfered with their work. I think that this might have not only contributed to why they wrote primarily short stories but I also must wonder if they sort of became “programmed” to think of stories in a shorter context. I am not saying that O’Connor and Porter would have been unable to write a novel, but just like I mainly see the stories I concoct as plays because theatre has been ingrained in me, I wonder if because they’re lives were constantly interrupted if their brains thought of short stories instead of novels. The “feeling” was right for them to do shorter works because they just instinctively knew that their writing might be interrupted.

It is really interesting to think about how political, social, and personal situations might affect the way an author comes up with a story.

Rachel’s blog on Porter and Crane was interesting to me because I had also read Porter’s letters to and about Crane. Both of our authors know just the way to cut someone down to size with a sense of grace and wit that many people do not have. In her letter to Hart Crane on page 45 I was fascinated that Porter starts out quite benignly with “First about the lunch. I was disappointed too…” before she tells Crane that she did not go out to say hello to him because he called her a “whore and a fancy-woman.”

She writes, “You know you have the advantage of me, because I share the superstition of our time about the somewhat romantic irresponsibility of drunkenness, holding it a social offense to take seriously things said and done by a drunken person.” I just love how she will write something so matter-of-factly and underscore it with a biting comment. She later writes a little more bluntly, “I am beginning to believe that a sanitarium for the mentally defective is the proper place for you. If this is true, I should be sorry at having been angry with you. But I think it is time you grew up and stopped behaving like a very degenerate adolescent.”

When we talked about the letters in class, we were always fascinated by the way in which O’Connor and Porter get after people and how that wit often carried over into their stories. It’s a shame that people just can’t insult other people like they used to.

As I read "The Displaced Person" again, I began to wonder why the "black help" stuck around Mrs. McIntyre's farm. Both Mrs. McIntyre and Mrs. Shortley continually remind them that they are dispensable because there is a endless source of help just like them. They don't seem to heed any of these insults that are thrown at them, probably in part because they are so used to it. Thinking about this in terms of Marxism, though, I started to wonder if their adherence to the farm comes as a result of subtly operating ISA's. Could the farm represent an ISA in a similar way that a family would? The purpose of the farm is primarily production, and the help is nothing more than the means by which a product is created. The two men know that they are a small but essential part of a whole, and that their place on the farm is virtually guaranteed because the system would collapse without someone to fulfill their place. I think they know that even if they were kicked off this particular farm, they would inevitably find another just like it. It is in this way that they both adhere to the ideologies created by the farm as an ISA, and at the same time function as pillars which serve to uphold the system.

This leads me to question why, after finding out that Mrs. McIntyre intends to fire them, Mrs. Shortley becomes indignant and immediately begins packing. Unlike the black help, Mrs. Shortley is disturbed by the fact that Mrs. McIntyre sees her family as dispensable. Maybe the ISA's which govern the farm are different for "white trash help" and "black help," because apparently Mrs. McIntyre prefers the black help. This suggests that "white trash" doesn't fulfill an essential position on the farm, and they therefore don't have job security in the same way that the black help does.

Another component of Marxism that I see in this story is alienation of the laborer. When Mr. Guizac first comes to the farm, Mrs. McIntyre and Mrs. Shortly are doubtful of his capabilities. As time goes on, however, Mrs. McIntyre begins to realize his value as a laborer. Mrs. Shortley, on the other hand, maintains her pessimism because he is slowly taking over the Shortley's function on the farm, which she subconsciously knows will render them useless. Very quickly, Mrs. McIntyre begins to see the improvements on her farm, and pays less and less attention to Mr. Guizac as a foreign "displaced" person with a wife and two children; to her, he just becomes the source of an invaluable commodity. He is thus alienated up until the point when she discovers his plan to bring his cousin to live on the farm. When this happens, all illusions are wiped away and he becomes unalienated, and therefore a "displaced person" once again. Unfortunately, Mrs. McIntyre cannot reestablish him as an alienated laborer, and therefore knows that she can no longer employ him on the farm; he has destroyed the ideologies which designate him solely as a laborer because he attempted to connect with Mrs. McIntyre on a human level by trying to make her see the injustice of his cousin's circumstance.

I have so many ideas about postcolonialism which I find contradict each other at times and I can not seem to understand fully what the whole deal is. There are so, many complex arguments about postcolonialism that no matter how many times I form an opinion, there is something else out there that defeats it. With that in mind I tried to read "Flowering Judas" keeping what I know about postcolonialism in my mind, and after our discussions about postcolonialism I read the following passage from "Flowering Judas" a couple of times:

Some day this world, now seemingly so composed and eternal, to the edges of every sea shall be merely a tangle of gaping trenches, of crashing walls and broken bodies. Everything must be torn from its accustomed place where it has rotted for centuries, hurled skyward and distributed, cast down again clean as rain, without separate identity.

What I found particularly interesting was the last three words, "without separate identity." What I find so interesting about postcolonialism is while it serves an important purpose in helping us to understand not to "other" people, it also creates a problem in my mind. While I agree that literature should not be defined with the assumption that all people would agree, I can't understand why there is an insistence on being so separate in our identity. What if I said,"I am a white middle class female and insist on being treated like I am"? I guess in certain situations I would insist on being seen as what I am, but I don't want to be shoved into the same group as everyone else. On the other hand I sometimes want to be seen as something more than my identifying group or nationality of something. It seems so important but only on the surface. I mean, I guess it is easy for me to say this in my position as a "colonizer." And this may not make any sense whatsoever and I apologize for that. I'm not saying postcolonialism is wrong, in fact I completely understand why some issues are brought up in this theory.

I feel like Porter takes the above passage as an opportunity to explain how "separate identities" of people are less important than the whole of our existence as a community. Of course, I am an individual and no doubt want to be treated as such. Literature should be defined with diversity in mind, but diversity should not be defined by one group.

I know that we didn’t use the critical lens of Post-Colonialism on “Noon Wine,” but I can’t help but focus on the idea of “othering” in this story. I don’t know much about Post-Colonialism but I know that it carries the idea of creating an other. The Thompsons “othered” Mr. Helton when he came to the farm because he looked, and spoke (and because he didn’t speak) differently from the family. They disliked the way how he was not a person who spoke much, and when he did his accent was very different from everyone else that they knew. Mrs. Thompson even helped to other Mr. Helton because he didn’t eat as much as she thought that he should.
Mr. Helton further othered himself when it turned out that he was a very effective worker. He created something that the family wasn’t use to having, which was a productive, strong farm. He enjoyed working, because he was able to make the farm a success where Mr. Thompson had failed because he hated the work.

Although it is very interesting that in the end of the story Mr. Helton is no longer considered an other when another stranger and other (Mr. Hatch) comes to the farm. Only when Mr. Hatch points out that Mr. Helton should be an other does Mr. Thompson recognize that Mr. Helton is now like a member of the family. It is also interesting that if Mr. Thompson had kept Mr. Helton as an other, then Mr. Thompson wouldn’t have felt the need to protect him, causing the death of Mr. Hatch.

Most of the Marxist theory that I found in “The Displaced Person” is referring to the black help that Mrs. McIntyre has hired. I find it very interesting that in Mrs. McIntyre’s eyes the black help are higher in class than the Guizacs. I think that a lot of what Mrs. McIntyre thought came from her Judge. “The old Negro had known the Judge. ‘Judge say he long for the day when he be too poor to pay a nigger to work,’ he said. ‘Say when that day come, the world be back on its feet’” (306). Mrs. McIntyre knew that the Judge valued the black help, but I think that she missed his point. Mrs. McIntyre doesn’t understand that he meant class systems would no longer be in effect. But by keeping the black help for the simple reason of keeping the black help she is doing exactly what the Judge didn’t want.

Another interesting thing about Mrs. McIntyre is when she explains in her own way what Marxism is, “’What you colored people don’t realize,’ she said, ‘is that I’m the one around here who holds all the string together. If you don’t work, I don’t make any money and I can’t pay you. You’re all dependent on me but you each and every one act like the shoe is on the other foot’“ (308).To me, her logic just seems so contradictory. Her workers are the ones that she depends on, not them depending on her. If they don’t work, they don’t get any money and it is their fault. But if they don’t work she doesn’t get any money and she fails, because it was not her making the money in the first place, she has to rely on others. Without the proletarian working class, society would collapse and fail, with the elite being the ones who really suffer which in this case would be Mrs. McIntyre.

In David Kirby’s “What Is a Critic?” he brings up the idea that “theory needs writing to practice on, writing needs theory to call it to account” (122). He also states that many writers hate theorists and what they have to say about poems and novels. I’m not a writer and so I don’t know how most feel about theory, but I really do enjoy it. I think that by using different theories, readers can bring new life and new meaning into stories that the reader would normally not receive. For example, in “Pale Horse Pale Rider,” having the specific plan of focusing on gender in my second reading, I was able to pick up on the character Chuck. In my first reading, he was there, but didn’t really mean that much to me. But I now picked up on the fact that what he really want to do was to write about plays, not sports, even when writing about the theaters was considered a “routine female job.” One interesting thing with Chuck is that even though he wanted a “routine female job” he still put down women, but I think that he did that because he was ashamed of not being able to go to war. So in a sense, using Gender theory allows the reader to not only break apart Chuck, but the whole concept of the kind of men that didn’t go off to the war to die. If I had not read this story again with having Gender Theory in mind, I very possibly could have missed this crucial part of the story. So having theories really does allow the reader to gain perspectives of stories that they otherwise would not have seen.

Just like in Chelsea's blog I noticed, especially on the second reading of "He," that the idea of keeping up appearances is a huge factor in the stories. I counted and found that the idea of or actually saying “I won’t let the neighbors say…” came up seventeen times in “He” and the story is only nine pages long. Mrs. Whipple was the main source of those worries, and we have all agreed that what she did was wrong. But I think that Mr. Whipple has been skipped over and I think that he did his son the worst wrong.

We talked about it in class how Mrs. Whipple basically gives Mr. Whipple permission to not really care for and love their son, “’It’s natural for a mother,’ Mrs. Whipple would remind him. ‘You know yourself it’s more natural for a mother to be that way. People don’t expect so much of fathers, some way’” (49). And with this statement, Mr. Whipple doesn’t even try to love their son. In fact he doesn’t even care about Him at all. It’s only Mrs. Whipple that ever cares what the neighbors will say, and as bad as it is to only care what the neighbors think, Mr. Whipple doesn’t care about their son at all.

Mr. Whipple never shows any concern for really anyone in the family, his only concern is that they are down on their luck and will never be able to get back up. Whenever anything goes wrong, he always has some comment to the effect of “Great, just one more thing to make life miserable.” When He gets sick and needs to see the doctor all Mr. Whipple can think is, “All the way there and back he worried about where the money was to come from: it sure did look like he had about all the troubles he could carry” (57). Mrs. Whipple at least tries to think about the needs of her son, but Mr. Whipple only cares about how miserable his life is.

When rereading “The Displaced Person” like Josie I also found lots of hypocrisy, and almost all of it was done by Mrs. Shortly. A very interesting part of the story is when Mrs. Shortly is afraid that Mr. Guizac will find Mr. Shortly’s still and tell Mrs. McIntyre, which will lead to Mrs. McIntyre firing the Shortlys. Mrs. McIntyre would consider the still a second job and plus, just the fact that she would disapprove of having a still on her land would result in the firing of the Shortlys. So wouldn’t a person think that if where they were working and someone is breaking the rules, shouldn’t that someone tell the boss what is going on? I personally think that that is good ethics. Mrs. Shortly however doesn’t think so, “But with foreigners on the place, with people who were all eyes and no understanding, who had come from a place continually fighting, where the religion had not been reformed—with this kind of people, you had to be on the lookout every minute” (295-296).
Mrs. Shortly just can’t understand that Mr. Guizac is a good honest man and expects others to be, so he is more Christian and just a better person than Mrs. Shortly, even with all of her talk of the Guizac’s not having a “reformed” religion. She thinks that she can do whatever she wants because she is not trash and has been with Mrs. McIntyre for two years. I love the fact that Mrs. Shortly considers “no understanding” to be that of “do what you want, just don’t get caught by the boss. “ She puffs herself up so highly in her own mind that she just can’t see her own short comings or even realizes that she is being hypocritical. I love the fact that Mrs. Shortly considers “no understanding” to be that of “do what you want, just don’t get caught by the boss. “

I thought Sara's presentation of the family systems theory in class was absolutely fascinating and, for me, it definitely sheds a new light on "Parker's Back." Chelsea discussed in her blog the struggle for power that exists between Sarah Ruth and Parker and how "it's the main reason they stay together." I think it's interesting that neither one of them seem to be happy with their situations, but they don't even seem to consider any other options such as divorce, separation, or counseling. Sara said in class that, according to this theory, families will favor consistency. Even Sarah Ruth and Parker's initial encounter was entirely centered around power. As Chelsea pointed out, immediately after meeting Parker, Sarah Ruth slaps him in the face in order to "assert her power." They seem to have established roles in this first encounter, and apparently don't deviate from those roles even after they are married. They are favoring consistency, even though it is clearly detrimental to their marriage.

I think it was Chelsea (the other one) who suggested in class that perhaps the "real" problems arise when Parker steps out of his role by permanently placing the image of God on his back. Sarah Ruth clearly does not give him the response he was hoping for, and Chelsea said that perhaps this is because she was indignant because she feels that he is attempting to take over her role as the religious one, when his role is clearly that of the heathen. Also, along these same lines, perhaps Sarah Ruth reacted the way she did was not only because her husband was not fulfilling his role as "heathen," but also because he broke the consistency of the power struggle. He went out of his way and got the tattoo in order to try and please his wife. I saw this act as an attempt to equalize the marriage, but, in fact, it did just the opposite. The power struggle was their "thing" and when he tries to connect with her on equal grounds, she doesn't know how to respond.

I'm trying to work through the Catholic notions for the paper I'm writing and after reading Josie's blog on Parker's Back I'm intrigued with the physical pain or suffering Parker puts himself through and how it relates to the spirit. We are told about his first tattoo and that "It hurt very little, just enough to make it appear to Parker to be worth doing. This was peculiar too for before he had thought that only what did not hurt was worth doing" (p.658). I am learning how significant this suffering would be to a Catholic. That Christ was flesh and blood, physically a man and God is a truth they are constantly aware of. I was also interested in a comment I found in Chelsea Oaks blog quoting O'Connor as saying, in one of her letters: "Sarah Ruth was the heretic--the notion that you can worship in pure spirit" (1218). The point is that as a Catholic see it, you can't worship in pure spirit, it is a physical worship as well. This is evident in the sacramental Eucharist, one of the most important Christian sacraments, where they partake of the body and blood of Christ. It adds depth of meaning to the story to me although I don't pretend to completely understand it. As readers we watch O.E. go from the garden and fall of man to the Crucifixion and his own redemption as, I believe, he receives the Grace of God: ". . . all at once he felt the light pouring through him, turning his spider web soul into a perfect arabesque of colors, a garden of trees and birds and beasts" (p.673). What I am still trying to understand is the part this physical pain plays, the suffering that seems necessary in order to receive that redemption and grace besides the suffering. There is a desire for his all along to be accepted by the very one that would reject him and a desire for him to see himself as out of the ordinary. The pictures are for him to look at until the end when, he claims, the one on his back is for him wife to look at. But even this effects him while she remains blind.

"Revelation" is one of my favorite stories that we've read this semester. I think this is because Mrs. Turpin doesn't just fall off her high horse; she is shoved off of it, and very forcefully too. On re-reading the story, it seems to me that she switches places with the "ugly girl" or the "white trash" that she met in the doctor's office. Obviously, she drastically changes after her encounter with the girl, but I didn't initially see it as a switching of places. I came to this conclusion based on how the eyes and glances of the characters are repeatedly portrayed, and how those images change immediately after Mrs. Turpin is hit with the book.

Mrs. Turpin is described in the first paragraph as having "little bright black eyes" (633). In the same paragraph, the narrator describes the little white-trash boy as having "eyes idle in his head." This description, however, does not just apply to the little boy, but to all the white trash in the office. Most of their eyes seem to be described as "expressionless" (641) or "vacant" (635). This suggests to the reader that the narrator is likely not reliable because everything we are told comes from the perspective of Mrs. Turpin and so our images of the characters are tainted with how Mrs. Turpin sees the world. In other words, the narrator does not present us with an objective view of the office. Soon after Mrs. Turpin enters the office and makes some quick judgments, her eyes meet those of the well-dressed, agreeable woman's. Other than this moment and a a moment where we are told that her eyes "sparkle" (637), there is no reference to the agreeable woman's eyes or her gaze; this is because Mrs. Turpin views her as an equal, and so there is no need to make any distinction between her own eyes and this woman's; they, too, are equal.

When Mrs. Turpin notices the ugly girl watching her, she describes her eyes/gaze with such words as: "scowl", "smirk", "smolder", "unnatural light", and "peculiar". Being the daughter of the agreeable woman, this girl is clearly not white trash. However, she is ugly and has a disagreeable disposition, so her eyes are not described as "bright" or "twinkling". Mrs. Turpin is disturbed by the girl because she cannot put her finger on how to categorize her, which is probably why her eyes are described with terms that seem to only apply to her.

Immediately after the girl launches herself at Mrs. Turpin, Mrs. Turpin's vision is altered and she has a kind of out-of-body experience (it may also be significant to note that the book hits Mrs. Turpin directly over her eye). She quickly recovers and her "vision suddenly revers(es) itself" (645). When this happens, I don't just think that she is just regaining her senses; I think she switches places with the "undesirable" people in the office. When Mrs. Turpin meets the eye of her attacker, the girl's eyes seemed "much lighter than before, as if a door that had been tightly closed behind them was now open to admit light and air" (645). The girl seems to have been bettered by this experience, whereas Mrs. Turpin's gaze is henceforth depicted with terms which previously only applied to the girl: "scowl", "glowered", "wrathful". Also, there are a few instances where she seems to be gazing vacantly at the world around her, much as the white trash were described in the office. Another circumstance which leads me to believe that Mrs. Turpin has indeed switched places is when "her lower lip protruded dangerously" (651). This immediately recalls the instant in the office when the girl's "lower lip turned downwards and inside out" (640) and Mrs. Turpin thinks to herself that it is the "ugliest face" she has ever seen. Well, it seems that she has not only adopted that ugly face, but a very disagreeable disposition as well.

I watched "Becoming Jane" over the weekend (yes it's a very good movie, I'd recommend it but be aware of some historical errors) and something the father said shot me straight back to my thinking of "He." It was something like, "Nothing destroys a soul like poverty." I think Katherine Anne Porter and Flannery O'Connor had a knack for taking something so dramatic and making it seem real with just the right circumstances. I can't help but wonder while reading "He" that so many more people could be in Mrs. Whipple's place in her same financial situation. I'm not saying she is somehow morally justified in her ignorance, because after all, she is ignorant, but would getting down to the nitty-gritty truth reveals something about all of us. The Whipple's were poor and people act mighty strange in poverty. I truly loved Neena's comment,

It is obvious to the reader that she is a proud woman that is constantly concerned with how others view her, but these insights help us to better understand how she views her her son. What she says to others are often lies ("I just took off His big blanket to wash") that are nothing more than a front to make herself look or feel better herself and are not an honest representation of how she really feels about her son.

Don't we all have the potential to be proud and selfish? I mean hopefully not to the same degree as Mrs. Whipple. I can't help but be introspective when reading Porter's and O'Connor's stories, and constantly thought, "Oh my gosh, I have been proud before. And not far from Mrs. Whipple's pride."

So I know that "family dynamics" is not a "real" critical lens that we would learn in a critical theory class, but since we are using it to view these texts, I'm considering it an option for our lens/critical theory blog.

After reading "Revelation" and "Parker's Back" again with the intent to look for family dynamics, I was amazed to see how much the main characters struggle for power. In "Revelation" Mrs. Turpin controls her husband (she immediately tells him what to do when they enter the doctor's office). She also talks about how she would keep the doctor's office clean, "if she had anything to do with the running of the place" (634). Not to mention when the delivery boy comes in and she tells him about pushing the button to get the nurse (640). Perhaps that is why she is so baffled by the young girl...here is a girl that she can't order about, who doesn't respond the way she thinks they respond, but she isn't trash because she's educated...so what is she supposed to make of this young girl? She tries to put her below herself because the young girl is ugly, but other than that, Mrs. Turpin is having a hard time placing her into a category. Plus, the girl does something completely outrageous, and Mrs. Turpin has no idea what to do about it. She has no control over the situation, and that makes her incredibly uncomfortable, which also makes her think more about her situation, hence a revelation. (or something).

"Parker's Back" is also full of this power struggle. I think it's the main reason they stay together. Parker starts off trying to get the girl to acknowledge him by pretending to hurt his hand, but Sarah Ruth doesn't fall for it. Instead, she smacks him on the face, therefore asserting her power (656). Parker's says he goes back to see the Sarah Ruth the second time because "he was not to be outdone by anything that looked like her" (660). Parker is interested in Sarah Ruth because she has power over him. She holds the power and he wants it...but since he can't have it, he sticks around in hopes that he will one day get it.

Parker finally thinks he can put Sarah Ruth in her place by putting the tattoo of God on his back. He is ultimately convinced of this fact, but when he gets home and shows it to her, Sarah Ruth has asserted her power over him again by saying that he is idolatrous. Since this is certainly not the response he was expecting, "He sat there and let her beat him until she had nearly knocked him senseless" (674). He has now let go of his struggle for power because he realizes that she will always one-up him. Which, of course, could be why he is seen crying like a baby against a tree (675).

Now, of course this interpretation does not take into account any religious aspects, which are incredibly important, but as for family dynamics alone, I think this interpretation is pretty interesting, if I do say so myself.

Ok, so now I'm regretting not asking Dr. Cook exactly why Porter's text cannot be considered Postcolonial ( I guess the obvious reason is just what Dr. P explained about the difference between a situation where the colonizing is still going on vs not and in Porter's experience, as well as in her text, it is still going on). I'm mostly interested if that would be her explanation, and interested in an idea that has occurred to me in "Flowering Judas." I started to think about the change, or potential for it, in Porter's character Laura. Again, the most poignant statement to me about Postcolonialism, or I guess Colonialism, in this text is the children Laura is teaching English to who say and write "we lov ar ticher" (p.95) with crayons, and in the same paragraph she mentions the young captain, one of Zapata's soldiers, who said he loved her. She doesn't give him the time of day and thinks: "I must send him a box of colored crayons." The implications are fascinating. She feels no respect for or hasn't any love to reciprocate to this man and perhaps not for the children either. In the story it seems very much like she is just going through the motions without much passion. It implies that she does not have a love for the people she serves, but also that she has no love for the revolutionaries specifically, which is almost a contradiction as she is one herself.
The change I'm wondering about is her reaction to Eugenio's death. She had given him narcotics and encouragement which is, in her eyes (just what we were saying in class), helping him. But when he overdoses, she does not call it a suicide, but "murder," recognizing herself as "murderer." By the end, her feelings may not have turned to "love," but the guilt and recognition or awareness of the part she plays, in colonization - one could argue, is evidence of a turnabout for her. I'm just wondering If that moment of awareness doesn't open itself up to Postcolonial thought and discussion?
I also couldn't help but see a new layer of meaning to the title "flowering Judas." As we witness Mexico's multi Colonization going on, it seems to have "flowered" into more and more presence of that "Judas" character experience, one going into save and proving to be a killing force instead.

I think I missed a lot of things the first time I read "The Displaced Person." Although I did note that there was some significance attached to the peacocks, I didn't examine what that might have been because my eye was caught by other aspects of the story. I just re-read through the blogs about "The Displaced Person," and found that the discussion about peacocks was very interesting, particularly in Jillian's blog. In her blog, she notes that it is only the Judge and the priest who appreciate the peacock's beauty. Both Mrs. Shortley and Mrs. McIntyre seem to be completely indifferent to the beautiful birds. This is evident when Mrs. Shortely is standing under the tree (that has the peacock in it) and with her "unseeing eyes directly in front of the peacock's tail....She might have been looking at a map of the universe but she didn't notice it" (290-291). I only bring this up because, later on, Mrs. Shortley expresses the opinion that foreigners are "all eyes and no understanding" (295). We can say the same thing about her because, for one reason or another, she cannot understand why anyone would be fascinated by the peacocks. Maybe she doesn't "understand" beauty, and so wouldn't the priest would be justified in saying that Mrs. Shortley is "all eyes and no understanding?"

Another thing I completely failed to notice was when the Guizac family arrives on the farm, Mrs. Shortely describes each of them as they step out of the car,

"out jumped two children, a boy and a girl, and then, stepping more slowly, a woman in brown, shaped like a peanut. Then the front door opened and out stepped the man, the Displaced Person." (286)

Later on, she refers to the family collectively as "the displaced people." Lower case letters. Why is it that the man is THE Displaced Person, which seems to replace his name? I would assume that it may be because he is the bread winner of the family, and the fact that his family is forced out of thier native country reflects him much more than it reflects the mother and children.

So I take back part of what I said in My Response to Sara's Ten Commandments Post. After just reading "That Tree" and "Flowering Judas" I realize that adultery is very prevalent in Porter's stories. It is not, as I had presupposed, only there in "Maria Concepcion." Obviously, adultery is hinted at in "Rope" but I am unsure as a reader if it actually happened or was only a suspicion. However, in "That Tree" the Journalist (who doesn't have a name, which I find incredibly interesting. Why is that, do you think? Why does he not have a name while Miriam does?) sleeps with another woman and has a baby with her before Miriam ever comes to Mexico. Is this something that Porter saw a lot of in Mexico because in both "Maria Concepcion" and "That Tree" the men not only sleep with other women, but they also have children with them. Whereas in other stories, the men only sleep with the women. Of course, I take that back because in "Flowering Judas" Braggioni has numerous affairs and nothing is ever said about children, unless I missed it.

Anyway, I wonder why adultery is apart of many contentious marriages in Porter's stories. Is it just that adultery has been known as the reason for divorce for centuries (before the whole "no-fault" divorce was ever instituted, that is)? However, in those cases it was usually the man divorcing the woman for infidelity, while the woman had to have some other "wrong" done to her such as brutality, and she had to prove it, while the man just had to say it. Perhaps this is why these women stay in these marriages with the men who have affairs? I think that might be the case because the only woman who leaves the marriage is Miriam in "That Tree" and she doesn't know about the other woman at all.

I know that the adultery is not the sole reason for the unhappy marriages in these stories, but adultery does play a part in them. It is true that Miriam and the Journalist's marriage lacks communication and understanding, while the relationship in "Rope" lacks trust. In "That Tree" the affair is never discussed because he does not think he can tell her about it (hence lack of communication), and the woman in "Rope" is even more distrustful of her husband because she thinks he has an affair. Then there are the women in "Maria Concepcion" and "Flowering Judas" who take their husbands back after the sordid affairs. Maria takes her husband along with his illegitimate child back after the affair, and Braggioni's wife apologizes for being upset that he has many affairs. What is all of that about? Perhaps a little research into the Mexican culture would be interesting. I do remember that in "Maria Concepcion" the women in the community are mad at Maria for being so upset about her husband's affair. They basically say that it happens to everyone, and she should just get over it.

I keep thinking that I have decided on my topic concerning marriage, and then I change my mind. Now I am thinking that I will tie in Adultery and how it goes hand-in-hand with other problems in the marriages of Porter's stories. I don't know if Porter ever had affairs or was cheated on, but she seems to write about it a lot, and I'm not sure why. We shall see, we shall see.

As I read through Noon Wine, I was once again struck by the alienation of the characters in this story. Each of the characters seems to become alienated in some way. At first Mr. Helton is alienated as a worker and foreigner. Mr. Thompson establishes his power as controller of the commodity, it is his farm and he controls the means of productions, while Mr. Helton does the labor and work. Mr. Helton becomes exploited as his labor increases the gain of Mr. Thompson, and the reward for Mr. Helton is small. The years pass and Mr. Helton keeps increasing the production on the farm, Mr. Thompson keeps benefiting. The family calls Mr. Helton a part of the family, in fact the boys cannot recall a time that he was not on the farm, but he is not treated equally.

As the alienation of labor keeps growing, so does the alienation between Mr. Helton and Mr. Thompson. Each character represents a different type of masculine. Mr. Helton is quite, gangly, eats very little, and does his work before anything else. Mr. Thompson spends days at the local hotel drinking, he is lazy, and doesn't appreciate the farm. (This is a cardinal sin for Porter.) The alienation occurs as each of the men, although I found it more for Mr. Thompson rather than Mr. Helton, place judgments and requirements on the other. Mrs. Thompson is not exempt from this either, in beginning she compares her husband quite frequently to Mr. Helton. She can be found projecting her ideas of the male body onto each of the men, and attempts to categorize Mr. Helton by the men's bodies she has known in the past.

With the entering of Mr. Hatch, comes the entrance of a new male body. Mr. Thompson is extremely weary of this new body and this new form of masculine. The change of power and masculine occur with the violence toward the bodies in the fight. Mr. Thompson establishes the power of his masculine when he kills Mr. Hatch, but he also creates a kind of justification on the type of masculine of Mr. Helton, however, Mr. Thompson also exploits his own masculine. In the end, Mr. Thompson, and his masculinity, become completely alienated and exploited as he commits suicide in the end.

Josie's comments in Living with Contradictions were interesting. I can't help wondering if Mrs. Whipple did really love her son, but was still "othering" him, that she could not accept him as the same or of the same worth as her "normal" children. He seemed to me to be made so much the animal who could be loved and tended, but who couldn't feel like humans do. The language Porter uses supports this too and there is so much animal imagery, he climbs up the tree like a monkey etc.: "He ate squatting in the corner, smacking and mumbling. Rolls of fat covered Him like an overcoat." Besides the fact that he is eating like an animal, not at the table with utensils, he has an "overcoat." The implication almost suggests a coat of skins, an animal hide. This would be interesting to look at in terms of the lack of ability to communicate, I can't remember who is doing their paper with this focus, but because we are all aware that he is no different, he can feel, it is interesting that what He does lack is the ability to express those feelings in language. There is some body language going on in the story on his part, but it is limited. He runs from the sow. When Mrs. Whipple boxes Him on the ears: "He blinked and blinked and rubbed His head, and his face hurt Mrs. Whipple's feelings." He doesn't cry and it is interesting that it becomes an issue of her feeling. She honestly believes that "He don't get hurt." At least until the end when she does see Him cry. Then she glimpses the truth.

OK, so what I know of Marxist theory is that the labor required to produce a commodity is the only true measure of that commodities value, a prophet made above that value is surplus in the pockets of the capitalist. With increase competition within the capitalist market, prices, and therefore wages, drop. Marx's prediction was that wages would decline to starvation levels and capitalists would be driven out of business. A divide would open and increase between the classes until the proletariat (poor working class) would then revolt and seize control of the state economy.
I'm sure there is much more to it than that, please enlighten me as I have not studied the subject (Didn't Marx have an idealistic communist vision of a Utopian society?).
I can see that O'Connor's The Displaced Person can be viewed through this lens, even if I don't fully understand Marxism. I gap exists between these classes in her story, though I'm not sure how large. Mrs. McIntyre owns property and a home where her employees own nothing, but the Judge has left her nothing else and Mrs. McIntyre reminds us:

I've been running this place for thirty years. . .and always just barely making
it. People think you're made of money. I have the taxes to
pay. I have the insurance to keep up. I have the repair bills.
I have the feed bills.

And yet she keeps buying tractor equipment. On the other hand, Sulk is stealing her chickens, he may be on the brink of starvation. At any rate, Mr. Guizac, who arrives, destitute, poses the immediate threat. First to the Shortley's (interestingly Mrs. Shortley seems to be a bit of a manager) always telling the black men, those she invisions are beneath her, what to do. Next he poses a threat to Mrs. McIntyre. I don't mean an actual threat, though he may be, but he seems to be more of one perceived as a threat by the others. Could he take over the farm? I'd see him leaving before that was possible, but it is interesting that when they get rid of him, the farm is abandoned or fails. That leaves room for the argument that he did take over and would have further. So then, did the proletariat destroy the capitalist or the capitalist destroy the proletariat?
I also wonder about a post colonialist perspective being applied to this story as it would surely work. I see the Post colonial attitude appear in Mrs. Shortley when she says things like: "Over here it's more advanced than where they come from" (p.290). She also believes their religion is old, not reformed and primitive. However, she does not speak with imperialistic thought, she doesn't want to go to Europe and take over. Her thought is one of protection (what exactly woud that be called?). Remember she was like the "Giant wife of the Countryside, come out at some sign of danger to see what the trouble was" (p.285).