I love the questions that are usually posed at the end of classes, and the one posed today was particularly intriguing- does language carry culture?
Having studied French for a number of years and only taking up Italian recently, I have to say yes. I specifically thought about Italy and what would it be like if the Italian language didn't exist. It seems to me that a big chunk of the Italian culture would be missing. Sure, there would be the cuisine that Italy has, the landmarks, but there really is so much tied to their language and so many Italian words have been adopted into the English language as everyday use, like "pasta" or "cappuccino" for example. And when you think about music too, all the cues are in Italian- even in music meant for people that speak English. Not to mention all the famous operas that are in Italian. So, I think Italy is a good example of how a language can carry a culture.
In another sense, it's almost like an identity to a certain extent, especially when a language is limited to one or just a few countries, like Polish, for example. If the Polish people were to lose their language, they, too, would be at a serious loss. They're kind of in the same boat as the Italians are. Their language is generally spoken in one specific country. I almost think in a way, it's more exclusive than Italian because Polish generally isn't taught in schools. If I were to pick it up, it would have to be on my own through a language school or perhaps through my grandmother.
So yes. I think these are two really good examples of how important language is to culture and vice versa.
Yesterday in class, our group chose the passage on page 40 in Power about religion. We had a good discussion about it, but after class I thought even more about it, since I wasn't focusing on Hugh Chavez and Latin American Politics, and I think one of the reasons why she has such a hard time with the preacher is because her belief in nature is so strong. This contradiction shows when Linda Hogan writes, "He believes in angels, children with wings in the sky, but he doesn't believe in what's on earth or birds; he says it's all an illusion, this life on earth, a dream, a miserable place we will one day escape into the golden streets of heaven (40)." In the very beginning pages, we read about how aware Omishto is of the nature that surrounds her. We get a very vivid description of all the senses she's taking in while she's in her boat on the pond. She even states, "this place I call mine" on page 2 while talking about her time in nature. Religion is hard for her to grasp because it's not tangible. She can touch, feel, hear, taste, and see nature, but no one really knows about "heaven" because there have been no first-hand accounts from such a place. What we are told are from The Bible which is thousands of years old, and some are still very skeptical about what the Bible says. So, as long as she remains so connected to nature and what she sees in front of her face, she is going to have problems believing in the religion of her mother and the preacher.
I should probably finish the book before blogging, but I'm all about doing things out of sequence. Not to mention, I've enough information to make a decent blog post.
Anywho, having been through two thirds of the book, I'm still unclear of many things in this book, especially with Lucy. I don't think that's any fault of my own through careless reading because I do enjoy quick reads like this, but I think that's mainly because I think Lucy is even unclear of herself. What confuses me the most is that Lucy seems really bitter towards her past and her homeland, but yet, everything that occurs in the present, she is able to relate back to something that occured in her past- and I'm convinced that's because that's what she knows. I'm guilty of doing the same thing. However, with this disdain she's got for her homeland, and especially her parents, I would think that her past would be the LAST thing she would want to think about, and would look forward to the things in the future.
There was one thing that I think I finally figured out in class yesterday and through reading and that was why Lucy seems so bitter. I'd have to say that 85% of her bitterness is due to her parents. I think she sought to have a better relationship with her mother. From what we can tell so far, her mother didn't play an active role in her life. And I think the more time she spends with the family she's with, the more she sees how badly she was shafted from her mother. Now, she's got something else to compare her own relationship to, and she sees that Mariah is more of a hands-on mother. The other half of that equation is her father. I understand he's her father, but for me, it would be hard to respect a man who had 30+ children and I would often wonder where I would stand in that situation, as well as my own mother and how she ranked in that list of women- would she really be loved or just another notch in the bedpost. That many kids are a lot of babies, and therefore, there has to be a lot of other women in that mix, too.
As for the book cover, I think it's pretty fitting that the publishers/author would choose this. For one, she's naked. In this book, she's coming to terms with her sexuality. Secondly, she's got a hand up, kind of like she's blocking off communication. This is also relevant because there are very few people she lets into her life. She often picks and chooses who she wants to associate with and open herself up to. We see this in her relationships with Hugh and Paul. Hugh, she shut out, but she's opened up quite a bit with Paul and has maintained a steady relationship. Her eyes are also an interesting choice. They're not directly facing forward. Instead, they're shifted a little off to the side. This can be taken two ways. The first one, can be her looking out for herself. As I said, she's got that hand up in the air, like she's keeping something away. So, it can be taken like she's looking for something that would be a potential threat, meaning certain people, for example. The second way, which I think we dicussed in class, can be thought about her as her looking at her past. As I discussed before, she constantly brings it up and cannot seem to let it go.
I'd be curious to see what everyone else things about this book cover. The good thing about art is that it can be interpreted in so many different ways with no right or wrong answer. Thoughts are welcomed about this!
I really enjoyed This Blessed House, mainly because it was a quick read and there was not a lot to have to think about upon the first reading. In a way it was kind of comical because of Twinkle finding all of these relics all over the house, and with them being of a completely different religion. The story works in that aspect though because Twinkle is a very multi-dimensional character, and seems like the kind of person that would be open and welcoming to something new, unlike her husband, Sanjeev. I'm not picking on Sanjeev though, because I do respect his point of view. In a way, he was geared to having that kind of mindset because everything he did was by the book. He had a near-arranged marriage which isn't all that uncommon in India/the Hindu faith and he went through extensive schooling to become an engineer. Those two things in my mind make him a literal person because there's not much room for interpretation when it comes to engineering, it's basically just math and science. Twinkle, on the other hand, just seems to kind of go with the flow. She's a literature major, and after taking this class and previous English courses, it's very evident that just about anything in literature can be translated to mean just about anything. To me, that just gives her an "anything goes" kind of attitude, which is really important. I think these two are good for each other, despite their little arguments here and there. They say opposites attract and that's more than likely the case.
The one thing that I didn't like about this story was the ending. I felt it was too abrupt. It would have been interesting to see how everything played out between them and whether or not Sanjeev just accepted Twinkle for who she is. It wasn't until the party that I think Sanjeev didn't start accepting and appreciated Twinkle for who she is. Everyone had a good time with her, and even one of Sanjeev's collegues complemented Twinkle on how "Wow" she was. I would have liked to have seen how Lahiri would have wrapped up the relationship.
After reading this, I was curious to see what kind of book this short story came from. Even though it's not always appropriate to use Wikipedia and professors frown on it, I still think it's a good tool to use when you want a general overview of something. Thus, I headed over to Wikipedia and found Interpreter of Maladies. I had no idea it won a Pulitzer Prize! If I have the time over the summer, I'd like to read it, after I finish Lolita :P
Upon second thought, I'm not so sure if I had seen "O" before. But that doesn't make it any less interesting. We've covered some interesting aspects about the movie in class. One of the things that has caught my attention the most that I don't think was brought up in class is the color contrast between Julia Stiles and Mekhi Phifer. Obviously, casting had their choice of who they would put in that role, but the choice of the two really highlights the difference between white and black. Phifer is exceptionally black; and Stiles is exceptionally pale, though not as bad as Winona Ryder, but close enough. I don't want to sound racist, but like white people, there are different shades of black. If we were to compare someone like Barack Obama and Mekhi Phifer, there would be an obvious difference. And I think this choice was done on purpose because we have covered in class all the imagery and associates of white and black from the black and white birds all the way down to the location of the movie. It seems like everything was done deliberately to emphasize that main aspect of white versus black.
The question was also brought up in class about Shakespeare being universal. I really do think that he is and I think movies like "10 Things I Hate About You" and "O" are good examples of how not only universal Shakespeare can be, but as well as timeless. The things that Shakespeare wrote about, such as love and deception and as we have in "Othello," even racism. Movies like the ones that I have just mentioned prove that Shakespeare can be adapted in so many different ways, even a setting so mundane as high school. Shakespeare isn't necessarily the easiest thing to read, but the things that he writes about once one gets through the language is definitely relateable to just about any person on Earth.
