1: My dad's cool. My mom-
2: I just told my parents, 'Oh God, I'm glad it's starting to sink in.'
1: Yeah, still fine.
2: She just told her parents. Handed me the phone right after she told her dad. I'm terrified.
3: I would be too.
1: No! He wanted to say hi.
2: Cool, sounds like a nice gy.
1: He's my favorite parent. I didn't make her talk to my mom. That would've been worse.
2: My dad's birthday is next week.
3: My dad's birthday is today. I didn't even get to say 'Hi' because he's in Africa, so I sent a Facebook message to my mom, like 'Oh, Mom, tell Dad happy birthday for me.' [She laughs.]
2: What's your dad doing in Africa?
3: Well, they're there.
2: Like for pleasure?
3: Well, they were supposed to go last year at this time, but...
1: My parents never just go to Africa
3: Well, my mom's a travel agent, so she knows like when to go and how to go, and they were just-
1: It's summertime there right now, huh?
3: Yeah. -Than they were supposed to go at this time last year, bt we had some family situation to take care of.
2: Yeah, I understand.
...
2: When I made my first status post about my girlfriend -It was something like, 'I'm meeting up with my girl,' or something like that- my mom told me, 'You don't need to have something like that on Facebook.
1: My mom and I aren't Facebook friends, but I am friends with some really Southern cousins and aunts and uncles, so I'm just not planning to be on Facebook for a few days.
3: If I was going to say I was doing something with my girlfriend, I would never post it on Facebook just because of the fact of where I live, and it wouldn't even be the fact of me, but it's the fact that my family would be ostracized by everyone. 'Cause I mean, I live in Red Palm Beach, Tennessee. It's like the Southern Pride Capital and Republican Pride Capital of Tennessee, and it's the place where the Klan began. I mean, my neighbor, she was looked down upon because she started dating a black man. You'd never hear of that being done here.
...[The three pass around a picture on a phone.]
2: I love Deviantart.
1: How did they do that?
2: They probably wore the paint and added the smoke in with Photoshop.
3: Deviantart can be so fun to browse through.
2: Although sometimes I wish I had the maturity filter on.
3: Yeah, I've been there. There are some things my mind cannot unsee to save my life.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Richard Bausch - "1-900"
Song suggestions for "1-900": Milow - You and Me (In My Pocket) (John)
Caro Emerald - Back It Up (Marilyn/Sharon)
Well, this was a fun little piece we have here. Unlike "Emergency" that came before, this dark humor piece is far more-accessible to a more casual reader. The piece is fairly straight forward, a phone sex conversation that the client refuses to allow to get to the actual phone sex.
Then, what makes this piece worth reading? There is some brilliant use of language in the piece that brings out the character. One of my favorite lines was the quote, "My wife and money, that was like a land-war-in-Asia kind of thing" (Bausch 56). Further down the page, John explains the quote as a reference to the Vietnam War. It also proves John's interest in history. Sure, he explains to Marilyn/Sharon that he likes history, but the reader could already tell that by the reference.
Another brilliant use of language comes on page 59. The two characters are discussing the problems between John and his wife Kate when Marilyn/Sharon asks, "And what was her problem with you?" Up to this point, Marilyn/Sharon has been extremely reluctant to really have the conversation John has been begging for. She has barely supported the conversation, and this is the second question that she asks that actually supports the conversation between them. It seems like John is actually going to have his conversation until he immediately answers that question with, "Oh, lots of things. Lots that things that it isn't anybody's business to know." Here John is being evasive.
Immediately, such evasiveness brings me to wonder two things. First, I wonder why he doesn't realize that "it isn't anybody's business to know" is what the character of Marilyn/Sharon has been saying the entire time. It is not John's business to know if she's been to college or if she's seeing anybody. She's not paid to talk about such things, and she's uncomfortable telling them to a complete stranger. Secondly, it makes me wonder what he's hiding. John comes across throughout the rest of the play as an extremely open character, possibly even embarrassingly open, so this act of secrecy gains even more prominence when compared with the rest of the piece. It makes one wonder what it is that makes even a guy that tells everything to a phone sex operator cannot tell.
Caro Emerald - Back It Up (Marilyn/Sharon)
Well, this was a fun little piece we have here. Unlike "Emergency" that came before, this dark humor piece is far more-accessible to a more casual reader. The piece is fairly straight forward, a phone sex conversation that the client refuses to allow to get to the actual phone sex.
Then, what makes this piece worth reading? There is some brilliant use of language in the piece that brings out the character. One of my favorite lines was the quote, "My wife and money, that was like a land-war-in-Asia kind of thing" (Bausch 56). Further down the page, John explains the quote as a reference to the Vietnam War. It also proves John's interest in history. Sure, he explains to Marilyn/Sharon that he likes history, but the reader could already tell that by the reference.
Another brilliant use of language comes on page 59. The two characters are discussing the problems between John and his wife Kate when Marilyn/Sharon asks, "And what was her problem with you?" Up to this point, Marilyn/Sharon has been extremely reluctant to really have the conversation John has been begging for. She has barely supported the conversation, and this is the second question that she asks that actually supports the conversation between them. It seems like John is actually going to have his conversation until he immediately answers that question with, "Oh, lots of things. Lots that things that it isn't anybody's business to know." Here John is being evasive.
Immediately, such evasiveness brings me to wonder two things. First, I wonder why he doesn't realize that "it isn't anybody's business to know" is what the character of Marilyn/Sharon has been saying the entire time. It is not John's business to know if she's been to college or if she's seeing anybody. She's not paid to talk about such things, and she's uncomfortable telling them to a complete stranger. Secondly, it makes me wonder what he's hiding. John comes across throughout the rest of the play as an extremely open character, possibly even embarrassingly open, so this act of secrecy gains even more prominence when compared with the rest of the piece. It makes one wonder what it is that makes even a guy that tells everything to a phone sex operator cannot tell.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Denis Johnson - "Emergency"
Music suggestion for this reading: Gogol Bordello - Through the Roof 'N' Underground
Denis Johnson has created an extremely thought-provoking piece in this short story. In particular, as I have seen noted in a few other responses, the reliability of the narrator is shattered by both his drug use and his own admittance that the actual facts of the day matter little. Instead, this lack of a definite truth to the narrative forces the individual to focus on other elements of the story.
The first element of "Emergency" that the lack of truth highlights is a sense of voice. The narrator has a sense of absolute passivity to the events that he's seeing, even as they get more and more unrealistic and surreal. In fact, he only shows an active reaction, fear to be exact, when he believes angels are descending to him in a graveyard (Johnson 390). Likely, it was fear that he had died in the cold of the blizzard that evoked such a strong reaction. It is also important to note that, this is one of three times the narrator really seems to feel connected to the story.
The lack of reliability in the narration also leads to both a revelation and an obfuscation of the nature of the characters in the piece. The revelation happens especially in the character of the narrator, who despite feeling separated from most of the events of the story does in fact reveal multiple aspects of himself in his observations. The first time he really seems connected to the story happens on page 388, when he mentions the interview with the "champion of the drug LSD". The narrator mentions that he feels pity for the man. Another sign of his connection with this event is the switch of tense to present tense. The idea that his pity is self-reflective "doesn't" occur to him rather than "didn't" occur to him. Could this be a suggestion that the scene continues to play in his head, even after the events of the story (or even perhaps because of the events of this story)?
On the other hand, the lack of a reliable narrator obfuscates a lot about the other characters in the piece. The most prevalent example is that of Nurse, whose name in the piece seems an attempt by the narrator to make her a nonentity. However, even the character of Georgie could come under question. With the lack of trust that develops between the narrator and the audience, there is a question of how much of Georgie's actions are a result of a distorted or piecemeal perception of the character, especially after the narrator takes the drugs from Georgie's pockets. Even before that moment though, Georgie is shown having likely taken drugs. This could mean that we never see a true depiction of Georgie in the entire piece, but rather one that is always altered by substance use on either the character's or narrators part.
So far, I have mentioned two of the three scenes in which the narrator seems to be active and emotional rather than passive and accepting. The final of these scenes was the final section of text where the narrator comes to the realization of the difference between Georgie and him. The key phrase in that text is the final sentence of the short story: "I save lives" (Johnson 395). This is Georgie's response to his line of work, which is to assist in ways that have no risk to the patient and can be done by pretty much anybody. The difference then likely does not lie in role but in attitude, a difference in attitude that is blatantly obvious, even through the obfuscation of the narrative. Throughout the entire piece, Georgie has been an active character, playing a part continuously and never being a simple observer while the narrator has been passive the entire time, only feeling a connection when the scene was directly related to him.
The difference in attitude is simple: Georgie is active and believes what he does is important enough to matter while the narrator does not. That is the difference between them that I see.
Denis Johnson has created an extremely thought-provoking piece in this short story. In particular, as I have seen noted in a few other responses, the reliability of the narrator is shattered by both his drug use and his own admittance that the actual facts of the day matter little. Instead, this lack of a definite truth to the narrative forces the individual to focus on other elements of the story.
The first element of "Emergency" that the lack of truth highlights is a sense of voice. The narrator has a sense of absolute passivity to the events that he's seeing, even as they get more and more unrealistic and surreal. In fact, he only shows an active reaction, fear to be exact, when he believes angels are descending to him in a graveyard (Johnson 390). Likely, it was fear that he had died in the cold of the blizzard that evoked such a strong reaction. It is also important to note that, this is one of three times the narrator really seems to feel connected to the story.
The lack of reliability in the narration also leads to both a revelation and an obfuscation of the nature of the characters in the piece. The revelation happens especially in the character of the narrator, who despite feeling separated from most of the events of the story does in fact reveal multiple aspects of himself in his observations. The first time he really seems connected to the story happens on page 388, when he mentions the interview with the "champion of the drug LSD". The narrator mentions that he feels pity for the man. Another sign of his connection with this event is the switch of tense to present tense. The idea that his pity is self-reflective "doesn't" occur to him rather than "didn't" occur to him. Could this be a suggestion that the scene continues to play in his head, even after the events of the story (or even perhaps because of the events of this story)?
On the other hand, the lack of a reliable narrator obfuscates a lot about the other characters in the piece. The most prevalent example is that of Nurse, whose name in the piece seems an attempt by the narrator to make her a nonentity. However, even the character of Georgie could come under question. With the lack of trust that develops between the narrator and the audience, there is a question of how much of Georgie's actions are a result of a distorted or piecemeal perception of the character, especially after the narrator takes the drugs from Georgie's pockets. Even before that moment though, Georgie is shown having likely taken drugs. This could mean that we never see a true depiction of Georgie in the entire piece, but rather one that is always altered by substance use on either the character's or narrators part.
So far, I have mentioned two of the three scenes in which the narrator seems to be active and emotional rather than passive and accepting. The final of these scenes was the final section of text where the narrator comes to the realization of the difference between Georgie and him. The key phrase in that text is the final sentence of the short story: "I save lives" (Johnson 395). This is Georgie's response to his line of work, which is to assist in ways that have no risk to the patient and can be done by pretty much anybody. The difference then likely does not lie in role but in attitude, a difference in attitude that is blatantly obvious, even through the obfuscation of the narrative. Throughout the entire piece, Georgie has been an active character, playing a part continuously and never being a simple observer while the narrator has been passive the entire time, only feeling a connection when the scene was directly related to him.
The difference in attitude is simple: Georgie is active and believes what he does is important enough to matter while the narrator does not. That is the difference between them that I see.
Monday, January 16, 2012
...Do Us Part.
I feel his hand push itself between
my back and the cushion of the couch behind me, and in a matter of seconds, my
husband has his hand around my waist as we watch a movie. We both smile, his wider
than my own, before both turning back to the screen before us.
The wife, a straw-haired, middle-aged,
but still attractive woman, walks into the kitchen to face her husband, an
overweight slob with too much facial hair. They begin the same argument that
has happened three times before, and each hurls insults at each other.
Before long, the sound of a slap
permeates a sudden silence, and I find myself turning my face in time with her,
as his hand strikes her cheek.
I see my husband, and he’s laughing.
“D’ya see that, Mag? Maybe that’ll teach her to treat him more like you treat
me, right?” He squeezes me closer to him. “You’re my little buttercup, y’know that.”
I give another smile and nod my head.
“That’s right, dear. I love you, and
nothing could change that.” He ends his
thought with a flash of a wide smile, loosening his grip on my waist before we
both turn back to the television.
The attractive woman is now on the
ground, back touching the cabinet doors below the sink. She is using the
countertop to support her weight as she pushes her body back up onto her feet.
They’re both still yelling, but the woman is shaking. Her hand wraps around a
handle protruding from the pile of unwashed dishes in the sink.
The man is halfway across the room,
but she reaches him before he even finishes another sentence, and his snarling
is ended with a loud clang.
“What’re ya doing? Get back up. Show her you’re in charge! Mag, I haven’t ever seen a more pathetic man in a
movie. Aren’t you glad you married me instead?” His hand grabs mine, and we sit
in silence for a moment, watching the credits float from one edge of the screen
to the next.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Lydia Davis - "Television"
Music suggestion for this reading: Amy Macdonald - This Is The Life
Well, I must admit that while I wasn't particularly enthralled by this piece, I believe that Davis did manage to create three different, distinct characters. In the persons One, Two, and Three (named after the respective part in which the person was the narrator), I can see distinct differences. These appear mainly in Davis', albeit clever, use of line breaks and white space and in the opinion of the three characters.
Person One chooses the path of acceptance and unity with the televisions. Person One, from the beginning, explains that she believes television to be exciting, equally exciting to dead people walking outside her windows. She has created an emotional connection with the characters on television, and through this she is able to escape but not lose her full attachment to her real world. This attachment begins to blur in Person Two's view of television. Person Two criticizes television, while still passively accepting it. The line breaks in the narration of Two's narrative simulate the constant changing of channels, each paired with small blurb, an observation of what is on television. Finally, Person Three uses television for pure escapism from daily life. To Three, television is a completely different world where life is so much more simple and less-boring that real life. Everything unnecessary is skipped over, and everything is important to the continuation of life. There is no breaks, no dull spots. The important parts of life are compacted into one hour and twenty minutes of narrative that occurs in one day of Three's life.
Perhaps one of the things that I find most fascinating about the construction of this piece is that it turns the character most-receptive of the power and excitement the escapism of the television into the character that most keeps hold of reality while watching it. Unlike with Two and Three, both of whom end the passage still talking about the television, One ends the passage talking about her family watching the television and how happy it makes them. She is observing the television, but she is not engulfed by the television. She never leaves the real world but instead allows the television to affect her real world and bring her time together with her mother and husband. This surprise that one only realizes when one reads through the piece a second or third time is a subtlety that I'd love to have when comparing character's points of view.
I'd also love to have her clever use of line breaks, white space, and length to give a sense of character. As I previously mentioned, both the line breaks and use of white space in Two's narrative seems to simulate changing stations and a lack of attention to the content in front of the character. This shows the dismissive attitude that the character has of the content s/he is viewing. Character 3's trick in construction is even more subtle. It looks the most traditional, but it is also the shortest and only mentions the high points of the night, condensing the night into two paragraphs and one closing statement, much like the movies that s/he envies and is describing.
Overall, I would say that this piece has uses of both white space and line breaks that I've love to bring into my work, and without her talent at constructing a voice through word placement, word choice would make the characters all sound like they similar voices.
Well, I must admit that while I wasn't particularly enthralled by this piece, I believe that Davis did manage to create three different, distinct characters. In the persons One, Two, and Three (named after the respective part in which the person was the narrator), I can see distinct differences. These appear mainly in Davis', albeit clever, use of line breaks and white space and in the opinion of the three characters.
Person One chooses the path of acceptance and unity with the televisions. Person One, from the beginning, explains that she believes television to be exciting, equally exciting to dead people walking outside her windows. She has created an emotional connection with the characters on television, and through this she is able to escape but not lose her full attachment to her real world. This attachment begins to blur in Person Two's view of television. Person Two criticizes television, while still passively accepting it. The line breaks in the narration of Two's narrative simulate the constant changing of channels, each paired with small blurb, an observation of what is on television. Finally, Person Three uses television for pure escapism from daily life. To Three, television is a completely different world where life is so much more simple and less-boring that real life. Everything unnecessary is skipped over, and everything is important to the continuation of life. There is no breaks, no dull spots. The important parts of life are compacted into one hour and twenty minutes of narrative that occurs in one day of Three's life.
Perhaps one of the things that I find most fascinating about the construction of this piece is that it turns the character most-receptive of the power and excitement the escapism of the television into the character that most keeps hold of reality while watching it. Unlike with Two and Three, both of whom end the passage still talking about the television, One ends the passage talking about her family watching the television and how happy it makes them. She is observing the television, but she is not engulfed by the television. She never leaves the real world but instead allows the television to affect her real world and bring her time together with her mother and husband. This surprise that one only realizes when one reads through the piece a second or third time is a subtlety that I'd love to have when comparing character's points of view.
I'd also love to have her clever use of line breaks, white space, and length to give a sense of character. As I previously mentioned, both the line breaks and use of white space in Two's narrative seems to simulate changing stations and a lack of attention to the content in front of the character. This shows the dismissive attitude that the character has of the content s/he is viewing. Character 3's trick in construction is even more subtle. It looks the most traditional, but it is also the shortest and only mentions the high points of the night, condensing the night into two paragraphs and one closing statement, much like the movies that s/he envies and is describing.
Overall, I would say that this piece has uses of both white space and line breaks that I've love to bring into my work, and without her talent at constructing a voice through word placement, word choice would make the characters all sound like they similar voices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)