The Bankhead/Wallace Dilemma

So I’m just about finished with the novel, and I want to write about the similarities between Leonard Bankhead and David Foster Wallace. First off, there are superficial resemblances pertaining to the “appearance” of DFW, such as Leonard wearing a bandana, chewing tobacco, and being depressed. Eugenides eschews interviewers regarding these similarities. According to the Christian Science Monitor interview: “The bandanna that Leonard wears, I put that on him because of Axl Rose, the singer from Guns N’ Roses. There are some things in Leonard that are reminiscent of Wallace, like Leonard putting the tobacco tin in his boot. Wallace used to put his tobacco tin in his sock. But the totalities of the two characters are completely different. Leonard’s parents are divorced, Wallace’s were not; Leonard is from Portland, Wallace was not; Leonard grew up very poor, Wallace did not; Leonard is a biologist, Wallace was not; Leonard gets married at 22, Wallace did not; Wallace was a writer with depression, a very different disease to manic depression. I could go on and on. If you look at the two of them, they are not very alike.”
I think that Eugenides utilizes the idea of cloyingly manipulating these diversions, beginning with the plot, and continuing with his characters, especially Leonard Bankhead. He appropriates Victorian tropes for the plot, while intertwining tacit post-modern characteristics throughout the narrative. For example, when we first meet Leonard, he discusses with Maddy about the “eternal verities” of life, or the “learning how to die.” This theme is obviously pervasive throughout literature, but specifically, this is Wallace’s premise for the majority of his work, particularly his later works. He even uses the term eternal verities in interviews and such. What is “clever” about this juxtaposition is that Leonard’s post-modern nexus is ensconced in the reality of the Victorian narration. The reality that Leonard searches for, but cannot because of his illness, is, I believe, commentary on Wallace. Going back to “All Things Shining” the authors refer to this epic, albeit unfulfilled search as the “search beyond borders,” and Leonard does this throughout the novel. Eugenides prefers to keep his characters moving through the narrative rather than step back and handle their own specific realities, which is a Realist trope.
There are many other things that I enjoyed, such as the Mitchell/Leonard contrast, but I really was fascinated with Leonard’s likeness to Wallace. I know, I’m totally obsessed, but what are you gonna do, right? We all have our manias, so why not exploit them.

First Quarter of the Marriage Plot

In the first hundred or so pages of The Marriage Plot, I am seeing themes of  identity formation, meaning (obviously with all the semiotics talk, but also through the action of the people), and how we make meaning out of ourselves and others through a complex interchange of social and personal constellations.  Madeline is busily trying to define herself in a time when the definition of who she can be is changing.  She is reacting against the norms of her parents expectations, her own expectations, the tropes inbued in the nineteenth century novels she reads, the semiotics class she is a part of, and her attempts to rationalize falling in love through the writing of Barthes.  Much of her identity and the identity of the other characters is wrapped up in the tropes of literature.  Both overtly stated in the book, but additionally in the almost stereotypical literary stock figure descriptions that the author uses as he is writing the Marriage Plot.  ( I suppose you could say this is post-modern in the sense that he is “ironically” using cliché to make his overall point come out.  Look I am a writer who is writing a story about meaning and language and how it is stereotypical and I am using language and stereotypes to make my point.  I am so clever. And he is clever, but not in a tiresome way)  None of the characters seem to have any agency of their own, but are all driven by the interpretations they are given and then they act within those parameters. Even the ones who think they outside looking in like Thurston. This is not to say I don’t like the book, because I am enjoying it greatly.  I read the first quarter of the book Wednesday afternoon, enjoying all of it; I only stopped because I had a meeting to attend.  I like the interplay of the narrative and the themes I am seeing so far; he uses the mechanics of storytelling to make his points without becoming mechanical.  

I look forward to watching it unfold (or should I say unpack itself, to be "deconstructive").  

Meh.

I found "The Thing about Life" to be fairly pedestrian.  Shields lays out facts about the inevitable collapse of the the body in a fairly uninteresting manner.  I kept wishing for someone like John McPhee to come in and salvage a decent idea, but that never happens.  For the most part I found the book to be a long whine about how the author is getting old, cannot accept that, keeps wanting to relive his glory days as a young athletic boy,  and still hasn't resolved issues with his father, who doesn't seem to be as upset about getting old as his son is and want his father to be.  His staccato writing style was also irritating.  One can tell he is a sports writer.  Endless short sentences without the élan of a Hemingway.  I felt as if I was being beat with a stick by reading this book. Maybe I am not testosterone driven enough to give a shit about getting older. (I am the same age as the author), but I am more concerned with where I am in my life to worry about where I was.  Be here now.

Your Story is Never About You

I liked the stories inside of stories and the never-ending quality of the stories. I assumed that the stories were going to be interrelated by the end, so I just trusted that assumption and plowed along even when i could not make a direct connection. I liked that the connections were not obvious, if there at all. I am not sure there were direct connections. It took me most of the novel to realize (i am slow) that the Hakawati was the son. Duh, he was telling the story, the only first person narrator in the book. And the story was about him, since the story was about everyone else. (See title of entry, which came from the novel).

I also liked that the stories were over the top mythologized, even or especially the contemporary "true' ones. "The only true event in that whole story, in all its versions, is that the man existed." No one's story is ever true, or complete, in and of itself. We retell, revise our own stories constantly as we re-shape, re-cast our identities and justifications for our interpretations of those stories. But it is not just our personal stories that matter. It is every story we here. They all inculcate themselves into our lives, helping to give it meaning through the interpretations we take from the stories we hear. Early in the novel, the narrator's grandfather, the hakawaiti, is fussing at Osama, "Here I am trying to infuse you with culture, my flesh and blood, my own kin." But Osama doesn't want to listen, to take the story as his grandfather is giving it to him. Yet the story still takes hold. Perhaps not in the way the grandfather intended. Later in the novel speaking about the Baybars story-line, "in almost al the remaining versions of the story, none of them are about Baybars. You see, the hakawaitis' audience is the common man who couldn't really identify with a royla, almost infallibel hero, so early on the hakawaits began to introduce characters that their audience could empathize with (p.441). The story is never really about the hero of the story, but more about the listener. What we take from the story that we are listening to, as well as the one we are making. The repetition of the word "listen" as the first and last words of the novel, as well as being repeated multiple times throughout the novel, I think, emphasizes the role of the listener/reader in the making of the story and the meaning that can be derived from the the story.

I also found it interesting, at one point (which I cannot find right now) there is a direct quote from Macbeth's witches from the beginning of Macbeth. When shall we three meet again, and what not which brings the idea of fate. Are we destined to live out our lives, as in a novel? Or do we have some agency? Or does the way we interpret the storylines that are given to us determine our fate, and in that act of interpreting lies our agency?

Overall, the book has caused me to think about things. Not necessarily in a new way, but it is still resonating with my thoughts/life since I finished it this morning. I imagine it will for awhile yet. That is if I am aware enough to listen.

The weaving story

Digging the Hakawati. At times, I just like to get lost in the story, and not try to figure out the source, since there are so many layers of story here. But, isn't that what the author wants you to do? Some gems of stories in here, I might steal them just to sound clever.

Quotes and Cowboy Commentary: Shooting from the Hip

“There is nothing to fear from someone who shouts.”
P140

The whites take over without too much ado, they simply move in and change the narrative of the region.

“There is no story that is not true”
P141

Stories become true depending upon who and how many believe them to be true. “The WMD” during the run up to the Iraqi war for example. The willingness of the villagers to listen to the stories of the missionaries, because throughout the book the people tell stories to each other to explain and reinforce custom and beliefs: the construction of social reality through story telling.

‘“Your buttocks understands our language,’ said someone light-heartdly and the crowd laughed.
“What did he say?” the white man asked his interpreter.’ P145

The blind arrogance of the white culture to not listen even when the villagers are talking. The story of the oppressed does not concern the oppressor.

“But stories were already gaining ground that the white man had not only brought a religion but also a government. It was said that they had built a place of judgment in Umuofia to protect the followers of their religion. It was even said that they had hanged one man who killed a missionary.”

“Although such stories were now often told they looked like fairy-tales. . .”155

The villagers begin to hear what was happening in other villages, but refuse to believe the stories, dismissed as fairy tales. To “foolish” to be true, even with the earlier statement that all stories are true. This was their downfall to not pay attention to the stories that were rampant, to discount tales that did not fit into their social constructs as childish, or womanish.




“The heathen speak nothing but falsehood. Only the word of our god is true” 157

“The story had arisen among the Christians themselves” 158

Nice contrast of ideas: The whites deny that the villagers can have any truth, yet the Christians are the origin of the false story that one of the people killed a “god” without consequence, thus trying to prove the superiority of Christianity over the nativist religion.




They had built a court where the District Commissioner judged cases in ignorance. P174

The difference between the “trial” of the village elders, where they heard the stories of each side and made a judgment based on what was right rather than the “law.” Justice in the village was not blind, but took in to account the people involved. The trial of Okonkwo and the others, by contrast, was a blatant use of power to control the narrative. There was no attempt to hear the villager’s story in any context other than the context of the oppressor.

“Does the white man understand our custom about land?”
“How can he when he does not even speak our tongue?” 176

Not only a different language, but the “way of knowing,” of understanding the meaning of the world around them: a discourse community.


“from the very beginning religion and education went hand and hand “182

to control the story line, or what people believe to be the storyline/cause and effect of their lives, the religion/faith of the people and the education of the people must be controlled in a coordinated fashion. Not that there is a conspiracy to control, but religion and education are very efficient “judges of normality” (Foucault) or reinforcers/editors of the community narrative.

“those who believed such stories were unworthy of the lord’s table” 185

Again, if you believe something “other” than the norm then you are not worthy of full participation in society’s goods. Makes me think of James Gee and his Discourse (big D) communities where in order to acquire the “goods” of whatever group you are in you must be fluent in the discourse of the community. Also who determines what discourse is appropriate is determined by power structures/relationships within those communities. The current “value” of education/college vs. business and making money is an example, the way the talk is being framed, as if it should be debated at all puts the western idea of “liberal” education, or the education of free (liberty/liberal) men at risk. Learn to do something that is of value to business, so you can become a commodity.

“We cannot leave the matter in his hands because he does not understand our customs, just as we do not understand his. We say he is foolish because he does not know our ways, and perhaps he says we are foolish because we do not know his. Let him go away.” 191

“The story of this man who had killed a messenger and hanged himself would make interesting reading. One could almost write a whole chapter on him. Perhaps not a whole chapter but a reasonable paragraph, at any rate. There was so much else to include, and one must be firm in cutting out details. He had already chosen the title of the book, after much thought: the pacification of the primitive tribes of the lower Niger” 209

The last few sentences of the book: perfect. The life of Okonkwo and his world reduced to a paragraph in the omnivorous narrative of the west. Cut out the details because they open up a space for a counter narrative, too messy and confusing.



Final thought: I can see why this book is often taught in tandem with "Heart of Darkness" and "The Poisonwood Bible." Lots of questions about who is in charge of the narrative, oppressor and oppressed, civilization vs. "primitive" culture.

The Horror. Exterminate them all!

Things fall apart. Favorite part.

Just like all great books, "Things fall apart" has parts that resonant with your present day life. Undoubtedly, this book would have other scenes of resonance if read at different time because I believe this book has that potential, just like all important pieces of literature. The scene in which Okonkwo is exiled to his mother's homeland was it for me. In this passage, Okonkwo meets with his mother's family and is a basically told to stop being so melancholy and suck up his pride. He has taking shelter with his mother's family because children take shelter with their mothers. He is told to get some perspective, realize that it could be worst and it has been for others. "You think you are the greatest sufferer in the world? Do you know that men are sometime banished for life?...(Uchendu talks about losing his wives and children.) I did not hang myself, and I am still alive." This passage reminds me of a young man I taught this year that lost is salutatorian position, was unable to speak at graduation and could not suck up his pride, failing to show up for his own high school graduation. This passage really reminded me of you, Amman. Again, great books do this. I would like to read this one again in a few years and see what other parallels I will find. Good pick Nathan!