The Young, the Lost, and the Beloved

     Beloved by Toni Morrison deals with the haunting of, not only the deceased, but of the main character's past. A time that they may resent or regret, or perhaps one that interferes with their present life.  It reminded me of an episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman. To give a brief summary, Dr. Michaela Quinn and Byron Sully are falling in love. After the first time they kiss, Sully's late wife, Abigail (who died in childbirth along with the baby), begins to haunt Dr. Quinn, telling her that she has no right... that Sully is HER husband and her baby's father. She becomes very possessive, and begins to frighten Dr. Quinn off and even creates tension between Dr. Quinn and Sully. However, there comes a point when Dr. Quinn tells her, you're gone and I'm here and she gives her the finished rocking horse that Sully had built for their child. It is never fully clear if Abigail was merely in Dr. Quinn's head or if she was legitimately there. The only indication we are given is the rocking horse is gone when Dr. Quinn wakes back up. This blog post talks about how the ghost appears much more "bitter" than the woman herself had ever been described. The author of this blog discusses the way being haunted has effected Dr. Quinn, stating that this external change provides a way for the two women (Dr. Quinn and Abigail) to interact. 

     This correlates to Beloved because there is the idealized version of the deceased, yet their ghost interpretation provides a much more callous representation. Also, they feel a great sense of betrayal which is apparent through the way they treat those that they are haunting. It's provides a look into the attitudes of the deceased towards their death. The anger they hold. It is also important to note that Abigail and her baby both died, similar to Beloved's infant death. I think this forces the ghost to develop a certain resentment because life was stolen from them right as it was about to begin. 
This seems to be the greatest similarity, aside from the effect it has on the haunted. They are fearful and confused, as is to be expected. Yet a very strong correlation remains the way it effects their relationship to other people in the story.  Both ghosts have a goal of isolation. In Beloved, the isolation stems from dependency and the need of. She absolutely depends on their dependency on her, and she convolutedly twists her "prey" into thinking they need her.  However, Abigail isolates Dr. Quinn out of spite and jealousy. She doesn't want to lose her husband. This does draw a parallel. Abigail does not have the dependency complex, but both her and Beloved have a possession issue. Abigail wishes to maintain her possession of her husband while Beloved wishes to gain possession of Sethe and Denver.  Once again, as the blogger had stated... the way the ghost is able to effect those it haunts directly relates to what the ghost represents. This is the only way they are able to establish their existence. They need either to remain in the memory of their loved ones or to dominate their present lives to be the ever constant reminder of what they were. Without this acknowledgment they cease to exist and they cannot haunt. 
In the end, the power is given to the ghost through those that are being haunted. This is a steady theme throughout these hauntingly; they are parasitic and if their host takes a stand they can kill the parasite and regain themselves back. 

Repetition

White as a Holy Ghost by Meg Mickelson

“Drowning oneself in the devil’s water has never promised to retain the dignity of the son of God.” Repetition. Repeating, “Drowning oneself… drowning yourself”.  Self-control was all it took.  She bit her tongue while whispering this mantra and waiting for saliva to quench her thirst.  Refusal dried her mouth and eyes as with every blink she would deny herself another sip.  She stared blankly at the faucet. Drip. That drip intruded her memory, rapidly churning and swirling into the devil’s river pulling her son from her grasp, and whipping her back to the reality of her dry, parched tongue.  She lost her son, and though out of her control, she vowed to never forfeit to the devil again.  And so she sat, and she remained unmoved, unacknowledged by tears as they had no water to draw from.  Her body, a well, had long been empty, tearing cracks in her already abrasive skin.  Splits in her lip contributed to her inexpressive and inelastic demeanor; her tongue giving no aid as its dryness stuck to her lips dryness further damaging her tender skin as she pulled them apart.  Tortured by her inability to drink from her memories which were still so consumed with water, the water which had consumed her son.  And still she vowed to herself, “Drowning oneself in the devil’s water has never promised to retain the dignity of the son of God.”  It is in this she found comfort in the reminder that what she was doing was right, was pure, and was holy.  As she would never again allow the temptation of the devil’s water to overcome her.  Never again would she agree to drink the sin that killed her son.  She remained untouched by the poison… and so she was clean. Clean as the son of God, prepared to stay or leave as a woman of purity, uncorrupted by weakness.  She honored her son.  The sacrifice in which he gave, making the truth accessible to her, and now she knows.  She knows to never again submit to the devil’s water.  So let her be parched, dry, cracked, split… let her hands shake with thirst.  She departs this world a clean woman.  And as she slipped into that river with her son, she fell back to her memory.  The memory of the devil’s water, her hand on her son: reaching, grabbing, pushing… holding him down beneath the river. “Drowning oneself in the devil’s water has never promised to retain the dignity of the son of God.”

The Feel and Mood of the Meal and Food

In response to Chapter 3: Nice to Eat with You; Acts of Communion

For some reason unbeknownst to me, eating is very intimate.  One of our most essential, basic needs is so secretive.  In fact when you think of it, it is our most basic acts that we keep most to ourselves.  There are several reasons for this.

For one, referring back to these essential parts of life remind us that we are human, we are mortal.  Ultimately, having needs reminds us of our weaker points.  Things we must do for survival remain intimate because the simple reminder that we are not invincible.  It's a humbling experience, that one would think would become habit, yet they retain that "wannabe" mysterious quality.

Also, kind of going down the same path. People don't want to be reminded of the commonalities between their enemies.  Similar to the statement about the opposing team putting on one pant leg at a time.  Does anyone want to be reminded that under all the superficial, built up facades of who we want to be or how we want to appear, we are all humans fighting for survival?

This is why it is so uncomfortable to eat with someone you don't like or someone you are currently fighting with.  Because it feels as if with every bite that enters your mouth you are admitting your vulnerability.  I don't believe there is anything more uncomfortable than eating with someone you are fighting with.

Now in regards to sexualized meals, I watched the scene they referred to, the Tom Jones one. It was extremely primitive, which makes perfect sense considering the primitive nature of sex.  Sex joins eating in the category of intimate basic needs (not so much a personal need as a societal one).  In this scene, the man comes off as very aggressive and much more animalistic than the woman.  She seems much more seductive and luring.  It goes back to the stereotypical roles of a man and woman is a sexual relationship.  He disregards how "sexy" he is, and is much more just going after it.  Whereas the woman is very conscious of how attractive she is as to interest the man, yet she also shares those moments of aggression which together make it realistic.  This is also keeping with the times regarding gender roles and all.

In every special event, people eat.  At this point it's beyond the expectation of there being food.  It is expected for the food to be good.  Eating together is such an essential part of celebrations.  Also, the food sets the tone for the event.  Pizza at a birthday party offers a whole different atmosphere than finger sandwiches and pasta salad.  People acquaint, more so marry, the mood of the meal and the feel of the food.  I mean there's even Thanksgiving... an entire holiday based around a famous meal. 

In many scenarios, dinner provides a situation where a character is unable to escape.  Therefore they must deal with whatever obstacles is in their way, find a clever way to beat around the bush, or take it upon themselves to consider the stakes so high as to walk out on the meal, escalating it all the further.

I'm trying to think of an instance regarding meals. One that comes to mind is in the Tony Winning, Gentleman' Guide to Love and Murder, there is a big dinner scene towards the end of the musical.  Throughout the entirety of the show, Monty Navaro is murdering all the heirs that stand in his way to an earldom (lordship?).

In this dinner scene he must find a way to dispose of the final heir.  And it is approximately in this scene (definitely as a result of this scene) that he is caught for the murders. This is a very climactic scene, as most of the cast is present.

A Train Through a Tunnel and So Much More

    Lawrence Durrell believed that societal understandings of sex were very screwed. There was excess hype about the physical components, and too much importance placed on that aspect. He said, "Very few people realise that sex is a psychic and not a physical act. The clumsy coupling of human beings is simply a biological paraphrase of this truth - a primitive method of introducing minds to each other, engaging them. But most people are stuck in the physical aspect, unaware of the poetic rapport which it so clumsily tries to teach."
This quote's relevance is apparent through today's obsession with over sexualization, especially in the media. Often products or shows are advertised to provoke a physical reaction of attraction or intrigue.
   However, sex in itself has little to do with this stereotypical view.
In the chapter, It's All About Sex..., there is mention of literature and movies that present sex in a classy way. Rather by letting a scene speak for itself and leaving it up to the imagination, or by having some sort of representation. Many may say that it was old fashioned societal conformity that prevented such scenes from being more explicit, but I believe it is because there was a deeper understanding and respect towards sex as something other than purely physical. Gradually (or not so gradually) society in the role of an audience has grown more immature and lazy. This goes back to the idea of our culture being spoon-fed; everything must be very blatant because people no longer want to stretch their minds to other concepts in regard to such a common aspect of life.  People's interest in shows has to do with the desire to watch something scandalous or thrilling, so those producing add in gratuitous graphic scenes simply to draw in audiences.
     On the opposing side is authors and poets who understand the "rapport" that Durrell refers to. Such writers comprehend the psychic experience as an essential journey of the character, rather than an entertainment matter. They understand something beyond the primitive desire and lust. It could be the beauty of two people's vulnerability, or it could be in relation to nature and fertility or any realm of human emotion.
    Now to get more into how this topic spreads out to modern day literature and film.  To start with Fifty Shades of Grey is purely about sex.  That is much of its appeal.  Many people will say it has to do with the balance of dominance and submissiveness.  Yet, when you think about it, those two opposites are precisely what drive our most primitive instincts. Whether it be hunting or sex, there is a constant theme of preying.  There are also shows on every station that display graphic sex scenes as if it were nothing.  The Tudors could sufficiently tell their story without the excessive nudity.  In modern day culture, most sexual themes focus on female nudity/ male dominance.  This relates back to our patriarchal society.  Men have imposed the need to be perfect into the female mind. By constantly ingraining these images into girl's brains, we are reminded of what we need to be.  Also, men will watch the show and be driven to these books and shows while women are oblivious.  
   Sex has always been a topic of conversation.  In the past though it was much more metaphorical to describe a persons journey. Nowadays, sex is blatant and purely about sex.  There are way to many topics to touch on when discussing how prevalent sex is modern day society.  However, it is safe to say that it remains a constant theme throughout time, as people have a primitive inclination towards sexualized material.
     

Imparting Distortion

An attraction to lust, mystery and dominance has remained a prevalent theme in literature and storytelling in general throughout history.  In the beginning of “Nice to Eat You: Acts of Vampires”, the third chapter in How to Read Literature Like a Professor, the author, Thomas C. Foster, discusses this entrancement that audiences have towards menacing characters.  He uses the classic tale of Dracula as an example. In tales, such as Dracula, and older man is found preying on younger, innocent girls.  When put in such a straightforward way it is, honestly, very creepy.  However, when glorified by making a dark tale of lust and mythical creatures, the creepiness factor leaves the cringing stage and delves into a curious lust.  In fact, even without the mythical side, simply the dark atmosphere and men asserting their male dominance over, essentially, young virgins, has drawn in audiences of all kinds.

A prime example that I’m led to think of is Attila the hun.  More specifically, the miniseries Attila made in 1999 starring, none other than, Gerard Butler.  A very attractive leading male is cast to play a vicious, ruthless, most likely disgusting hun.  A leader of a “clan” that kills men, women, and children mercilessly, yet will spare the life of a beautiful women IF he can, to put it bluntly, sleep with her.  And considering it would be a woman of a warring tribe whose family was killed by Attila, a more accurate term would be rape.  So, Attila would kill anyone in his way, except for a woman that he planned on raping; often times she would even be forced into marriage.  However, in this glorified telling of Attila’s life, women would overcome their despise and vengeful attitude that they fostered towards Attila, and… fall in love with him? Yes, these women being held as sex slaves for Attila would fall in love with him because of this seductive charm that exuded from the character.  What’s worse is that the audience actually routes for Attila.  An vile man that kill families in cold blood, steals their daughters, forces said daughter into marriage, and rapes her… we want this woman, this girl, to fall in love with her captor and her family’s murderer.  How sick and convoluted is that? One can accurately describe Attila as evil. Yet, he is still portrayed as this sexy, mysterious man.  Why?  As Foster explains it, “Evil has had to do with sex since the serpent seduced Eve…unwholesome lust, seduction, temptation, danger, among other ills.” (pg 13).  Men find comfort in this reassurance of their male dominance, believing that women have accepted and embraced a submissive, dependent position in relation to their male counterparts.  Women have found this alluring quality of the fictional leading male all too attractive and have been seduced by the dominant, dangerous portrayal. 

Main theme: Sexualized Exploitation 

My next question is: is this a primal quality of men and women? Or is it a societal brainwashing? Many will argue that it is primal, beginning with Eve and continuing on. However, I do not believe this perspective began at the beginning of time, but rather happened to be popular opinion when that particular version of the “beginning of time” was written. Why? Because it was a male’s way of ingraining their superiority into the minds of generations to come.  I believe that authority and power are primal desires, but I do not believe that acceptance of a submissive position is natural at all.  In fact, it seems to go against every human instinct.  Women have been raised to believe it is their duty to “take their place” next to their male partner, to rely on him, to forfeit their rights to him, and to become his inferior.

Now, to step off my feminist soapbox, and continue on with the remainder of the chapter…

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde had already crossed my mind before reaching the mentioning of it in this chapter.  I thought of the musical, and how the most enthralling parts were those in which he was Mr. Hyde and was out fulfilling his dark side.  One of the most climactic scenes is when he kills Lucy, the main female character who also happens to be a prostitute.  The show is written in a way that makes this horrible act of selfishness and exploitation almost intimate.  That is where its most disturbing nature lies, and I believe that is what makes it so mesmerizing. 

Foster mentions Franz Kafka, and coincidentally the only two works of his that I have read. The Hunger Artist is the work that stuck with me more intensely.  A man in a cage who starves himself for the public’s entertainment, or so it seems.  He has had a forty day limit (a shout out to Christian influence which is talked about in a later chapter) put on his fasting because the impresario says the public will “lose interest” after that time.  The Hunger Artist is angered that there is a limit because it prevents him from beating his own record, and bettering himself.  Ultimately, the public does lose interest and no one cares for the Hunger Artist’s “talent” anymore.  He is found under the straw, near dead, in his cage.  In the end he confesses he never ate because he could not find any food that he liked. This last statement is imperative to the meaning of the story.  I’m still not positive as to its meaning, except perhaps if this separated him from society in such a way that he took it to the extreme turning it into a form of art to entertain those he was unable to connect to. Th

is could serve as a metaphor for Kafka, as the story does, an artist unable to reach a connection to humanity so he shares this torture with those he is distant from through writing.  In the context of this blog, the most important nature of this short story is the fact that the “vampire” is society all against one man.  Foster talks of the constant theme of exploitation that human kind is so fascinated by.  He says that a vampire must place his own need to remain undead over another human being’s life.  In the case of The Hunger Artist, Kafka goes as far to say the vampires of the world (everyone) place their short-lived entertainment interests over that of a man’s life.  Yet he does not struggle, he wishes to go further because he respects his craft as something more than entertainment, for him it is his self worth which is nothing to anybody else.  Finding entertainment in such torture takes away the humanity of his audience, similar to a vampire’s undead existence.  The Hunger Artist becomes complacent to this mistreatment as a victim of a vampire would, as they seek out their own victims.  However, the hunger artist preys on himself and his own livelihood.