Yikes Maxine

I just read chapter 8 of The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri. This chapter had a main focus on Gogol's love and relationships. Man it was filled with romance and relationships. The beginning started off sadly commencing with "the additional absence of Maxine" (Lahiri 188). We find out at the beginning of the chapter that his beautiful relationship with Maxine is over and the broke up. It is unclear who broke up with who however I believe that Gogol broke up with Maxine (mutual break up though) because of a fight she started about him spending too much time with his family.

Keep in mind that this goes on within the year (mostly at the end) that his dad dies. Now personally, I think that would be so difficult and hard to go through. For Gogol and his family, it is the same way. his family and he take it so hard and mourn together. It seems to bring his family together because they spend more time together. They are forced to go through it together. They visit Ashima on weekends more often and call every night. Maxine unfortunately doesn't take it well. "They began to argue about this" with "Maxine going so far one day as to admit that she felt jealous of his mother and sister" (Lahiri 188). This insecurity of feeling jealous of his mother and sister seems absurd to me along with Gogol. They are his family and they were going through a rough time together. I don't think she should've felt jealous, but instead comforted him and supported him. He really needed her in this time of sadness and death. However, instead he turned to his family and went through it with them. To me, that shows how maybe he didn't have as much of a connection with Maxine and didn't feel close enough with her to go to her for support. So maybe it is best they broke up. 

Hopefully you enjoyed this post. Let me know what you think. Is it best that they broke up?

Identity

Well, I've gotten through 4 more chapters of The Namesake and I am now at chapter 6. A lot has happened. Gogol (I guess now Nikhil) has grown a lot and is now in college! Lots of years have gone by in only 6 chapters, but one main theme I've noticed in searching for identity. The Ganguli family as a whole cannot seem to figure out how which culture to associate themselves with and how much. They seem lost. I could really feel them being tugged and pulled by the different cultures and traditions.

Gogol seems to really be stuck between two cultures. His roots are in India with his family, yet he lives in America and was raised there. I know if I were in his position, it would feel weird and odd knowing that you and you're sister are the only ones who were born and grew up somewhere different from India. It seems hard for him to figure out which traditions to celebrate and which to not. It must be tough not celebrating some common American traditions while in America and instead celebrating the Indian ones that few people know about. 

The one thing that doesn't seem to help him through this is his name. His name provides no clarity on who he is and provides no help to find his identity as more of an Indian or an American. For most of the book, he believes he was named Gogol only because it's his dad's favorite author. He cannot figure out why they would not name him under an Indian name or even an American name (seeing they live in the US). It bothers him SO much and he cannot stand his name whether it's writing it, hearing it, or even just seeing it. He explains "What dismays him most is the irrelevance of it all" (76). He's not russian, and it's not HIS favorite author.

The result of all this identity searching is rebelliousness. As he grows into a teenager and starts to go to college, we see Gogol start to rebel a little bit. He goes to parties, drinks, etc. The search for his identity and the struggle between Indian culture and American must be tough and put a load on his shoulders. The way he "lets off steam" you could say is to rebel. I sure hope this doesn't continue and he stays on the right path the rest of the book. 

The Namesake

Wow! So I just read the first 2 chapters of The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri. You know, I went in thinking it would be another boring novel for English but I actually enjoyed it! However, it was only the first two chapters so I have to keep reading to see if things stay the same. One thing in the book really interested me: the connection between Ashoke's mother fearing he would be hit by a bus or a tram and die while reading a book and how Ashoke almost actually died, deep into "The Overcoat".

So here's where it started, Lahiri explains how Ashoke was always reading books and how "Ashoke's mother was always conviced that her eldest son would be hit by a bus or a tram, his nose deep into War and Peace. That he would be reading a book the moment he died" (13). I think the assumption here (at least what I thought while reading) is that he would be reading and be so into the book that he wouldn't notice a tram or bus coming, and he would then get hit and die. To me, that is quite sad that his mother was CONVINCED that he would get hit and be reading a book when he died. The interesting part is that she would almost right, but not in the way that I think she expected or thought he would. 

So now I'll explain what ACTUALLY happened. As a 22 year old, he was traveling on the 83 Up Howrah-Ranchi Express to visit his grandparents for the holidays. So at night, everyone went to bed and was asleep except for Ashoke. Can you guess what he was doing? Reading, of course! So at 2:30 in the morning, the tram derailed and his bogie capsized and was flung far into a field. Most of the people asleep died, but Ashoke stayed alive (obviously still injured however). 

So here's the interesting connection: his mom believed he would be reading a book when he died and he ALMOST did die while reading a book (technically "The Overcoat" is a short story, but it's the reading something that matters). However, the complexity is the fact that him reading is what saved him contrary to what his mom thought (that reading the book would indirectly kill him)! The only reason he was not sleeping is because he was reading; had he been sleeping, he would have died like the rest... How's that for a twist? I really enjoyed reading that part. 

I'm excited to see where Gogol, Ashima, and Ashoke go next!

Notes From Underground

After reading the first part of Notes from Underground, we learn a lot about the character of the man who lives underground. He is a man filled with contempt and spite. He is a bitter man living in St. Petersburg , Russia in the 1860s. As an ex-civil service worker, he lives in a corner house. He gets food from money that he inherited. The protagonist throughout the book contradicts himself and inflicts self harm. 

In the book, he explains how "there is even enjoyment in a toothache" (13). Within this comment, he contradicts himself and inflicts self harm. Most people can attest to the fact that toothaches can be quite painful and unpleasant. He agrees that it can be painful but argues that you can still find enjoyment in the pain. I understand finding enjoyment in something boring or unpleasant, but I do not understand finding enjoyment in something PAINFUL. Throughout the book, one of the themes we see is this man contradicting himself just like he does here. The man finds enjoyment in pain so he inflicts self harm and brings on pain. 

He seems to enjoy all the bitter things in his life and does everything in the book out of spite. I didn't understand what spite was before reading this, but he engrains the definition by using spite so much. Spite is the desire to hurt and annoy. 

In the first page of the book, he comments that his "liver is diseased" (3) but he doesn't "treat it and never [will]" (3). Clearly here he shows how he inflicts self harm and pains himself by not seeing a doctor or getting treated. He makes no attempts to try to get it better out of spite. He then explains how "I know better than anyone that I thereby injure only myself and no one else." (3). He injures himself and doesn't even care enough to make an attempt to get better. He is clearly a bitter man full of spite.

Overall, I found the first part to be a tougher read because all of his notes put together was not too clear about what he was saying, but two themes of contradiction and self-infliction were clearly present. 

Single Story Essay

Jacob Rosenberg

1-30-14

English II

C block

Single Story Essay

            In the book, Things Fall Apart, and the New York Times article, “Only Children: Selfish and Lonely,” the authors, Chinua Achebe and Lauren Sandler, paint a more complete story of their communities of Africa and only children. Achebe dispels untrue parts of Africans such as being civilized and unable to communicate well similarly to how Sandler destroys the idea of only children always being lonely and selfish. Achebe flaws her character to show some of the single story to be true of how they are barbaric and violent in the same way as Sandler points out how some only children do get lonely at a certain time in their life. Although Achebe and Sandler write about completely different topics, they both complete their single stories by pointing out noble features of their communities such as faith, spirituality, and high intelligence and self-esteem. Through dispelling untrue myths, showing some of the single story flaws to be true, and demonstrating positive attributes of Nigeria and only children, Achebe and Sandler attempt to complete the single stories of Africa and only children.

            Achebe and Sandler destroy the single stories by making arguments against untrue myths. Achebe denies the single story that Africa is uncivilized when he explains that “among these people a man was judged according to hid worth and not that of his father. Okonkwo was clearly cut out for great things” (7) . The ibo people have a social hierarchy and social mobility. Achebe uses Okonkwo’s ability to stray away from his father and his class to show that the Ibo people were civilized.  Sandler points out that "in hundreds of studies during the past decades exploring 16 character traits — including leadership, maturity, extroversion, social participation, popularity, generosity, cooperativeness, flexibility, emotional stability, contentment — only children scored just as well as children with siblings" (Sandler, pars. 4). Achebe disproves that Africans are uncivilized in the same way that Sandler proves that only children have similar characteristics as any other kid.

Achebe and Sandler disprove the pieces of the single story that they do not believe are true. Sandler states that “findings suggest that solitude is not synonymous with loneliness and often strengthens character" (Sandler, pars. 5). Sandler uses findings to dispel the common idea that living as an only child causes loneliness. Sandler explains that being alone does not cause us to be lonely, as opposed to the assumption of many. Sandler then comments that "it turns out brutal sibling rivalry isn’t necessary to beat the ego out of us; peers and classmates do the job" (Sandler, pars. 4) in a similar way to how Achebe explains that "Among the Ibo the art of conversation is regarded very highly, and proverbs are the palm-oil with which words are eaten. Okoye was a great talker and he spoke for a long time, skirting around the subject and hitting it finally" (7). Sandler explains how siblings aren’t needed to stop an ego because kids at school will have the same effect. In this way, Sandler helps to prove that only children are not always selfish similarly to how Achebe proves that not all Africans do not know how to communicate well.  The Ibo people look at communication as a highly important art. They have people in their clan who speak extremely well, who disprove the single story that all Africans struggle to communicate.

            Achebe and Sandler complete the single stories of their communities by revealing the flaws of the single story that are true. During the Week of Peace, Okonkwo’s wife leaves without telling him "And when she return[s] he beat[s] her very heavily" (29).  Achebe chooses to show how parts of the single story are true such as the Africans being barbaric and violent. In the Ibo tribe, it was not unnatural for a man to beat his wife. Even though these people were civilized, they were still barbaric and violent at times. In her article, Sandler talks about how “still there is something existentially troubling about the idea of facing one’s parents’ mortality alone" (Sandler, pars. 12). She explains how an only child could be lonely and feel alone when they face their parent’s death without anyone to go through it with. Achebe and Sandler both disclose weaknesses in the single story of their respective communities in an effort to create a complete story of Africa and only children, not one with only positives.

Achebe and Sandler complete the single stories by showing the positive aspects of their communities that people do not usually associate with Africa and only children. When the white men come to Nigeria for imperialist reasons, Uchendu bursts out saying, "never kill a man who says nothing. Those men of Abame were fools. What did they know about the man?" (140). Achebe points out how the Ibo people had ethics and morals. They did not want to kill a man just because he was not of their kind. In a similar way to show positive characteristics, Sandler explains how it was "found that only children had demonstrably higher intelligence and achievement; only children have also been found to have more self-esteem" (Sandler, Pars. 7). Sandler explains how studies have shown that only children have tested with a higher intelligence and more self-esteem than children with siblings. Achebe and Sandler both try to surface positive characteristics for Africa and only children that usually do not come up in their single stories. Achebe brings up that Africans do have faith and spirituality when he explains how “a man could not rise above the destiny of his chi. The saying of the elders was not true - that if a man said yea his chi was also affirmed. Here was a man whose chi said nay despite his own affirmation" (114). Achebe tries to show how the Africans did believe in spirituality despite their single story.  In the novel, Okonkwo “worship[s] them with sacrifices of kola nut, food and palm-wine, and offered prayers to them on behalf of himself, his three wives and eight children" (14). The Ibo people sacrifice and pray to the gods. Achebe demonstrates that they had a faith, completing the single story even more.

            In their texts, Achebe and Sandler attempt to give a more complete single story of Africa and only children. The single story of Africa is that Africans are uncivilized, barbaric, unable to communicate, and that they need help. Achebe dispels the untrue parts of the single story in the same way that Sandler destroys the single story of only children being lonely and selfish. They both attempt to complete the unfinished half of the single story, known as the “lions” perspective because they never tell the story because they lost and have no say. There is always more to a single story because most single stories only show one perspective, the “hunters” perspective.

Bibliography

Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. New York: Anchor, 1994. Print.

Sandler, Lauren. "Only Children: Lonely and Selfish?" Nytimes.com. New York Times, 08 June 2013. Web. 6 Feb. 2014.

Thesis and Outline for TFA essay

Thesis: Through dispelling untrue myths, showing some of the single story flaws to be true, and demonstrating positive aspects of these communities, Achebe and Sandler attempt to complete the single stories of Africa and only children.

Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe

"Only Children: Lonely and Selfish?" article from the New York Times by Lauren Sandler


I. Achebe and Sandler destroy the single stories by making arguments against untrue myths

A. "In hundreds of studies during the past decades exploring 16 character traits — including leadership, maturity, extroversion, social participation, popularity, generosity, cooperativeness, flexibility, emotional stability, contentment — only children scored just as well as children with siblings"

B. "It turns out brutal sibling rivalry isn’t necessary to beat the ego out of us; peers and classmates do the job."

C. "Their findings suggest that solitude is not synonymous with loneliness and often strengthens character."

D. "Among the Ibo the art of conversation is regarded very highly, and proverbs are the palm-oil with which words are eaten. Okoye was a great talker and he spoke for a long time, skirting around the subject and hitting it finally."(7)




II. Achebe and Sandler complete the single stories of their communities by revealing the flaws of the single story that are true

A."Still there is something existentially troubling about the idea of facing one’s parents’ mortality alone"

B. "And when she returned he beat her very heavily" (29) 

III. Achebe and Sandler complete the single stories by showing the positive aspects of their communities that people do not usually associate with Africa and only children

A. "Never kill a man who says nothing. Those men of Abame were fools. What did they know about the man?" (140)

B. "found that only children had demonstrably higher intelligence and achievement; only children have also been found to have more self-esteem."

Things Fall Apart- Exiling

Is it right for a man to be punished for something that was not his fault?



This question can be very controversial. From one point of view, even if it was not the man's fault, it still happened therefore he should be punished. There is another point of view that because it was an accident and not his fault, the man should be forgiven and not punished.



However, it is not just one answer for every incident where this happens. The answer could depend on many different variables such as the severity of the incident and what he is being accused for.



This question arose for me when i read Things Fall Apart. "Okonkwo's gun had exploded and a piece of iron had pierced the boy's heart" (Achebe 125). Because of this fluke explosion, he killed the boy at the funeral. In their society, this had a major consequence, to be exiled from the village for 7 years. There was no question about it, under that circumstance, his family had to be exiled. I thought this was too harsh when I read it. I believe that maybe a debt of yams would have been a more appropriate consequence because a man was killed because of him, BUT it was not his fault the gun exploded.



Obierika later questions "why should a man suffer so grievously for an offense he had committed inadvertently?" (Achebe 125). When I read through this part in the book, I had questioned the exact same thing. Not everyone in the tribe thought it was the right punishment, but they all knew that they could not change anything by speaking up, so they left it the way it was.


Throughout the book, we see that this tribe had many traditions that HAD to be followed. This had to happen if someone committed that crime so no one questioned it or tried to fight it. If something like that happened today, the person would fight and try to win the case to not be punished. There clearly are major differences from then and today.

Matt Killingsworth: Want to be happier?

In this TED talk, Matt Killingsworth talks about happiness.

He starts by talking about how people in the past strived for things like a bigger house, a nicer car, and a good job. They thought that these were the keys to happiness. Recently however, he says that people have been thinking scientifically of how people could be happier.

So, as a scientist himself, he created an app called Track Your Happiness. The app sent you alerts daily asking three questions. It asked 1. How happy are you on a scale of very good or very bad 2. what are you doing (22 activities you could have been doing) and 3. Are you focused or mind wandering about something neutral, pleasant, or negative. They collected a lot of data and came to some conclusions.

He concluded that no matter what your mind is wandering about, pleasant or not, that people are always happier in the moment focused on the task they are doing. Who knew--that to be happier you could just focus on what you are doing? It seems like when you are sad, you might wander about happy things, but according to Killlingsworth, just focusing and living in the moment will keep you happier.

So their data pointed to a connection with mind wandering and unhappiness. They had to distinguish which was the cause and effect, because in life, there is always one that causes the other. They wanted to know if mind wandering caused unhappiness as they hypothesized or if unhappiness caused someone to wander. Personally, it seems logically like unhappiness causes someone to wander because they would wanna get to a better place and think about happier times, but it's actually the opposite. Most of the time, mind-wandering causes unhappiness because when people wander, they eventually think about mistakes, bad times, and regrets.

So, pretty simple right? Just stay in the moment and don't mind wander to stay happier. That's what Matt Killingsworth says. Try it out.

Although it does seem hard not to wander. According to his app's data, of all the 22 activities, most of the percent time wandering was around 50% with a max of around 75% in the shower and a minimum of 10% during sex. A second lowest was around 30% showing how much people actually do wander. He showed graphs showing how the people's average happiness when focused is slightly higher when they are mind wandering about pleasant things, significantly higher than when they wander about neutral things and way higher then when thinking about unpleasant things. Therefore Killingsworth compares mind wandering to a slot machine where you lose 50$, 20$, or just 1$, clever isn't it?