Be sure to read the following 3 stories: “Dr. Ogata Ryosai,” “O-Gin,” and “Loyalty”
and answer TWO of the following…
Q1: Two of
these stories are unique for their mixing of East and West, Buddhism and
Christianity. What side does Akutagawa seem to be on in each one (or in different ones)? Are
these anti-Western stories, or does he use the West to criticize Eastern values
and ideas? How can we tell?
Q2: “Loyalty”
is a very Japanese story, as it concerns the elaborate ceremonial rites of
etiquette that bind the various classes of society. Even death, in these
stories, has to follow the proper procedure! Based on this, why might a madman
be particularly troubling to members of this society? Do you feel Shuri is
doing this on purpose; does he know what he’s doing?
Q3: Akutagawa’s
narrators are one of his trademarks, particularly someone like Dr. Ogata Ryosai,
who doesn’t really “get” the big picture. How do the narrators in one or more
works inadvertently see ideas we might otherwise miss, or place a satirical
spin on the characters or events?
Q1: Akutagawa doesn't appear to take a side, per se. These stories seem more like a commentary on the way in which people tend to react to those with beliefs and lifestyles that deviate from the cultural norm. The criticisms generally focus more on the people themselves rather than the religion they are affiliated with. Akutagawa is perhaps trying to show us that while Buddhism and Christianity are very different from one another, the people behind those ideas are not so much. When talking about mankind's knack for prejudice and persecution, the concepts "Eastern' and "Western" become a sort of moot point. To quote the Twilight Zone, "people are alike all over."
ReplyDeleteQ4: I think these stories are more concerned with getting to the point of the moral or idea behind them, rather than creating an entertaining plot. As westerners, we crave a captivating read that sucks us into the story and makes us emotionally invested in the characters involved. Eastern literature, from what I can tell, seems much more interested in "telling it like it is," for lack of a better term. This minimalistic approach almost adds an edge of realism to the story. Real life seldom has one brilliant, climactic point that decides the outcome of a conflict. A more simplistic and anecdotal approach to storytelling helps to ground the reader and allows the moral to sink in, without being complicated or clouded by grandeur.
Q1: Akutagawa seems to be on his own side. From what I could assume it looks like he doesn't have the greatest opinion of religion in general. These stories kind of portray all of the main characters, and their religions, to be kind of crazy. I don't think they are anti-western... maybe anti religious? He goes back and forth between the criticisms. In the first story he tells about a mean buddhist doctor who won't help someone based on their religious preferences and of a woman who refuses to set aside her "catholic?" faith in order to save her daughter. The second story is about a persecuted catholic family who steps down from their at the last minute in order to go to hell together... I feel like these stories are more of a statement about the errors of humans when they feel they can excuse their behavior with religion.
ReplyDeleteQ4: These stories remind me of The Bus Driver Who Wanted To Be God & Other Short Stories by Etgar Keret. Keret is also a non western writer... he is from Israil I think. I find the plots of most of these to be compelling, but I think part of the reason I find them compelling is because they are so different from the types of stories I am used to. Here we expect a clear cut example of good and bad in our stories and the concept of good/bad right/wrong are kind of muddy in these. The narrators are a little sketchy and undependable, and we are used to hearing the story from a good guy's perspective. Because we all THINK we are the good guy. Hitler thought he was the good guy. I think the big difference with these are that maybe the narrators don't consider themselves the good guys, and maybe the culture as a whole doesn't always view themselves as the good guy. Maybe eastern people have a more critical view of their individual selves. I think these endings are important because they are very realistic to how real life goes. You're not always going to be satisfied- in fact, most people would argue that they are NEVER satisfied or constantly chasing satisfaction. I think truth and realism is very important. (Although I always like a good feel-good story)
Q1: Akutagawa seems to be more on the reserved side. He does not fully express what he believes is right or wrong, which would reveal his preference of religion. I would say he wrote these controversial reads just to show he really has no preference and everyone has their own preference. That does not make one man better than the other because of their religion. These are very eastern reads because western reads try to stay away from controversy and conflict. They try to be "politically correct" at all times, because if they are not, they will lose a chunk of their audience. Western stories are more worried about offending people whereas eastern stories just lay it all out there without worrying about anybody's preferences.
ReplyDeleteQ3: The narrators give the readers a perspective that they may not have had without a narrator. For example, Dr. Ryosai does not get the big picture, which makes the reader think more shallow than they would have if there was not a narrator. However, it does give the reader a chance to try to accumulate their own understanding of the read and not just go along with what the narrator is telling the reader to think.
Q 3/4: These stories are (or seem to be) representations of what real life is for people in Japan. They aren't mystical stories, or fables or even supposed to have a moral. Life doesn't have a compelling plot, and people don't live their lives as if they’re going to be in a story one day. Akutagawa excels at getting into the everyman’s mind and seeing the world through their eyes, and as a reader, its like you’re seeing the world from behind a mask, not through someone else’s thoughts. Especially in “Dr. Ogata Ryosai”, you see the conflict in the narrator’s mind. He’s conflicted about serving this secondary devil, but he also wants to save her child. It’s a normal day in the neighborhood, complete with religious tension and innocents getting caught in the crossfire of adults arguing about things that don't really matter.
ReplyDeleteQ1: These stories don't seem particularly anti- anything. Like I said in the last response, it’s a lot more just “a day in the life”. To use your example, it’s an anecdote. It’s just a snippet of life as it was in this specific time in this specific place. He’s using two different points of view to show that even if they don't believe in the same thing as you, they’re still people. Which is what Dr. Ryosai’s dilemma was. He realized that Shino and her child were still people, but he couldn't do anything to help because they were of an opposing faith. So he’s using them to critique, rather than criticize. I don't think Akutagawa is saying that either belief is wrong. It’s an academic conversation about the attributes of each system of beliefs.
Q1: Akutagawa seems to be placing the narrators on the side of Buddhism over Christianity. Specifically, he makes sure to not spell Christianity right, and constantly makes references to how immoral it is. Especially in the Memorandum, he even ends the story of how the priests did the right thing by burning down that house after the mother and daughter left, and he refers to how the gods are “abhorrent” of the Christian priest. Much of the reasoning behind the doctor’s refusal of aide to Shino is based on rumors and condemnations in town that had no direct bases.
ReplyDeleteQ3: I think that the most important thing to remember about these narrators is that they are almost all unreliable. Ogata for example has a prejudice against Shino because she is a Christian. We know as more informed readers than Ogata that Christianity isn’t a necessarily immoral religion, and that the town’s resentment of Shino seem to be based on rumors alone. Ogata doesn’t seem to be able to put himself into the perspective of Shino, who doesn’t want anything but to have her daughter healthy again. He instead keeps looking at how bad Christianity is compared to Buddhism.
Q4: These stories focus more on what actually happened, rather than exaggerate to make it seem more interesting. It makes it more difficult for Western readers, because we crave a story that captivates us in every sense of the word. Not always do Western readers want to read what is there in black and white. We want shades of grey, and other colors. The endings are the most important part of the story because the endings get to a place where we can more relate to the stories.
ReplyDeleteQ1: I don't see Akutagawa as taking any side. He seems to just telling things as he sees them. He sees both sides. Therefore giving us different stories that contain both Western and Eastern parts, and stories that have Christianity, Buddhism, or both in them.
Q1: I think that he is attacking his own culture with this stories and using religion to do so. These stories seem to go along with the finger or the moon argument. Akutagawa is trying to tell his readers not to get so caught up in the finger, but to truly understand your beliefs. It especially shows when the doctor doesn't help the mother and daughter only because their beliefs defer. When reading this most of us, if not all, were horrified that the doctor's reason is that superficial. But I also think Akutagawa is trying to get us to look at our own culture, to see the finger and moon in our lives.
ReplyDeleteQ3: When I think that the narrators themselves are characters, I think of Huck Finn and the narrator from Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man. By using these types of narrators certain things standout or something might not be the complete truth. So Akutagawa does the same thing. His narrator is a character with beliefs and morals that put a spin on how they tell the story. We see that the doctor wants to use this story to dishonor the Christian faith, but instead lifts up the faith without even knowing. But a big obstacle for me to get over when a writer uses these kind of narrator is trusting that the story is actually true. An example could be the Invisible Man himself, he might just be sharing all the things that have happen to him to make him look like more of the victim in society-when that might not be the entire truth.