For Monday: Naipaul, The Mystic Masseur, Chapters 9-11

 

Answer TWO of the following…

NOTE: Try to finish the book for Monday or get as close as you can. Even if you don't quite finish, you should easily be able to answer two of the questions below.

Answer any two as usual: 

Q1: How does Naipaul satirize democratic elections in a ‘brand new’ postcolonial nation like Trinidad?  How does the system not work—and how is the very idea of democracy often misunderstood by Ganesh and others? 

Q2: Once the American soldiers arrive in Trinidad, America begins to have a much more profound influence on Trinidadian life than Britain.  Where do we see the “American” influence in its day-to-day life?  How does Ganesh himself try to institute “American” popular culture? 

Q3: Once Ganesh enters politics he emulates the reforms and ideals of Gandhi, who liberated India from British control.  But is his mimicking sincere or somewhat hypocritical?  Gandhi followed the teachings of the Gita as his polestar: does Ganesh? In general, what kind of political leader does he make?

Q4: How do you understand the end of the book, when the Narrator, now a grown man, encounters Ganesh in London?  Why does he change his name to “G.Ramsay Muir”?  How does he respond to the Narrator’s advances?

For Friday: Naipaul, Chapters 7-8 (In-Class Writing)

SORRY--this don't post yesterday but got saved as a 'draft'! 

Remember, no questions for Friday, but read Chapters 7 & 8 for our discussion. We'll start with an in-class writing over the chapters, which might include some of the following ideas:

* Is Ganesh 'fated' to become a mystic and a great man of Trinidad? Or is his autobiography (which the Narrator quotes throughout the book) merely trying to sell his life as such? Does the Narrator write against this belief? Is he satirizing Ganesh's mystic pretensions?

* Where else do we see the line become blurred between satire and ridicule? What do you make, too, of passages where the narrator casually uses the N-word? Why does he include this, since the word refers to him and Naipaul (both of whom would be called this by the English). 

* Ganesh establishes his reputation by saving the young boy, Hector, from the 'dark cloud.' Is this a true testament to his abilities as a mystic? Or is it a clever piece of showmanship? Is he a sage or a charlatan? 

* Why does he end up going to war with Ramlogan? Why might this be a problem of success in a 'small place' like Trinidad?

* A local paper starts making fun of Ganesh as the "business Man of God." Why is this an insult? And is there any true to the insult?

* Why might this novel also be a satire on commercialism and the very Western desire to turn everything into a profit? Does Ganesh represent the 'Eastern' point of view or the 'Western', do you think? 

For Wednesday: Naipaul, The Mystic Masseur, Chapters 4-6

NOTE: We'll include Chapter 4 again in our reading/questions since we didn't really get to discuss it on Monday (and also, in case someone is behind in their reading!). 

Answer two of the following: 

Q1: As the hero of our tale, Ganesh undertakes the most heroic task of all: to become a writer of books. What obstacles does Ganesh face on his path? Why is writing a book all that more difficult in a postcolonial country than, say, in England or America (where it's hard enough!)? 

Q2: In Chapter Four, Naipaul writes, “It was their first beating, a formal affair done without anger on Ganesh’s part or resentment on Leela’s; and although it formed part of the marriage ceremony itself, it meant much to both of them. It meant that they had grown up and become independent.” What do you make of this scene and others like it? Is this simply part of the "Indian” culture of Trinidad? Are we supposed to shrug our shoulders and keep reading...or is supposed to be more disturbing than the narrator lets on? 

Q3: Ritual and tradition plays a big role in these chapters, yet we also see that "East Indians" aren't quite the same as their compatriots back in India. Do you feel that Ganesh is more of an "West Indian" (of Trinidad) or an "East Indian" (of India, but living in Trinidad)? How do we see this? 

Q4: In Jamaica Kincaid’s A Small Place (a non-fiction work about the Caribbean island of Antigua), she writes that “people in a small place cannot give an exact account, a complete account of events…The people in a small place can have no interest in the exact, or in completeness, for that would demand a careful weighing, careful consideration, careful judging, careful questioning.” Though Naipaul seems to come to the same conclusion about Ganesh and his neighbors, he typically resorts to humor to do so. Do you ever feel that Naipaul is mocking or outright making fun of these "small people" and their "small island"? Are we supposed to find them, as people in the metropolis would, as "ridiculous and unlikely?" 

For Monday: Naipaul, The Mystic Masseur, Chapters 1-4

REMEMBER: No class on Friday! Paper #2 is due by 5pm!! 

NOTE: A “masseur” is a term denoting something between a sage, a mystic, a spiritual healer, and a prophet.  Part of the comedy of this work is how Ganesh enters into this profession, and whether or not V.S. Naipaul feels there is anything heroic in his career: can a man with the wrong intentions ever come out right?

Answer TWO of the following…

Q1: What role do books and knowledge (esp. English/European knowledge) play in Trinidadian society?  How might this play into the conflict between East and West that we’ve seen in previous works?  Consider Ramlogan’s comment, “This reading, sahib, is a great great thing” (34). 

Q2: In Chapter One, Naipaul writes that “I myself believe that the history of Ganesh is, in a way, the history of our times” (18). In what way might Ganesh’s early career mirror the struggle of many citizens in the postcolonial world? Why is it difficult for Ganesh to find himself and establish a career and a life for himself?

Q3: When this novel was written, Trinidad had only recently gained its independence from Britain (in 1962). Yet how is Trinidad still very “British” in its ways and ideas, and how it this often comically portrayed by Naipaul? You might also consider why the society clings to these colonial ideas instead of replacing them with more native laws and ideas.

Q4: Naipaul writes much of this work in dialect, capturing the natural speech of the island and the Indian communities of Trinidad. Why might this be important for a book with such a non-English point of view? Recall an earlier class where we discussed the great literary debate of postcolonial societies: which language to write in? How does Naipaul have his cake and eat it, too, in this case? 

For Wednesday: Naipaul, "East Indian" (handout)

Read the short essay, "East Indian" that I gave out in class on Monday by V.S. Naipaul (who wrote our next novel) for Wednesday's class. There are no questions, but we'll do an in-class writing when you come to class over it. Here are some ideas to think about that dove-tail with our discussion on Monday:

* What is the difficulty with being an "East Indian"? Why is it a hard identity to carry around with someone? And why is it so hard to understand?

* What is the problem with the word "Indian" even today? What does it say--and what doesn't it say? Why do we still use it?

* Why were the Indian immigrants to Trinidad called both "West Indian East Indians" and "East Indian West Indians"? Do we have examples of such slippery racial descriptions even today in America?

* Are Indians in the West Indes still "Indian"? Are they Trinidadian? Carribean? African? What would someone be who grows up in Trinidad, speaks English with a Trinidadian inflection, but is still Hindu or Muslim? 

* What does he mean when he says "to be a colonial is to be a little ridiculous and unlikely"? What might he, as someone with a colonial identity, feel "ridiculous"? 

Paper #2: Through a Glass Darkly, due Friday March 24th!

PROMPT: Akutgawa’s stories are like Surrealist versions of reality: they seem strange and exotic, yet they are distressingly familiar to our day-to-day existence,  just slightly askew. From the obsessed painter in “Hell Screen” to the liberated executive in “Horse Legs,” each of these stories are parables of a world poised between old-world values and new-world aspirations. Even today, in the 21^st century, we cling to tradition while trying to define ourselves on social media. So how can these stories help us see ourselves through a distorted mirror to the ‘truth’ of our modern existence?

CHOOSE ONE of the following passages to compare to a real-world situation in your own life, or in the world around you, that this passage could illustrate or analyze. In other words, how could this ‘imaginary’ passage actually be a metaphor for characters and situations we see right outside our window? Be sure to explain the passage in your paper, and compare it to a situation where the passage works as a ‘lens’ to reveal a hidden truth about the ‘real world.’

ONE: Somehow or other, E’in too began to feel that the dragon would actually ascend—thought at first, it was more a feeling that he could not be certain it would not…Could it be that the feeling shared by the many spectators came at some point to possess Storenose himself? Or might it be that he felt so guilty about the uproar he had caused…that, before he knew it, he had begun wishing with all his might that a dragon really would ascend for him?” (35).

TWO: “As a rule, I can only paint what I have seen. Or even if I succeed in painting something unknown to me, I myself cannot be satisfied with it. This is the same as not being able to paint it, does not His Lordship agree?... “Which would mean that if you wanted to paint a screen depicting hell, you would have to have seen hell itself.”” (63).

THREE: “How could I possibly force this master of mine into retirement for the sake of the “House”—a mere name?...And yet, if I let my master have his way, the House is not the only thing that will perish. Terrible things may happen to my master himself as well. In calculating what is best for everyone, the policy adopted by Rin’emon was undoubtedly the wisest—indeed, the only course to take. I see that perfectly well. And yet, for me it is an impossibility” (99).

FOUR: “It was a truly disappointing way to die. Fortunately, however, society rarely offers critical comment regarding the way a person dies. The way a person lives is what evokes criticism. Thus it was that Hanzaburo managed to avoid disparaging commentary. Far from it: without exception, his superiors and colleagues expressed their deepest sympathies to the widowed Tsuneko” (131).

REQUIREMENTS

• No page limit,  but enough to create a meaningful conversation between the passage and your real-world example
• Quote/discuss the passage in  your paper and make sure we understand its context
• Be specific with your real-world example: don’t just say “this is like how people are trying to be successful,” etc. If possible, find an actual example from your own life, or the media, or even another film or book. Make us SEE the connection.
• DUE FRIDAY, MARCH 24^th BY 5pm

For Wednesday: ????????

 NOTE: In re-reading the last stories in the Akutagawa book for your final story, I decided that the last stories (written when he was battling depression and other ailments) aren't the best way to conclude this section. I think our last two stories, "Horse Legs" and "The Story of a Head That Fell Off" are actually the best introductions to our next book, V.S. Naipaul's The Mystic Masseur. So why not stop right where we are? 

Instead, I have another idea for Wednesday's class, which will involve no reading. So if you're behind, or didn't turn in Monday's questions, I'll give you until Wednesday to do so. We'll use the Akutagawa stories soon enough! 

See you on Wednesday...

For Monday: "The Story of a Head That Fell Off" & "Horse Legs"

NOTE: you can skip the brief story, "Green Onions," since it's not as important for our discussion as the other two stories (and it gives you less to read!). So read those two are here are some questions...we're almost done with these stories, so be sure to catch up if you fell behind. 

Answer two of the following: 

Q1: How does Japanese society respond to Hanzaburō’s disappearance and his strange diaries? Consider, especially, the newspaper articles written about his “insanity” and his brief reappearance at his wife’s home.

Q2: What do you think Major Kimura means in “The story of a Head That Fell Off,” when he says, “It is important—even necessary—for us to become acutely aware of the fact that we can’t trust ourselves” (119)? Is this the true moral of the story? Or yet another unreliable narrator imposing his view on the reader?

Q3: Despite the level of satire, “Horse Legs” is also a kind of modern-day fable or fairy-tale. What might be the metaphorical significance of a normal man, in a normal job, who suddenly dies and returns to life with horse legs? How might this represent something ‘real’ in our own world—or a condition someone might actually have or feel?

Q4: When the Chinese soldier, Xiao-er, looks back on his life on the moment of death, “he recognized all too well the ugliness that had filled it” (116). What ugliness do you think he (and Akutagawa) is referring to, and how might this connect with previous stories we’ve discussed?

For Friday: Akutagawa Stories: "Dr. Ogata Ryosai," "O-Gin," and "Loyalty"

NO QUESTIONS for Friday, bit be sure to read the following 3 stories: “Dr. Ogata Ryosai,” “O-Gin,” and “Loyalty” since we'll have an in-class writing over it instead. Here are some ideas to consider: 

* 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?  

* Japanese society follows elaborate ceremonial rites of etiquette that bind the various classes of society. Even death, in these stories, one has to follow the proper procedure! So 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?

 * Akutagawa’s narrators are one of his trademarks, particularly someone like Dr. Ogata Ryosai, who doesn’t really “get” the big picture (like the narrator of "Hell Screen"). How does he inadvertently see ideas we might otherwise miss, or place a satirical spin on the characters or events?  

* Many of these stories almost seem like non-stories, as nothing particularly dramatic happens, and the stories end without any particular conclusion. As Western readers, we find this very unsatisfying (in general) and baffling. So why did Akutagawa, who knew Western culture very well, write them this way?  Why do many of his stories seem to be more like anecdotes or gossip than truly fleshed-out stories?