EngL1401W - Spring 2007: Introduction to "Third World" Literature

PARTS I-IV
• Why so much history about Bono and Crook before we get to Douloti? The narrator says, "So many things came up as I tried to tell you how Ganori Nagesia became Crook Nagesia. These things must be said. In the world of Seora village, Bono is just as true as Ganori." Why must these things be said? Who is this narrator? What kind of person is telling us this story?

• What do you make of the more "technical" features of the text? Why does she run some dialogue together (and not use quotes)? Why does she use line breaks, like poetry, in some places, such as 49-50? Why so many short sentences? Do you have any advice for your peers about reading a story like this?

• Why does Spivak translate the word for upper-caste men as "god"? Some translators shy away from this. Why does Spivak embrace it? What effect does it have?

  PARTS V-VII

• Why does Mahasweta Devi construct the story so we continuously hope some man will come take care of Douloti? Did you believe that good things were on the horizon for Douloti? Until what point?

• "Douloti understood some and didn't understand some" (91). This happens throughout, that she understands only parts of conversations, only part of what is going on around her. Is our understanding (or lack thereof) supposed to imitate Douloti's?

• At the bottom of 81, Singhi (Douloti's then-john) calls Douloti "a good girl." "Whores do this work for the lust of money. You never lust after money." Then, nearly at the end, "Douloti smiled in a timid way like any other country woman" (92). Even when she's being condemned to death, she smiled politely and timidly. Is Devi telling us something here? What?

• Was there a way out for Douloti? Why didn't she take it? (What does it have to do with the internalized-gender-roles-confused-as-ethical-choice Spivak refers to in the introduction?)

• Why does it end with Douloti "all over India"? She is in the schoolyard of Mohan Srivastava, the one-time ally of her uncle Bono, but now returned to the school. (He's the one who beleives so deeply in police, government, education.) Why does she die on Srivastava's map? Why on the date of India's independence? (Independence here ironic?)

• Other things you notice, questions about what's going on, etc.?
  

Posted by Marcia Lynx Qualey at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBacks (0)

• Why is Spivak arguing against the demonization of the U.S.? What does that have to do with the idea that, "East is East and West is West"?

• Has Spivak changed her mind? Does she seem to be saying, now, that the subaltern can be heard? Under what circumstances?

• Very relevant to the story: What does Spivak mean when she says "internalized gender perceived as ethical choice is the hardest roadblock for women the world over"? Presumably this is the "choice" to be sweet, innocent, and virtuous that's noted on the previous page. If you're female, do you think this is a roadblock for you?

• Other questions, comments about her introduction?
  

Posted by Marcia Lynx Qualey at 02:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

No need to completely shy away from "like" and "dislike," but don't make your post about that. Some possible questions:

• What role does laughter play in the film? The characters' laughter, the viewer's laughter, Tahimik's strange faces, etc. To what purpose or end does Tahimik employ humor?

• Why does the American speak so oddly?

• Why does Tahimik focus so much on individual sounds and images? What is the effect?

• What's the deal with the unsteadiness of the camera at certain points?

• What is the main social or political question of the film, if there is one? Why does he repeat "progress" so much? What does that word mean in the context of the film? What happens at the end?

• What is the relationship between Filipino and American that's being sketched out here? What is the significance of the chewing gum?

• Have questions about the film? Ask!
  

Posted by Marcia Lynx Qualey at 02:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBacks (0)

Do you have a tentative thesis statement you might use in the second literary analysis paper? A question, area of inquiry? Post your own + comment on others.

Posted by Marcia Lynx Qualey at 02:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

• Who is speaking here? What is happening? Who is acting? What new “character” has come on the scene?

• Barton’s question at the end of Foe, "who must dive into the wreck?" alludes to Adrienne Rich’s poem "Diving into the Wreck." What connections do you see between the last section of the book and Rich’s poem?

• What is the end telling us about Friday? Do we know any more about Friday now than we did previously?

• "This is a place where bodies are their own signs." What does this mean?

• One critic has said: “I read Friday and Lucy [from another of Coetzee’s books, Disgrace,] as rhetorical constructions that require the reader to develop what one could call, after William Wordsworth, a strong imagination.” Is Coetzee teaching us--the powerful--to listen?

• How does this relate to Coetzee’s “real life” position as a white, male South African author?
  

Posted by Marcia Lynx Qualey at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBacks (0)

• What do you make of the relationship between Susan and Friday? Are they allies? Are they both equally “oppressed,” or is there a difference? Why?
  • What do you make of Susan’s maybe-daughter, maybe-not-daughter, who seems to come from another of Defoe’s books, Roxana? What might it mean about who is controlling the story? At some point, does Susan Barton seem to lose her grip as the keeper of this story? Her grip on her sanity and/or her personhood?

  • What do you think of following: "In every story there is a silence" (141).

  • What happens between Susan Barton and the author, Foe? What do you make of their relationship?

  • Feel free to approach these or any other questions.
    

  Posted by Marcia Lynx Qualey at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBacks (0)

• One of the main foci of the novel is the problem of truth and storytelling. One question asked throughout is the book is: Whose story is the right one? Is there ever one right story? What happens to the untold stories? So you’ll want to pay attention, throughout, to how characters are and aren’t able to articulate their stories. Why can’t Barton tell Cruso’s story? Why can’t Friday tell his story? Why can’t Susan just write her own book? (Your thoughts on this might change as Foe proceeds.)

• Is this story—of Susan Barton and Cruso—a "real-sounding" story? Is it an interesting story? Is this a story that could be fashioned (truthfully) into a best-selling novel or film? What might Coetzee be pointing at in the differences between Robinson Crusoe's best-sellingness, and Susan's less action-packed tale?

• DeFoe’s Crusoe kept a journal. Coetzee’s Cruso did not. Why? What difference does this make in the two books?

• Another difference: In Robinson Crusoe, Defoe makes Friday a tall, light-skinned Carib with near-European features. Why does Coetzee change Friday’s appearance to a sub-Saharan African one?

• Why does Coetzee have Friday sprinkling petals on the ocean? What is this supposed to tell us, as readers? Do you think Friday is mentally sound? What do you think about Friday? What information does Coetzee give you?

• Susan Barton wants to have her story told—and told truthfully. What does this mean to her, truthfully? Why does she want so much to have her story told?

• Why are islands so important to this story? Cruso says, “The world is full of islands” (71). What might this mean, in the context of telling a story, communicating with others?

• The name Foe was Daniel Defoe's real name before he gentrified it with the De-. What do you suppose Coetzee is getting at by calling his author “Foe”? Note that the word is often present in Protestant religious texts, where it means enemy, or the Devil. It was also a word used by British colonists: They defined colonized peoples as “foes.”

• Can Susan Barton’s story be told if, “in truth,” it was very dull, as she says on page 81? Is Susan Barton really an artless writer? If she's not, why is she portraying herself as such?

• What do you think of Barton’s attempts to return Friday to Africa? What sorts of larger issues might Coetzee be addressing?

• This text is extremely rich with questions about gender, race, colonialism, the nature of stories. What else do you see here? What questions do you have?
  

Posted by Marcia Lynx Qualey at 12:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBacks (0)