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

This book is really intense. I feel like Kincaid has a serious hatred against European and Western travelers. A lot of the issues she raised were really interesting and I had never really thought of them before but she is so cruel about it. She calls tourists “an ugly thing…an ugly empty thing”. Her voice in the first section makes me feel like she is sitting across the table from me and just yelling at me non-stop. The book just keeps going, and sentences rarely end. So far, through the first 20 pages, it does seem like an anti-travel, anti-tourist novel. I don’t think she would say there is any type of “good” tourism. I think it’s a flat out anti-tourist book…so far at least

When i first started reading this book, i was slightly taken back. Kincaid's tone is relatively blunt. I think that the reason i felt this way is because i am a while person, because i have been, on multiple occasions, the tourist that Kincaid is speaking about. I realized that i felt this way because i was almost offended. Why can't i be a tourist, what is it that is so wrong with that? Then i realized that this is not supposed to be an antitravel book, instead it is intended to open our eyes. Being a tourist to new places is not bad, but we should never close our eyes. We should always keep our eyes open to what is around us, to the events and situations that are occuring around us. We should keep our eyes open to the good and the bad, and when we see bad, we should be convicted to do something about it, instead of turning the other cheek and going on about our vacation like nothing is happening.

I agree with Emily... I was exactly that tourist that Kincaid was talking about... almost down to a T. Reading the first few pages, all I could think was "uh oh, that's me." I went to Antigua (pronounced An-tee-ga by the locals if you wanted to know) on a cruise ship (not a plane). While reading, I could sense myself getting defensive with the author's voice- thinking "that's true, that's not..." I didn't notice the lack of water on the island, but I didn't venture into any of the housing areas. I was driven around in a taxi-bus, but I think our fares were reasonable. The islanders assumed we were from a neighboring island because my parents speak a Creolese dialect that's very similar to the Antiguans' language. The driving was a bit scary, but I agree with the author... NY is about the same. and one major flaw with the author's opionions- I have never gotten through customs easily!! then again, I think she was directing that to a non-colored audience... not just a non-black audience.

The cover of the book is confusing. It seems to look like the African kids are helping the Caucasian kids and the Caucasians are dressed like angles and like they are foreign objects falling out of the sky. Before reading this section, the cover didn’t make sense at all. After reading some of it I can understand where the picture comes from and how the Caucasians are falling into this foreign place out of no where and according to Kincaid the African’s are just there to catch and serve them. The voice in this section was very sarcastic and also very demeaning to how tourists see things. But at the same time it is understandable with being in the situation of going to another’s country and home and invading what used to be theirs.

I think that when she expresses her feelings on telling her story in the criminal’s language she is telling the readers that her point can’t get its full force. There is lost feeling with this not being in a native language and translated. By Kincaid telling her story in English gives Western readers a chance to see a different point of view from someone who is angry over colonialism. However, there is a lost empathy with the fact that it is almost a wondering of did this author actually go through this and have these feelings or is it just a subaltern talking for others.

I really enjoyed the fact that Kincaid wrote this entire book in second person. We, as students, are always reminded to steer away from the use of “I” and “You,” but this book goes against most of the supposed rules. Kincaid tells what she wants to get a across in a straightforward, easy to understand, blunt fashion. She doesn’t hold back, but lets it all out. Back to the “writing rules,” I am pretty sure that super long parentheticals and sentences are frowned upon. After all, didn’t we just have a five minute grammar session on “wordiness?” (and yes I know there is lots of wordiness in this blog;)

However, the way Kincaid wrote this work of art requires her personal input and a mini-history lesson to really get her point through to the reader and she does that with the help of the parentheticals. Also, through the use of the second person, it is like she is having a conversation with the reader. The reader relates to the universality of Kincaid’s remarks. She may make some readers feel defensive, but as American we have to remember that we are not as bad as the British. I think this is a great novel and it really made me think about myself, my mannerisms, my preconceived notions, etc. I want to remember this novel so that when I do travel, I keep my eyes open and do not become an “ugly tourist.”

Kincaid is very blunt about her thoughts on tourists/tourism. I felt a little attacked but then realized it’s all quite true. Honestly, who pays attention to the natives when on a relaxing vacation in a different country? I know I don’t just because I’m so caught up in my own relaxation and amusement. I can’t be offended because I know it’s true, yet it’s amusing how blunt Kincaid is.

The cover of the book gives me the idea Kincaid is going to be addressing the issue of poor natives or lower-class people serving tourists and upper-class people throughout the novel. It makes me feel a bit attacked as well simply because I would be one of the innocent little blonde girls falling into the sheets of the ape-resembling Africans. It almost gives away the book in a sense that I already know her views on classes and races and I feel like she might be attacking me for 81 pages.

Kincaid would probably agree and disagree with what Ngugi wa Thiong'o said in the article. Kincaid is saying that it's odd she can only say what "crimes" tourists have committed in their english language because she wants english target audiences to read this and english is what they speak and possibly because some of the ideas she is trying to portray are better portrayed in english. Ngugi would want kincaid to write this in her native language, but if Antiguans already feel this way, this book may not be as thought provoking as it would be for the tourists themselves to read it. Kincaid is making the point that she is a little disappointed that she has to write this in english, so she probably understands whtat Ngugi was thinking. She probably disagrees with some of his ideas because she in the end chose to write in english because it would be more beneficial for english speakers to read it.

Honestly, I'm still digesting this book. There is a lot going on in those 81 pages. Her tone is really...raw and her erratic way of writing makes me feel like I'm in her head as opposed to reading a book. The long sentences makes me feel like there's a literary fog everywhere. I can't relax while reading because her direction will just suddenly shift.
I've been trying to think of what to write about the cover. I'm really intriqued by the fiddler and the black children. The Fiddler has much more detail than any other part of the picture. Is her the English? The foreign investors?

I like the book in general. it makes us feel a ittle defensive at first because we realize that maybe the finger is pointing at us a little.

I think that the discussion about strawberries and other things that are common to some but luxuries to many is an interesting topic. not simple in any case because it involves economics, history, politics, immigration to name only a few topics. and even though we may not realize it we all are involved to some degree just by living and shoppping and eating etc. it's very hard to cast shadows because of this.
it seems important to me that at some point these problems, especially the language one, becomes a big phantom. there is no one to blame at some point. it may be a prblem and cultural loss but there is nobody to actually call the "criminal", it's a phantom. who can take responsibility for those things, or economic trends (besides big IMF desicions of course). I think they are phantoms because they are so big and nearly formeless, it seems that we all participate in them. what is the situation was reversed and it was the brits in antiguas place? would antiguans have acted the same? there are similar historical examples that suggest yes, but some that suggest no. it becomes an issue of human nature it seems.
p52-53 seems a little sad. but also disapointing,maybe she is trying to say that she is disappointed in the shortsightedness of antiguans. that they could imporove things if they changed thier perspective. it seems to sound like she believes that they are not taking active, empowering role in thier own predicament or something.

I'm not sure how to take what Kincaid wrote about the youth in Antigua. When she was talking about the "Teen Pageant" it seemed like she was very disappointed with today's youth. She compared them to her generation and said that her generation "wouldn't have even been let on the stage" to perform poetry and sing songs so "poorly". I think these comments are unique to Kincaid. I always hear "older" people talking about what's gone wrong in today's kids. Whether it's about fashion, popular culture, or hobbies, a lot of older people disagree with the way young people live their lives. However, there was one unique aspect to what Kincaid wrote. For instance, she was disappointed in the way they were obsessed with Western popular culture. She said that her generation was influenced by English culture. I think she wrote this part to show a sense of saddness that today's youth in Antigua doesn't have an identity within the nation but is being coerced into a culture that isn't solely Antiguan.

The choice of the cover of the book is interesting. It depicts a man playing a guitar and seemingly making girls on a tree branch fall asleep and fall into a sheet held by several black boys. I think the meaning of this picture refers to how Kincaid believes that the people of Antigua are there in order to cater for visitors or tourists, and that because of this they have lost their own identity. The boys holding the sheet are the servants who are helping out the girls, and this could be related to how tourists come to resorts and vacation, being served by the citizens. Kincaid seems to be critical about how Antigua has become simply a tourist destination, and therefore does not really have anything unique about it anymore. The wear of the picture also is interesting because it shows the reality of the picture and how this reality relates to Antigua.

The book strikes out to the reader from the very beginning considering the way how the author is being so straight forward. It almost makes the reader take a defensive frame of mind with all the allegations she directly or indirectly makes. The way she calls the tourists " an ugly thing" makes one pause and think why she is being this critical. In a way she is right, most tourists do act the way she portrays. One thing which stuck out was when Kincaid pointed out how the conditions of the natives of Antigua are still the same as they were when they first gained independence. Her anger is basically directed to how the natives seem to have absorbed the culture of their conquerors. The way her novel takes the tone, it almost feels as if she's accusing the traveller of enjoying the spectacle of the poor and downtrodden. Another thing that struck me was how she seemed to imply that the colonials were the bad britons and the good ones stayed in their homeland.

Kincaid is really in your face throughout the first part of the novel, and throughout from start to finish. It seems really apparant in the beginning but towards the middle she gets at you in more subtle ways.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that Kincaid is Anti-travel. she admits herself that everyone is a tourist at one point in time. I think what she is really trying to say is that when you do travel, don't take your experience for granted and that most likely, especially to an island resort, that you are only skin deep into the country. Take some time to educate yourself and understand the way things are and why they are that way. It is tough to say when most of us will go and stay in a 4 star hotel, food and drink included, and play on white sand beaches.

On pages 52 and 53, when Kincaid is somewhat condescending the people in Antigua, I think she is using these condescending remarks sarcastically almost. It seems as if she wants to degrade them to make the reader feel badly about how poorly they live and the lack of understanding these people have for the situation they are really in. I don’t think she is actually being mean to the Antiguans—more like she’s trying to show how badly off they really are.

I really enjoyed the continued blunt “attacks” on tourists/travelers, but I really don’t think Kincaid is against tourism and travel. It seems more that was the best example of people blindly taking advantage of a tiny, poor, disadvantaged country. The novel made me think twice about how much I really don’t know the U.S. is involved in. We all are a huge part of the reason some of these “Third World” countries are suffering so badly.

A Small Place really points out the pitfalls of a tourism-based economy in terms of what it does to a country. I'll definitely be looking around more and questioning what I see the next time I travel. I'm surprised by the variety of topics Kincaid brings up, I never knew that most of the food we tourists eat are not native grown but could actually be coming from our own country. This really makes me feel that globalization is just another form of colonialization, where economically advanced nations are imposing their will and their rules upon others.

I'm not sure I agree with Kincaid's point about the government being corrupt because the former colonizer were corrupt. I understand how a newly freed nation with a lot of debt can have difficulty keeping a stable government, but I think that those who objected to the former colonial regime would also reject to the way it was run, and set up a new system completely opposite of the old, free of corruption. Having said that, I'm don't know why else so many post-colonial countries would have such corrupt governments.

There are soo many different covers for the novel that I'm not convince there's a meaning to them. I think they are all arbituary and she or the illustrator wanted to slap something on the cover. For the book that I borrowed, there's women walking around with baskets on their head. I'm not sure if people in Antigua do that, but it's interesting to note it. In the covers with the little children playing, I like the idea that she has a crease in the photo. It kind of shows that she knows that it's old, but it still holds its antiqueness.

I think Kincaid wrote her book almost like a conversation she is having with someone. In a casual conversation, we don't necessary pause at a sentence, we normally continue. If we were to literally read a book in its proper grammatical sense, it would be dull, well very dull. I think she does this because she wants this novel to be something that readers can relate to. In her passages, she's pretty much directing everything she is thinking, feeling, etc. towards the readers. It's like she's sharing her personal journal, but she knows that other people experience it too.
I think it's an interesting outlook on writing about tourism. I'm not sure about all the tourism business and its legality and regulation, but I'm sure it's safe to assume that Kincaid hates how the government runs the tourism industry. It's evident when she discusses about the Mill Reef Club. She also extends her outlook on pondering why tourists buy trinkets and tee shirts, when there's no use to them and what not.

Along with everybody else's comments, this book has a negative effect on tourists and how they act when on vacation. It is interesting how she leads us through the book, and perfectly projects what the tourists are thinking and doing. I always thought that tourism was a good thing, because it gave people jobs. I always thought that if you are not a tourist, you are working for the tourist. I dont know if Kincaid thinks that tourism helps the local community or not. The cover of the book is very confusing, because it obviously depicts the image of two different types of people, but what are their actions on the cover really portraying about the book...the only thing that I can think of is that the dark skinned people are heling the white girls because they are tourists, and the guitar player is entertaining them, as tourists are always entertained either by the hotel, or by the locals.
While reading the book, I also got a strong feeling of her dislike for the British.

I felt a little offended by Kincaid's frank attitude. I felt like her argument turned into accusation a lot, especially because it seemed like it depended a lot on clauses she couldn't quite back up all the way. Certainly not everyone is an ignorant tourist, and even more certainly, not all "first world" citizens are tourists at all. I don't think she's very concerned with this though, which is fine I guess. It seems like to get her message across she plays on emotions: in this case, guilt. Environmentalists do this too, and it happens to be very effective, especially because of the noted reactions to her writing. She most definitely offends, and I think she does this to make the reader aware of some of the more honest examinations that these emotions bring up.

I don't think Kincaid is trying to be anti-tourist but i do think she's trying to get the point across to the people that travel to different countries or cities that instead of being naive to whats going on in the country while their there, they should realize the extent of some actions happening around them. She sees tourists as wanting to get away from their own lifestyle to visit another without understanding the surroundings that might be taking place at that time.

I agree that Kincaid is not saying that tourists should not be allowed but rather they should be aware of the realities of those who are serving them and are native to the country they are visiting. I also think that it is extremely impersonal to visit a country but to never try to engage in the culture of the people that live there. It is as if the tourists really do think they are better than the natives. I know I have been guilty of the same thing but it doesn’t make it right regardless of being naïve or not. It’s like the tourists use the land and the produce for dirt cheap, but do no care to learn about the natives that serve them or teach the natives about themselves either. It seems Kincaid is not saying don’t go there or travel but rather be more sensitive to the natives and their situations. Also, if you really think about it, it is a viscous cycle of limiting those natives to poverty endlessly because they are getting ripped off for all the hard work they put into it. And they get so little for it.

Kincaid cannot be against all travel since she herself is a traveller. I was shocked when we learned that she actually lives in the U.S. with her husband and kids. When she talked about tourists, the impression that I got was that they were ignorant white people, very much like the stereotypical American tourist (perhaps not as hated as much as the British that I think Kincaid views as having a stronger colonial history). I think that her tone is strong because this is something that she feels very passionate about, but she doesn't see herself as an activist. She has taken the role of educating people and leaves it up to them to do what they want with the information she has given them.

I like seeing that a lot of people had a similar reaction to Kincaid's frank writing style: "You tell 'em! But certainly you don't mean me!" I like what Kiera says about her intent. I think its right to say that Kincaid might not always be concerned with being right or totally accurate as much as she is concerned with making our blood boil. Isn't writing supposed to be provacative? Maybe I could tolerate it more because I've never been outside of the United States or Canada. So when she says stuff like "you look at the beaches" and stuff, I can just accuse a faceless stereotypical tourist. I didn't feel victimized in that sense at all. I think feeling victimized by her writing is just a silly argument in the first place considering all the injustice Kincaid speaks of throughout.

I guess I just like my authors biting and sardonic. I kind of found it a fun read despite the grim subject matter. I think she was being audacious on purpose.

The thing I enjoyed most about Jamaica Kincaid's writing was her style of writing. It was simple and flat-out. (I suppose one can learn to enjoy her style of writing after reading books like Foe or articles on Orientalism and Subalternity). I cannot explain her reasoning of using long sentences (or parentheses) but her use of them created a more 'friend' like relationship between her and the reader. It created a sense of conversation, where you don't have to watch your grammar, language or anything else like that. As for her parenthetical expressions, (going along with the whole conversation theory) it was as though she was sharing a secret or her thoughts with us. Again, along with a sense of closeness with the author, it also made me believe her, she became trustworthy and this is where her argument gains strength because the readers believe her.
I would definitely disagree with anyone who thought that she was against tourism. There is a difference between tourism and the tourism she describes. I think she is against 'brainless' tourism, where you go somewhere purely for the sake of going somewhere. If you travel somewhere you need to exert a bit of effort to learn about the culture.

At first I was stunned and felt as though it was an attack on anyone who has ever been on a vacation. Her blunt statements were unexpected and strong but definitely got the message across quickly. I don't think that it is only an anti-travel memoir but more of a strong way of opening the eyes of ther readers. Anyone who can relate to the setting she is explaining that may be similar to Antigua is able to get engaged with the book and gain a wake up call from seeing the other side of paradise. I also thought it was an effective strategy for Kincaid to write the book as a tour guide taking the reader from one place to another and showing them what they would not normally think about.