Wow!...The Last Blog

In Core class, blogging lasted two semesters. Throughout these two semesters, I have learned that I have used my blog the same way. I have used the blog to relate to a quote, explain a quote, compare two quotes from different works, to understand an author’s ideas by pretending to be that author, and to develop thesis statements for my papers. This year I have learned about the importance of blogging as a way of developing ideas. I also feel that my blogging itself has changed in three ways in the second semester: the community of bloggers has helped me to see different perspectives and helped to expand my ideas, my blogging has become based more on analysis rather than summary, and the POW feature has inspired me to raise the quality of my blogging.

This year I have learned about the importance of blogging as a way of developing ideas on a daily basis about different works. These ideas are of the utmost importance because they are where one’s paper will ultimately originate. There is a saying that, “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” The same is true of a paper at the University of Richmond. Quality papers require much grappling with the text and are a weekly process. First, one thinks about several different ideas that he or she is interested in. Then he or she develops them into blog posts. When it comes time to write a paper, this individual has a variety of developed ideas which he or she can use to create a paper. I have found that the ideas I have blogged about have helped me to produce the best papers I have written. I think that blogging is a great resource for any type of class that requires textual analysis and essays.

The main difference between the blogging of last semester and this semester has been the element of the blogging community. Last semester, there was not nearly as much commenting on one another’s blogs because not every student had other classmates’ blog URL’s. This resulted in past blogging being isolated. A student’s blog was just for the individual student’s needs, not that of the community’s. Having so many different perspectives this semester helped students to understand the text and spread new ideas. This helped many students including myself to form new ideas about the text. After the first semester had been completed, and the blogging system had moved to the more community-oriented system present in the second d semester, the blogging system changed for the better.

Through my blogging, I have noticed that my textual analysis has progressively gotten better. I think that this is most evident when comparing my ideas about Gandhi with those about Freud. I was surprised that I struggled with philosophic works in general, but especially when I first started analyzing them. Most of my posts about Gandhi were chiefly just summarizing the main concepts: Varna, the Hindi beliefs, Gandhi’s ideas on English culture and non-violence. However, I actually analyzed Freud by taking his ideas and applying them to characters with sexual issues like Giovanni and Mrs. Curren. I think that this is a substantial achievement for me because I will be less hesitant to take courses where textual analysis of philosophic texts is involved.

The POW (Post of the Week) feature was by far the most beneficial factor in my blogging this semester. This feature inspired me to make better posts. I wanted to win this award every week. Although this did not happen, I significantly raised the quality of my blogging as a result of the POW award. When comparing the posts of the first semester with those of this semester, one would see that in general, my posts are much longer this semester and much more insightful. I think that the POW award resulted in much positive competition among my classmates and me.

I have to say that I am pleased with having the blog as a resource for Core. It has helped me to better develop textual analysis which has made me a better writer. In the second semester, this is evident. I feel that in the second semester, the blogging community has forced me to put more effort into my posts and also exposed me to a variety of different perspectives. I would not change anything about this blogging and I hope that other teachers also use blogging as a means for students to explore their ideas.

Images vs Words

On page 51, there are numerous images of brutal violence. When first readiing this section of the book, I found it somewhat disturbing. However, now that I look back on this scene, I like the way the author presents it. Words can only tell so much. Words are always open to more interpretation than an image is. With words, we produce our own mental images. In the case of pictures, the image is produced for us. I think that the way Satrapi presented the pictures was a great way to show how cruel and oppressive the fundamentalist regime was. She could make us feel uncomfterable and disturbed. We could realize what the Iranian people felt towards their government at this time.

"Out of the fire and inti the frying pan"

I think the saying, "out of the frying pan and into the fire relates a lot to the condition of Iran when Satrapi was younger. After the shah has left and fundamentalism is rising, the father remarks, " ...Let's enjoy our new freedom" (43). His wife remarks, "Now that the devil has the left" (43)! In the cartoon, the characters are surrounded by a devil as they say these things. I think this is the author's way of saying that the Shah brought on bad times, but fundamentalists did not fix anything. They were not the angels who came and fixed the country. They were just a new ruling class. Not much had really changed.

This idea of one situation not being any better than another after a change correlates with that of the quote "Out of the frying pan and into the fire." When one goes from the frying pan to the fire, he goes from two equally bad situations. This is much like what the Iranian people, including the Satrapis, are feeling. Power transferred from one dictator to another. There was only a nominal change not necessarily an actual change.

This is also similar to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. This movement brought comunism to Russia. Although russians embraced communism, the new life they recieved was really not that much better than the life they had when they were under the control of the czars. Effectively they went from the fryinf=g pan into the fire

Symbolism in Giovanni's Room

"...I take the blue envelope which Jaques has sent me and tear it slowly into many pieces, watching them dance in the wind, watching the wind carry them away. Yet, as I turn and begin walking toward the waiting people, the wind blows some of them back on me" (169). Jaques seemed to symbolize everything David was afraid of becoming. Jaques was a pervert and liked young boys. He used his money to get what he wanted. Jaques often lent money to David because he did not work. Maybe this blue paper was one of the checks that Jaques wrote out to David. By wripping this check up, David would be cutting ties with Jaques. He would not cash the money. He would not be in debt to Jaques. This wripping up of the check from Jaques seems like a symbol of David trying to tear himself away from his gay lifestyle. Jaques symbolizes the gay lifestyle David fears. It is fitting that after he rips up the check that it blows back onto him. This symbolizes how David can never seem to get away from his "shameful" desires.

Giovanni + David Reject Society Also and Their Religious Beliefs

Giovanni and David were already "nontraditional" in the sense that they had a homosexual relationship. Could they also be in conflict with civilization in their religious beliefs?

"...I had made a baby but it was born dead...we spanked it...we sprinkled it with holy water and we prayed but it never made a sound, it was dead...I took our crucifix off the wall and I spat on it..." (139-140). Clearly in this sequence of events, Giovanni is in despair because his child was born stillborn. By spitting on the crucifix and throwing it on the ground, he seems to reject God. Giovanni seems to place the onus for his child's death on God. By rejecting God, he goes against the traditions of society which provide that one should pray and fear God.

"He kisses the cross and clings to it. The priest gently lifts the cross away...He moans. He wants to spit, but his mouth is dry..." (168). Again, spitting on the cross is obviously a rejection of God. Although, Giovanni does not do so here, he clearly in David's imagination has the desire to do so. This also goes against society's traditions.

"...[The Italian woman] asks, abruptly, "Do you pray?" I wonder if I can stand this one more moment. "No," I stammer..."But you are a believer?" I smile. It is not even a patronizing smile though, perhaps I wish it could be, "Yes" (69). When the woman asks him if he prays, David stammers. From this action, one understands that David does not like being asked this question for some reason. Then after she asks if he is a believer, he wants to have a patronizing smile. he wants to have an air of condescension towards her. Maybe he thinks that her religious beliefs are false or maybe he thinks having a religion at all is futile. He seems to say yes to just to get her to stop bothering him.

Throughout these different examples, there seems to b a recurring idea: Giovanni and David reject traditional religion. Both of these individuals' actions speak for their true beliefs. Neither comes out and says he is an atheist. But, from their actions, one can see that David and Giovanni are atheists.

David: Gay, Heterosexual...Does he ever come to a conclusion?

What is David's Sexual Orientation?

"Then I took her in my arms and something happened then. I was terribly glad to see her...She fitted my arms, she always had, and the shock of holding her caused me to feel that my arms had been empty since she had been away" (120). I thought this was an interesting scene and it goes along with what we have been discussing in class: some people are not totally heterosexual or homosexual. In this scene David appears to show some desire for Hella because it "feels right" when they touch. It is not like the scene with Sue where he does not enjoy being with her at all.

"I felt a hardness and a constriction in her, a grave distrust, created already by too many men like me..." (99). David was picking up Sue because she was "easy." Many other men had done the same thing before. "...she had small breasts and a big behind..." (95). She was not very attractive and probably did not feel adequate. In order to make herself feel better about herself, Sue had sex with David. In this case, David is not necessarily feeling homosexual feelings, but he is definitely not feeling attraction to Sue. Maybe he is trying to have sex with her because he is in denial of his homosexuality. David's homosexuality is clearly shown to Giovanni.

As David leaves Giovanni's room he remarks, "Then something opened in my brain, a secret, noiseless door swung open, frightening me: it had not occurred to me until that instant that, in fleeing from his body, I confirmed and perpetuated his body's power over me...as though i had been branded his body was burned into my mind, into my dreams" (144). Here David seems to acknowledge his issue with his sexuality. He acknowledges that he is running from something. David can now see that he is trying to hide from his sexuality.

David says at the conclusion of the novel, "...the key to my salvation, which cannot save my body, is hidden in my flesh" (168). Maybe, the key to his salvation is his orientation. It is hidden because he hides it. David tries to ignore his homosexuality through Hella and Sue. His orientation also originates from his body. It originates from who he is attracted to.

I think that at the conclusion of the novel, David doesn't necessarily come to a definitive decision about his sexuality, but he realizes that it is the key to his happiness. His sexuality seems to be the main conflict in his life. It is why he runs away to Paris and is afraid to have a relationship with his father. Often the first way to solving a problem is being able to address it first.

Self-denial

After David and Joey's sexual encounter, David seems to reject him. He says, "I picked up with a rougher, older crowd and was very nasty to Joey. And the sadder this made him, the nastier I became" (Baldwin 10). Baldwin seems to be rejecting Joey even after their intimate encounter. This seems illogical at the surface. Why would David reject Joey after he appeared to like him so much. Later David says, "I had decided to allow no room in the universe for something which shamed and frightened me" (20). David appears to allude to Joey being the cause of some embarrassment. If David had loved him, then where would this chagrin originate from?

Freud says, "...an instinctual need acquires the strength to achieve satisfaction in spite of the conscience, which is, after all, limited in its strength; and with the nature of the need owing to its having been satisfied, the former balance of power is restored" (94). If Freud were to psycho-analyze David, he may suggest that he definitely fulfilled an instinctual love by having sex with Joey. Because David later tries to separate himself from Joey, and because he says, "I had decided to allow no room for the something that shamed and frightened me," Freud may argue that his conscience told him that his impulses were wrong. Freud actually has a psychoanalytic term for what Joey may have felt. Freud says, "When one has a sense of guilt after having committed a misdeed, and because of it, the feeling should more properly be called remorse" (94). David can be considered to be going through remorse because of his rejection of Joey after their night together. David's natural need for companionship was satisfied by Joey, but then after this was need was satisfied, his conscience came back. It was no longer overwhelmed by his desire. He then felt remorse for the "sin" he had committed.