Dance Dance Revolution, henceforth referred to as DDR, is quite the strange book (anthology?). Now, we've discussed weirder stuff before (tbt Dura), but compared to everything else we've read up until this point, DDR is a different beast.
The main feature of the book is the unique language: Desert Creole, a combination of English, Korean, Spanish, Latin, and a smattering of other languages. Interestingly, as noted in the Foreword, "civilian accents morph so quickly that their accents betray who they talked to that day rather than their cultural roots". This sets the stage for what will presumably be a collection of poems that discuss this fascinating world, so unlike our own.
Already, from our reading of the first poems, the St. Petersburg Hotel series, I see how important language will be throughout this book. Another interesting bit that I would like to note is how the difficulty in understanding Desert Creole forces me to reread parts of the poems over and over again. Yet when I read things over a second time, sometimes I get a different impression than I did the first time. This rapidly morphing and evolving meaning is unsurprisingly parallel to the rapidly changing Desert Creole. Pretty cool.
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
On Everything Before Us
I had the pleasure of viewing Everything Before Us for the second time in this class, having seen it over the summer with friends. Though my feelings for the movie weren't as strong (it's hard to really be involved in a romance-drama when you know what's coming), I still definitely enjoyed the movie even on the second watch.
What we discussed in class, and what I find is an incredibly interesting question, is why Asian-Americans were casted for all four lead roles and what effect this has on the viewer. For me, personally, I felt that this was a commentary, even a push back against the Asian "robot" stereotype that is frequently explored. Rather than one-dimensional robots that simply pump emotionless work out, as Asians are frequently portrayed in other media, Everything Before Us attempts to paint Asians in the exact opposite light--as overly emotional (saccharine, as Mr. Khactu says) creatures. To complete the role reversal, the white characters are the robots in this story (ha, get it, Robot Stories). Henry, Ben's best friend, is the one obsessed with maintaining a high EI score and seems to view everything through the lens of how it will affect one's EI score.
My response to the second part of the question is that it forces the viewer to rethink things. Oftentimes, especially in the movie industry, where racial stereotypes run amuck, it's easy just to see characters and pigeonhole them into their respective roles. By breaking these molds, Everything Before Us gets the viewer to do a double take and really focus in on the details of the movie.
What we discussed in class, and what I find is an incredibly interesting question, is why Asian-Americans were casted for all four lead roles and what effect this has on the viewer. For me, personally, I felt that this was a commentary, even a push back against the Asian "robot" stereotype that is frequently explored. Rather than one-dimensional robots that simply pump emotionless work out, as Asians are frequently portrayed in other media, Everything Before Us attempts to paint Asians in the exact opposite light--as overly emotional (saccharine, as Mr. Khactu says) creatures. To complete the role reversal, the white characters are the robots in this story (ha, get it, Robot Stories). Henry, Ben's best friend, is the one obsessed with maintaining a high EI score and seems to view everything through the lens of how it will affect one's EI score.
My response to the second part of the question is that it forces the viewer to rethink things. Oftentimes, especially in the movie industry, where racial stereotypes run amuck, it's easy just to see characters and pigeonhole them into their respective roles. By breaking these molds, Everything Before Us gets the viewer to do a double take and really focus in on the details of the movie.
On Betrayal
The last major theme of OSAF that I would like to cover is betrayal. Betrayal runs rampant throughout the entire story, though the most shocking instance occurs at the end (spoilers).
From the very beginning, Fan's departure from B-Mor is seen as betrayal by some. She abandons her duty, abandons the fish that are the very pride of B-Mor and its reason for existence. At the same time, B-Mor betrays Reg by giving him away to the Charter villages, to the experimenters who see him as nothing more than a guinea pig. We move on through Quig's tragic past and his ultimately turning Fan over to Vik, not to mention the creepy Circus Family and Fan's supposed near betrayal of Quig. And finally, we run into the ultimate betrayal, where Bo Liwei, Fan's blood relative, uses her as nothing more than an instrument to be used for his own success.
Why is betrayal so prevalent in this story? As I have mentioned in my previous few posts, I again hypothesize that this is a product of the society of OSAF and its shift toward the ultimate pursuit of material success. The scariest prospect is that our society today is seemingly veering toward a future like this as we push ourselves harder and harder to succeed with each generation. I suppose that this is one of the greatest strengths of OSAF: its ability to be just relatable enough to the real world to see obvious parallels, yet unrealistic enough to appreciate it as a piece of fiction.
From the very beginning, Fan's departure from B-Mor is seen as betrayal by some. She abandons her duty, abandons the fish that are the very pride of B-Mor and its reason for existence. At the same time, B-Mor betrays Reg by giving him away to the Charter villages, to the experimenters who see him as nothing more than a guinea pig. We move on through Quig's tragic past and his ultimately turning Fan over to Vik, not to mention the creepy Circus Family and Fan's supposed near betrayal of Quig. And finally, we run into the ultimate betrayal, where Bo Liwei, Fan's blood relative, uses her as nothing more than an instrument to be used for his own success.
Why is betrayal so prevalent in this story? As I have mentioned in my previous few posts, I again hypothesize that this is a product of the society of OSAF and its shift toward the ultimate pursuit of material success. The scariest prospect is that our society today is seemingly veering toward a future like this as we push ourselves harder and harder to succeed with each generation. I suppose that this is one of the greatest strengths of OSAF: its ability to be just relatable enough to the real world to see obvious parallels, yet unrealistic enough to appreciate it as a piece of fiction.
On Strange Characters
Today is the day I round off my blog I suppose, given that our winter class has officially concluded as of today. Given that I'm 5 (6?) blog posts behind at the moment, expect lots of content.
In this post I address the issue of strange characters in OSAF. It's incredibly odd how many of them there are--Quig, Miss Cathy, the Circus Family, Vik, Oliver, Betty, the creepy-eyed girls. Even Fan herself is very strange (never speaks yet has a magnetic personality, manages to stay physically fit while pregnant for how long?). What's even stranger to me is why all of these characters manage to be so strange in a supposed utopia (or at the very least, a society farther into the future than we are).
Quite a few of these characters are successful men and women in Charter villages, and are therefore citizens of the highest class. Our description of those in the Charter villages tells us that they are the best of the best, those who rise to the top of the facilities and those who have been groomed toward perfection from an early age. Yet, these are the same characters who are so shockingly strange. And not just by our standards--any man who would be okay with his wife having an affair would be an outlier in any generation.
My hunch is that this unrelenting pressure to succeed in the Charters in every conceivable way leads to a few loose screws. Thoughts?
In this post I address the issue of strange characters in OSAF. It's incredibly odd how many of them there are--Quig, Miss Cathy, the Circus Family, Vik, Oliver, Betty, the creepy-eyed girls. Even Fan herself is very strange (never speaks yet has a magnetic personality, manages to stay physically fit while pregnant for how long?). What's even stranger to me is why all of these characters manage to be so strange in a supposed utopia (or at the very least, a society farther into the future than we are).
Quite a few of these characters are successful men and women in Charter villages, and are therefore citizens of the highest class. Our description of those in the Charter villages tells us that they are the best of the best, those who rise to the top of the facilities and those who have been groomed toward perfection from an early age. Yet, these are the same characters who are so shockingly strange. And not just by our standards--any man who would be okay with his wife having an affair would be an outlier in any generation.
My hunch is that this unrelenting pressure to succeed in the Charters in every conceivable way leads to a few loose screws. Thoughts?
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
On Perfection
The first of many blog posts to make up for my lack of content on OSAF.
"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence." ~Vince Lombardi
The pursuit of perfection or, at the very least, the pursuit of improvement is what drives human advancement (along with biological stuff like natural selection @Terrence). OSAF, however, explores the darker side of the pursuit of perfection. What happens when we get too close to perfection?
The Charter villages describe such an environment, simultaneously both a utopia in its near-perfection and a dystopia in the fierce academic/extracurricular competition among youth and cutthroat system that forces adults to acquire wealth to avoid demotion to the counties, like Quig. It's true that striving for perfection is important, if not imperative toward human development, but get too close to perfection, and suddenly societal advancement stagnates and utopia flips to dystopia.
Interestingly enough, the facilities also suffer from stagnation. As the Charter villages obsessively move toward perfection, the gap in ability between them and the facilities increases, especially given that the top talent from the facilities migrates to the Charter villages. Once the facilities lose their pipeline to the Charter villages, what happens? The same thing: remove the end goal, and chaos ensues.
Finally, I find it fitting that perfection is unachievable in OSAF. Even as the Charters fine tune their calculations, adding more and more decimal points of precision, they still cannot avoid C-disease, and by extension, the ultimate fate of death. Because if humans could solve everything, what would separate them from gods? And I don't quite think humans are too good at handling power.
"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence." ~Vince Lombardi
The pursuit of perfection or, at the very least, the pursuit of improvement is what drives human advancement (along with biological stuff like natural selection @Terrence). OSAF, however, explores the darker side of the pursuit of perfection. What happens when we get too close to perfection?
The Charter villages describe such an environment, simultaneously both a utopia in its near-perfection and a dystopia in the fierce academic/extracurricular competition among youth and cutthroat system that forces adults to acquire wealth to avoid demotion to the counties, like Quig. It's true that striving for perfection is important, if not imperative toward human development, but get too close to perfection, and suddenly societal advancement stagnates and utopia flips to dystopia.
Interestingly enough, the facilities also suffer from stagnation. As the Charter villages obsessively move toward perfection, the gap in ability between them and the facilities increases, especially given that the top talent from the facilities migrates to the Charter villages. Once the facilities lose their pipeline to the Charter villages, what happens? The same thing: remove the end goal, and chaos ensues.
Finally, I find it fitting that perfection is unachievable in OSAF. Even as the Charters fine tune their calculations, adding more and more decimal points of precision, they still cannot avoid C-disease, and by extension, the ultimate fate of death. Because if humans could solve everything, what would separate them from gods? And I don't quite think humans are too good at handling power.
Monday, January 18, 2016
On Asian Stereotyping
Hi readers,
It's been 10 days. Oops, I'm missing deadlines.
Today I'll be writing a bit on conformity within On Such a Full Sea and its relation to the Asian "model minority" stereotype.
Chang-Rae Lee, as many Asian-American authors do, writes his book centered around Asian (in this case Chinese) characters. We discussed in class that "Chinese" is an essentially meaningless description; given how little we know of the history of OSAF, "China" could very well be Europe renamed. Knowing that readers, myself included, tend to associate the word "Chinese" with its definition in our own world, I still suspect that Chang-Rae Lee is referring to a very similar, if not the same, group of people that we think of as Chinese.
The role of the Chinese in this novel is as the colonizers, a role reversal in which Asians take over major cities in the United States such as Baltimore (B-Mor). The very nature of this role seems to antagonize the reader toward the Chinese, a seemingly counterintuitive action considering that most Asian-American authors seek to improve readers' opinions of Asians.
In addition, examine the role of conformity in the novel. In B-Mor, citizens live in strict order, where every (Chinese) citizen acts to benefit the community. Compare this to the "model minority" stereotype, where Asian-Americans are expected to be docile and obedient workers. In an even more obvious comparison, perhaps Chang-Rae Lee is again painting the Chinese in Red/Yellow Peril terms (communism and conformity, get the hint?).
In these two examples, Asian-Americans seem to be viewed in a negative light, alluding to historically relevant Asian stereotypes that describe them as a dangerous hive-mind that could potentially invade and conquer the United States. I'm out of words, so I end with this: Why does Chang-Rae Lee, an Asian-American author, describe Asian-Americans in such a manner in OSAF?
It's been 10 days. Oops, I'm missing deadlines.
Today I'll be writing a bit on conformity within On Such a Full Sea and its relation to the Asian "model minority" stereotype.
Chang-Rae Lee, as many Asian-American authors do, writes his book centered around Asian (in this case Chinese) characters. We discussed in class that "Chinese" is an essentially meaningless description; given how little we know of the history of OSAF, "China" could very well be Europe renamed. Knowing that readers, myself included, tend to associate the word "Chinese" with its definition in our own world, I still suspect that Chang-Rae Lee is referring to a very similar, if not the same, group of people that we think of as Chinese.
The role of the Chinese in this novel is as the colonizers, a role reversal in which Asians take over major cities in the United States such as Baltimore (B-Mor). The very nature of this role seems to antagonize the reader toward the Chinese, a seemingly counterintuitive action considering that most Asian-American authors seek to improve readers' opinions of Asians.
In addition, examine the role of conformity in the novel. In B-Mor, citizens live in strict order, where every (Chinese) citizen acts to benefit the community. Compare this to the "model minority" stereotype, where Asian-Americans are expected to be docile and obedient workers. In an even more obvious comparison, perhaps Chang-Rae Lee is again painting the Chinese in Red/Yellow Peril terms (communism and conformity, get the hint?).
In these two examples, Asian-Americans seem to be viewed in a negative light, alluding to historically relevant Asian stereotypes that describe them as a dangerous hive-mind that could potentially invade and conquer the United States. I'm out of words, so I end with this: Why does Chang-Rae Lee, an Asian-American author, describe Asian-Americans in such a manner in OSAF?
Friday, January 8, 2016
On Such a Full Sea - First Impressions
The assumption when opening a book is that it takes place in a realistic setting. Thus, the moment you see something out of the ordinary, something that indicates a departure from normality, all of your assumptions get thrown out the window. In Chang-Rae Lee's On Such a Full Sea, I didn't have that sudden realization that the novel was science-fiction. Sure, when B-Mor was mentioned, I thought to myself that the setting was not in our own world. However, foreign names don't necessarily imply an unrealistic setting. The mention of unfamiliar vocabulary like Charter villages also tipped me off, but again, nomenclature is not very telling. It wasn't until the description of Fan and her job involving diving in tanks and nurturing the "valuable fish" that I was certain that this world was unlike our own.
I'm still not quite sure what I think of the novel. While highly descriptive, I feel that the pacing of the plot is too slow for me to truly enjoy. On the other hand, I do enjoy the cryptic nature of the introduction. There's something oddly enticing about descriptions that leave the reader with more questions than answers. I suppose only time will tell whether or not I enjoy this book.
Toodles.
I'm still not quite sure what I think of the novel. While highly descriptive, I feel that the pacing of the plot is too slow for me to truly enjoy. On the other hand, I do enjoy the cryptic nature of the introduction. There's something oddly enticing about descriptions that leave the reader with more questions than answers. I suppose only time will tell whether or not I enjoy this book.
Toodles.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)