Toni Morrison and Huckleberry Finn.

Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination was a complicated read for me; however, after a bit of thinking and some class discussion, I found that Toni Morrison made some very meaningful points.

Morrison main focus in her book is race and its role literature. After I read Huck Finn and Playing in the Dark, ( a novel that Morrison mentions in her book) I looked at Twain's classic in a different way. Morrison stated in her book that "Race, in fact, now functions as a metaphor so necessary to the construction of Americanness that it rivals the old psuedo-scientific and class-informed racisms whose dynamics we are more used to deciphering." She also states that " America means white, and Africanist people struggle to make the term applicable to themselves with ethnicity and hyphen after hyphen after hyphen."

The African-American, who is one of the major characters, in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is named Jim. Morrison stated that race is used as a metaphor today; however, I think that Twain used Jim as a metaphor too. I think that Jim is the American dream in a way. I think Twain used a African-American as the metaphor because he wanted to declare something. I believe that Twain was aware of how "America means white" in most peoples' minds. Twain made a powerful stand by making the "white" dream in a non-white race. Jim is constantly trying to overcome his struggles: to find his place of freedom. Twain has been criticized for using Jim as a stereotype, but I think those critics are missing the big picture. Twain really used race in a powerful meaningful way in his novel. A very clever way as well. I believe that Twain used Jim as a metaphor: Jim is the American dream.

Leif's Overdue Blog Assignment

After looking at many lists that all share a similar title like "All-time Best Classic Novels" and "Top 10 Classic Novels," I've realized that almost all of the novels mentioned are from the first half of the 20th century. Tons of classic novels were written in the 1800s as well. I love reading, and I have to admit, most of the books I read are considered to be class novels. I think it's so weird though that the latest classic novel on the "All-Time Best Classic Novels" to be published was in 1987: Toni Morrison's Beloved. The past two decades lack classic novels according to most of the websites I've seen.

There are so many authors today that have written great novels. Some of these new novels, in my opinion, should be considered to be classics. Cormac Macarthy has written some great novels over the years. The new graphic novels are becoming hits. The Harry Potter series defines a generation. Why are books like these being neglected?

Is it too soon to consider these books as classics? I think the authors of these great books deserve to be respected with the influencial authors of the past. What do you think?

My Thoughts on Criticism

After reading Adam Kirch's essay, " The Will Not to Power, but to Self-Understanding," I've noticed some solid points about criticism. Kirch doesn't believe that a critic writes "to convince, to argue, or to establish his argument" which Alfred Kazin once wrote. Criticism isn't about power in Kirch's mind, but he doesn't deny that there are critics writing out there today. He knows that, but he doesn't consider them to be serious writers. Kirch has a clear definition of what serious criticism is: " A serious critic is one who says something true about life and the world. The critic's will is not to power, but to self-understanding, self-expression, truth." He knows that critics have the power to drive down or up a book's sale, but that's not the reason why we, as readers, continue to read. Kirch belives that we read because of the pyschology, society, morals, and politics in the book. I can agree with this.

Adam Kirch makes a great point in his essay. His point is true for all types of texts. Music and movies can be viewed in the same way. I don't usually read a lot of critics' writings; I don't really trust them. I think a lot of critics today are just writing for power. It's a bummer. I guess the world needs more people like Adam Kirch who want to write for the sake of literary beauty.

The Great Gatsby is Pretty Cool.

The character development in The Great Gatsby keeps me reading. Lately, Tom has been the most entertaining character to follow. He's such a mixed up guy. He caused a bunch of hurt within his marriage, and in chapter 7 he tried to fix everything with Daisy by saying that he still loves her. The book is just full of all of this mixed up confusion between the characters. Gatsby is interesting to follow as well. His love for Daisy is odd; there is so much confusion within the love triangle. I'm not even sure if I want Gatsby and Daisy to hook up.
I've noticed throughout this whole book that Nick is just stuck in the middle of all of this conflict. I think that's really interesting. Why does Fitzgerald have Nick, the guy who is stuck in the middle of all of this drama, as the narrator? Having Nick as the narrator allows the reader to see both sides of the love conflict though. Maybe that's why Fitzgerald wrote in Nick's perspective.

Always Thirsty for Victory

The United States was under the presidency of George W. Bush during the start of the Iraq War. The big idea seen mainly in the media is triumph. That's what America sees itself as: Victory. If one strives to be victorious at war, there are little things that will contribute and/or hurt their goal. However, these little things will be viewed in different ways by many different people. For example, Republicans supported Bush's decision to invade because of the suspicion of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They would find it logical to invade; however, most democrats opposed because their wasn't enough concrete evidence. Plus, there was another war already going on. The focus on a larger issue would diminish if the invaision of Iraq followed through.

Another example would be the killing of Saddam Hussein. Having the evil dicator captured by the U.S was a victory but to what degree? Republicans saw it as a huge success. They felt like it was the victory that they had been waiting for. Liberals could find some satisfaction in this, but not to a republicans level. I consider myself to be a liberal but only to a degree. The U.S killed one dicator that our government didn't really like. There are many evil dictators that the U.S government doesn't like. By realizing that, one can't enjoy the small victory to a huge degree.

People see war in different ways. Some see it as a potential victory, and some see it as pure nonsense. Everyone has different opinions on why nations go to war. The little things ( which could be big things to you. I don't know. It's your opinion) that built up to or during the war have caused many mixed opinons. The big picture is always clear though. America has always been thirsty for Victory. Maybe we'll be able to quench that thirst soon. Maybe we won't.

How Tim O'Brien Educated Me.

The Things They Carried is a great book. It's so different compared to other literature on the Vietnam war. Growing up, I heard a lot of negative comments about the government during the Vietnam war. That seems to be the only thing I was educated on: The government's involvement. The Things They Carried really shot at emotion. Tim O'Brien, the author, didn't bother to write about the government's overwhelming power during the war. He wrote about the war in a different perspective. Not in the eyes of someone on U.S soil but through the eyes of a soldier in a war zone. This really brought out the emotion. He makes it clear that Vietnam had the power to change people. Not the government or anything like that, but just being in a war in Vietnam. In his writing one can easily tell that the war was gruesome. War is gruesome, but the violence in Vietnam was life changing. I always hear how America is and always has been patriotic down to the last battle throughout history, but this book totally disagrees with that. The killing in Vietnam was quick and unexpected at times which is different than a lot of the battles fought in the past. Soldiers had buddies in the jungle that would be shot dead at random times which had a lot of negative affects on them. In this book Tim O'Brien even writes about how vetrans are still dealing with the deaths in Vietnam today. I grew up learning about the government action in Vietnam. The question was always raised: Should the U.S have gone to war in Vietnam. That question is a serious question, but Tim O'brien doesn't really ask that. I asked myself after reading: Was the Vietnam war worth all of the human sacrifice? Vietnamese and American? This book clearly taught me that it was not worth it. It wasn't then, and It still isn't today.

The Tea Party Is Not a Fun Party

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/opinion/29friedman.html?_r=1&ref=columnists

The writer, Thomas L. Friedman, refers to the well-known Tea Party Movement as the ' Tea Kettle Movement.' He calls them this because 'all it's doing is letting off steam.' I think that Friedman's made up name for the Tea Party members is very fitting. In this essay Friedman explains that most of the 'Tea Kettle Movement' doesn't have a plan for the future. They explain what they want, but they have no set plan to get there. They talk about the future of America and the problems that they think the U.S is creating, but they have no plans/programs to fix them. It is a movement that can't have a positive impact on the country. Friedman explains though that there are people who would like to consider themselves as Tea Party Patriots, but they can't because there just aren't enough people that have the same moderate views on politics. There just isn't a leader for these people. The nation will just have to deal with the 'Tea Kettle Patriots.'

Friedman knows what he's talking about. This tea party movement shouldn't be a problem, but it's growing and growing which could potentially really hurt the country. There are people who would like to consider themselves to be Tea Party Patriots, but they aren't as right-winged as the 'Tea Kettle Patriots.' I feel like the people in the 'Tea Kettle Movement' are just hurting this country. I encourage everyone that reads this to avoid the 'Tea Kettle Movement.'