Hi everyone!
I'm hoping to pose a few questions and make a few statements here in order to continue the thinking we began in class today.
Q: Do you think Americans have a unique obsession with violence? Why?
I think it is important for you to understand that there has been a long standing violent literary tradition, and that the violence showcased is reflective of certain historical conditions and characteristics. The growth of popular literacy created a mass audience entranced by suspense and subsequent action. In fact, Alexis de Tocqueville noted early that " a mass market is not conducive to a literature of nuances, understatement and delicate pleasures." American audiences do feed on exaggeration, emotion, and striking effect- and violence is intriguing. Charles Brockden Brown wrote of one character who is driven by the impulse to kill and another who laughs hysterically after killing his wife and family. James Fenimore Cooper has a long history of slaying myriad Native Americans. Poe tells tales of gore and gloom. Lippard writes a novel that includes six rapes and twice as many murders. Mellville describes murder. Hawthorne too. Huck Finn is eyewitness to two of the most unforgettable murders in literature. Bierce, Crane, London, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Warren-- all written legacies of violence.
In order to really understand the violence in the text, we need to examine the root of violence, the character of Bigger, and the function of narrative voice.
Q: What is the root of violence in the text?
Q: Bigger repeatedly says to himself that the accidental killing holds the "hidden meaning of his life...He had murdered and created a new life for himself. It was something that was all his own, and it was the first time in life he had anything that others could not take from him." Discuss the concept of killing as an "act of creation."
Q: How does narrative voice function in the novel?
Hope to see some great comments!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Q: Do you think Americans have a unique obsession with violence?
I completely agree. Americans are preoccupied with violence. It is really an unhealthy obsession. Violence is everywhere. It is in books and movies. When I was younger, I use to gravitate towards books abut violence because they simply interested me. For instance, I absolutely loved Cut and Beloved... gruesome stuff right there. More on movies: there are sooo many movies coming out of Hollywood these days related to horror and action...OMG the blood!! Hollywood movies are trying to satisfy viewers by making each new horror movie gorier than the previous one in order to get new viewer and better ratings.
In relation to the root of violence in the text: I think it has to do with the pent up fear Bigger has.
Skipping around to:
Narrative Voice:
In Native Son, there is a third-person-limited narrative structure. All the action is revealed by this technique but limits it to the perspective of the central character. The narrative voice takes on the personal point of view of Bigger Thomas, however, does not become Bigger Thomas in reality. Consequently, the other characters appear flat in relation to the roundness of Bigger Thomas. The reader becomes really close to the protagonist because of this technique.
I believe that America's obsession with violence stems from a desire for gratification in a less than subtle manner. People often are not willing to search out the hidden meaning and nuances in a subject that is supposed to be "entertaining" thus in literature, television, movies, and video games we see extremes such as slap stick humor and exaggerated violence. People want to be shocked, and appauled.
Violence in Native Son is used to emphasise the issues, and leave the reader with a lasting image of the dangers of what is happening. Though violence in many instances nowadays can be classified as excessive or unnecessary, in Native Son it is completely justified. This violence stems from Bigger's aggression, his pent up anger, confusion, and fear. He is not merely sadistic and born with a tendency towards violence, he is the product of an enviorment that has forced to him to be so tormented throughout his life that violence seems to be the only way to respond.
Bigger feels no connection to life before he kills. He is constantly hiding. Hiding from the society that so demeans him, hiding from the future that holds no certainty save struggles and toil, from the people who fill him with hate, fear, self-doubt, and confusion, and most of all from himself, and the daunting knowledge that he does not know himself, and cannot know himself becuase he is only what society tells him he can be.
Killing gives Bigger the only power he has ever known. The fear people held of him before was cripling. He had to constatly live with the knowledge that people judged him for the evil he was capable of, but that he did not feel he had to strength to realize. It left him with more fear then a sense of strength. After commiting the act of murder, he had become what they had always believed of him, thus he found some sense in which to know himself. Now he could be who they said, he did not have to search for the real Bigger. In assuming the identity society provided him Bigger was given a sense of life, it was an act of creation in that through it Bigger became human. Before he was just going through the motions, lost. After he was given something to identify with, something to make him feel alive.
All in all it seems that their is a significant difference between the violence we see in literature, adn the violence people associate other forms of entertainment media. But regardless of purpose of necessity, Americans seem to crave violence. Maybe becuase the senselessness convinces them of the sense in their own lives. Maybe becuase they see it as a way to cope with their own anger, or maybe it's just the intrigue of the shocking and unknown. Whatever the reason, violence is pervasive in American literature and culture.
oh geez that was long ... and I still forgot to discuss narrative voice:
well in a nutshell I think the narrative voice helps give us insight into Bigger's mind so that the reader can better understand his motivations, fear, confusion, and the reasons for his crimes.
I think American's are so obsessed with violence because it is intriguing. Death and rape scenes are usually some of the most memorable in a novel because the reader is so captivated by the language and plot of the author. Mysteries leave people with questions. When the reader is forced to ask, what would I do in that situation, the author has successfully involved the reader. I think violence in novels can almost make the works more personal because at times they can be relatable and make the reader feel like something so horrible could go wrong in their own life. There is realism in violence.
I think Americans particularly have an obsession with violence because it is straight up entertaining. Often it is used for comedy in movies. But, violence has become a part of our everday existence. We see violence through terrorism and local shootings on the 11 o'clock news. America has become so crowded that there is more competition, which has led to lots of violence.
The root of violence in the text of Native Son has been the anger that Bigger feels. Killing is a way out for Bigger, an escape from his reality. Although Mary Dalton's death was accidental, other violence such as the death of Bessie was caused by Bigger feeling trapped. By murdering Bessie, he could eliminate a possible threat in the future. Killing as a concept of creation is best represented with the murder of Mary Dalton because after he murders her, he gets a sense of freedom that he has never before felt.
The narrative voice gives insight into Bigger's character better than anyone else's. It is limited, as Zoe said, and because of this, we gain a personal connection with Bigger. I believe its function is so that the reader can try and figure out Bigger's actions because it is easier to understand him if we know what is going on in his mind.
Hi!
I do think we have an obsession with violence, but I'm not sure we'd seek it if it didn't come to us. I think it's more of a marketing strategy than anything, at least in movies, comics, and maybe some books, because it produces more of a reaction. If we see a preview for a movie, in which someone is about to be killed or harmed or raped and then the preview ends, we have to know what happens. Maybe this is just me being idealistic and hoping that we don't actually WANT to read or watch violence, but I think marketing is at least some of the reason why it's so prevalent in the media.
In the text, (in my opinion) there are two roots of Bigger's violence: racial prejudice and fear of the unknown, which I gues are linked; he doesn't know how to react when Mary Dalton doesn't treat him like other whites do. In the case of Bessie, his violence is mostly just out of fear; he doesn't know what else to do with her.
I think it's really interesting that killing Mary empowers Bigger, but it sort of makes sense in a sick way. All of a sudden, he has a one- up on the people who have always dominated him. He knows something they don't (for a while at least). Also, he shows them what state they drove him to: the whites that considered him below them for all of his life drove him to be extremely uncomfortable around those who tried to treat him equally. In addition, I think he views his act as heroic and maybe even as a sacrifice for all of the suffering black people on the South Side of Chicago; maybe by committing this one murder, he is effecting or attempting to effect change in the prejudiced city.
I think the most important role of the narrative voice is when Bigger is with Jan and Mary the night that he kills her. We are able to see and almost feel how uncomfortable and angry Bigger feels around two white people who are trying to treat him differently than every other white person he's ever met.
A: Americans have an obsession with violence for we as Americans are part of a political cycle that is recurrent since the founding of the country. Government falls into a period of not being trusted. Whether it be an economic depression or panic, when the country is seen to be losing, the government acts to find violenceto regain trust, thus continuing to build a victorious legacy. Therefore, violence is not something in our blood or herritage, its in the world each and every American is born into.
A: The root of the violence in the novel is finds itself in something we are never presented with. Wright hints at this by opening the piece with violence. It is in such a community's herritage to be violent. Whether a sociologist traces this to rebelling against slavery, or to a herritage in a predator based hemisphere, Wright gives an innuendo that violence is something expected with in this community.
A: Killing is an act of creation, rather, specifically, it is that of recreation. For with every killing a new chapter begins and when the present state of a chapter begins to deteriorate, man, like american government, turns to violence as a means of creating an image of strength, building a new legacy.
A:The narative voice functions to be the voice of ancestral and cultural history as it impacts bigger's and the African American community's perceived thoughts and actions.
Wow okay so all of this talk of violence is making me want to go listen to cat stevens' peace train really badly :P all kidding aside, it's actually really upsetting for me to think too hard about Americans' obsession with violence in all different contexts, as I'm sure it is for most of you, because it's so sad that our country tends to be this way. Who wants to live in a country where the people get their kicks from violence? Even in the context of movies and literature, this is what American kids grow up with, and it's just really upsetting, isn't it?
Not exactly insight into WHY we're obsessed with violence, but I guess I just don't want to delve too deep into it (plus you guys already covered it really well). Well I do want to share some insight into the whole killing as an act of creation idea.
The second people drastically break the law, they suddenly exist outside the set of rules that have always governed their lives. Yet they still exist, and so their lives are now governed by a new set of rules. These new rules are broad, and if they are broken, the person only has to answer to him or herself.
For Bigger, this new set of rules meant that he had control. It was suddenly clear to him that he could alter his destiny; he could turn himself in, he could keep running and lying. Either way, it was his doing. It's like that scary feeling the first time you drive on a highway and realize you could drastically change your life in a split second. It's control. Bigger finally found a sense of peace by living in his own world, one that he created. Imagine looking at the newspapers and reading all about yourself and knowing that you made that happen when beforehand, things tended to happen TO you. Bigger made himself important; by killing, he created a life with meaning for himself.
I definitely agree that Americans have a unique tradition with violence. I think it's used for emphasis and exaggeration. By describing Bigger cutting Mary Dalton into pieces, it exaggerates his confusion and fear. Violence is also something that readers can easily connect with emotionally...and like Zoe said, it sells. Hollywood definitely represents America's interest in violence. And as much as I hate action or horror movies, there's still something intriguing about them...so I still watch. I believe the root of violence in the novel is in the racial issues, and the violent acts Bigger commits seem to stem from these interracial relationships. Like when we discussed Black Boy sophomore year, we talked about Richard as being caught in between a 2-way street, one side white and one black--unable to cross over or belong to either. It seems as if Wright wants to emphasize the same point again by suggesting that violence is a direct result of the crossing of racial boundaries. Bigger's relationship with Mary Dalton, who is not described as a hostile or racist white woman, shows that much of the violence of racism is underlying, invisible, and unexpected. I also think that the idea of violence as an act of creation is so interesting. Because murder is so definite and absolute, it becomes a part of Bigger that no one else can take away. It created a new identity, because he took away someone else's. I think that the narrative voice in the novel gives readers a greater insight into Bigger's motivations and thoughts. By doing this, the author is really trying to develop readers as "native sons" and give them Bigger's perspective as a creation of this hostile and racist American environment. Through the use of a 3rd person limited structure, Wright keeps a relatively objective voice, yet allows readers into Bigger's point of view as a native son.
I love this question. I’m going to meld questions 1 and 2 because I think the answers are the same. Fear: the source of violence in Native Son, and the explanation of the American fascination with violence. Violence is a means of dominance and control. Of course, if we were all perfectly secure in our position, we would feel no need to resort to violent acts. Acts of violence are far from an assertion of power and dominance, they are the pathetic admission of a feeling of inferiority and insecurity. Bigger kills Mary because he fears the scrutiny of a blind old woman. He threatens Gus because harassing him exempts him mentally of his own fear of robbing a white man.
“Political correctness is the exemplary liberal form of the politics of fear. Such a (post-)politics always relies on the manipulation of a paranoid multitude: It is the frightening rallying of frightened people.”-Slavoj Zizek
I love this quote. He says that now even the most liberal American tendencies, like hyper-sensitive political correctness are acts of violence in and of themselves. They highlight difference, fetishize the Other, and drive a greater wedge between racial/sexual groups. This of course, facilitates torture, dehumanization and violence. In other words, our ability to do violence is the same we’re just more careful about semantics. Our hyper-sensitivity concerning the Other simply reveals our acute awareness and fear of him/her.
I don’t know if this is true, but it is interesting to think about. We’ve done some fairly disgusting things under liberal misnomers (“Spreading Democracy” “Keeping America Safe” etc.). What I do believe is that there is a universal, not solely American, obsession with violence. Some have dubbed our strange fascination with human extremes “disaster pornography,” which is a comically accurate phrase. The implication: we get high off violence. Confronting human extremes so horrifying, like ones we might see in a movie like “Saw” or some super-fun video game like Mortal Kombat is thrilling. We dare ourselves to look. Desensitization is a brave achievement. This might be because violence is power, and fantasizing about being capable of committing acts of violent coercion is fantasizing about dominance. This desire for power is a desire for security, and this desire for security, like Bigger’s, must be rooted in fear.
Violence as creation: Katie Lauria’s example about her cat Loki is totally accurate. Bigger is powerless in his world. He feels a fear that he cannot shake, and cannot master. He is ashamed at his subservience to white people, his inability to function in their presence. By committing acts of violence then he achieves two things. First, he asserts his power by reversing roles. Now whites must fear him. Second, he so radically defies the social order that through his act he creates a new world and new life for himself. Violence is creation in the sense that Bigger sees a world he cannot control, and constructs a new one. In this world of violence Bigger is dominant and free of white control.
Without a doubt Americans have a unique obssession with violence. Violence provides for simple entertainment, and often when people a large portion of their energy working, they do not want to have to think while trying to relax. Although people like to be shocked while watching horror movies, it is at the same time understood that horror films are of lesser value than films of other genre. When actors who used to star in blockbuster dramas begin staring in horror films, their careers are on the decline.
The violence in Native Son is a manifestation of the oppressive conditions under which Bigger lives. When he committs murder he finds a release from his life. He always commented that the white establishment prevented him from trying things and learning things, making him feel that his life was out of his control. While hurting the people around him with murder and rape, he felt in control of not only his life but the lives of others. When he kills he kills of out fear of things he does not understand. For example, when Mary Dalton acting in ways violating the codes of racial prejudices, even if her actions were condescending, she caught him off guard and made him feel cornered.
Murder was an act of creation from Bigger. After he murdered Mary Dalton, he no longer lived that life of feeling oppressed that had made him so depressed. After murdering, he began a life on the run. Even though this is a terrible life to live, at least he felt that he was almost using his mind towards a productive end. He had to be creative in order to evade the huge manhunt following him.
The narrative voice in the novel shows us the world from Bigger's perspective. We see the frustrations leading up to the murders. Then we see his frantic attempted escape, like the black rat in his apartment attempting to dodge the skillets. The narrative voice helps us to answer the central question proposed by the novel: why does Bigger kill?
1) Yes, I think Americans definitely are obsessed with violence, as most people have already stated. I don't think it's because Americans are "sick" or "twisted" people, our country just has a history of sensationalism. Going back to the roots of yellow journalism, anything that will get attention seems to succeed in this nation. Thus, violence in literature, film, and even the news is widespread.
2) The root of the violence in Native Son, as advocated by Wright, appears to be racism/stereotypes in general. The fundamental question of the novel is why Bigger acts the way he does. I believe Wright answers this by pointing out that Bigger is a product of his environment: the whites have oppressed the blacks to such an extent that they have actually been reduced to the false stereotypes.
3) Killing can be an "act of creation" in that it creates an identity for the murderer. For example, before Bigger killed Mary, he was simply another poor black in a huge city. After the murder, he had something unique that made him feel powerful and not so helpless. In fact, it made him feel powerful enough to kill again.
4) To me, the narrative voice is what makes this novel so good. Wright masterfully puts Bigger's thoughts and emotions onto each page, so that we can feel his fear as he covers up the crime and his discomfiture as he drives Jan and Mary around. We can really get into Bigger's head by the end of the novel; however, the narrative voice is limited so that we have to decide for ourselves why Bigger acted like he did- it isn't just given to us.
American’s have a fascination with violence. Now, shockingly, I am American. This fact alone could disqualify me from getting to the root of what causes our obsession because there is a small voice in my head that tells me that it’s just cool, and I should shut up and go kill something. But we’ll quiet Elvis for now (obligatory movie reference). America was a nation born from and then sustained out of violence. In the Revolutionary War, soldiers essentially stood in lines across a field from the enemies and waited around to get shot. The Civil War was also incredibly bloody, and paved the way for trench warfare. These two wars were the most pivotal points in American history, so it is natural that violence has sunken deep into the American consciousness.
The root of Bigger’s violent tendencies is his rage. He is furious at the world around him and was always looking for an outlet for his energy. Destruction is not an act of creation, but it can sure feel like one. Killing Mary made Bigger feel alive, as it was the one thing he had done with his life that had not been dictated by society. However, it changed nothing. After the delusions of grandeur fade, the oppressive system still stood and Bigger was still powerless. Destroying something can feel significant, but after the adrenaline fades, people realize that it did not make anything and only damaged innocent lives.
In the novel, the narration is in third person, but reveals Bigger’s thoughts nonetheless. There is a constant focus on Bigger’s thoughts because, for most of his life, that is all Bigger did: he thought, but never did things. However, we are still somewhat removed from Bigger by third person narration because we, as an audience, cannot relate to him. We did not grow up in the conditions or the time period he did, so he is somewhat of a foreign entity to us.
I think that the gruesome nature of contemporary horror films, video games, television, and best-selling literature shout “yes!” to this question. More and more Americans gravitate towards exaggerated suspense. Take the last horror movie you saw- or even the clips selected for a preview (if you’re like me and you can’t handle watching scary movies without peeing your pants). Did it give you an adrenaline rush because of its thought-provoking themes or because there were zombies, computer enhanced to make your skin crawl, popping up from behind every doorway and from within every closet? This market relies on quick flashes of intense images and a firm grasp on the volume switchboard. It’s a little sickening.
Or maybe you’ve run downstairs, scared half to death because you heard gunshots, only to find your little brother glued to the computer screen, playing an intense game of “Max Payne.” In a lot of these games, the screen only shows the arms of an animation holding various weapons, giving the player the illusion that he’s behind the trigger. Narrative voice much? In “Native Son,” Bigger’s narration makes the reader feel as though he is acting through him. This makes his acts of violence even more personal and terrifying.
Why are we so attracted to violence? Maybe it has to do with escaping the monotony of everyday life, without risking our own well being. “American Psycho”- slick haired businessman by day, serial killer by night- style, but without any actual violence, just a bucket of popcorn and a blockbuster rental. Personally, blunt violence gives me the creeps, but I’ve always had a weakness for acts of passion and sentimental mafia films.
The root of violence in the text is Bigger’s pent up anger. The narrow, rat-infested apartment that he lives in and his empty pockets feed into his fury and lack of identity. By killing, Bigger is able to forge a sense of purpose and feel alive. It makes him feel in control of his life. I think “killing as an act of creation” is a fancy way of saying that Bigger got a thrill out of hacking off Mary Dalton’s head. I think that societal oppression explains his behavior, but I don’t think that it justifies it.
I'm not sure if I would agree that Americans have a unique obsession with violence... I think it is prevalent in the world as a whole. Much of American literature got its roots from Europe - a place where plenty of violence can be found. I think that people in general find it fascinating and mesmerizing because society has a way of suppressing most people. When they cannot stand it anymore, they release their feelings through acts of violence. Others are intrigued because they, too, have these emotions within them.
If you look at history, violence is very often used to catalyze change. The largest changes in the world are often made through wars. America was born from the Revolutionary War, and several times in its short history has participated in large scale wars - the War of 1812, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, etc. Violence is used to bring about change because it tends to be a huge release of pent-up tension and conflict; when it resolves itself, things are never the same again.
In this way, violence is an act of creation, because these emotions are pushed into the world, changing it. In Native Son, Bigger kills Mary Dalton in order to create his own identity. Out of confusion, fear, anger, and hate, his violence erupts as he attempts to assert his identity. The violence is not senseless or meaningless - it stems from the environment of misunderstanding and prejudice around Bigger.
The narrative voice is interesting because, although we can see inside Bigger's head, it is not written from his point of view. In this way, the author makes the reader feel conflicted. In the same way that we don't know whether to sympathize or to fear Bigger, we are in his head but we are still distant from him.
I think Americans (or just people in general) tend to be intrigued by the pain of others. Violence both shocks and fascinates us, as long as we can watch it from a distance. I'm never able to fully watch the violent scenes in movies, but they're the ones that always stick with me afterwards. I guess when filmmakers or authors try to get a point across, they realize that showing us a bloody result of a problem will make us think. Would Native Son be as effective if Bigger had merely thought about the murders instead of committed them? It's as if we need to see the worst case scenario before we can realize something is wrong, or something needs to change.
I think the root of violence in the text is a mix of fear and the need for control. Bigger feels trapped in a crummy life because of antagonistic attitudes towards his skin color. He is constantly in danger because of the white world, and grows to fear and hate it. The only time he feels in control of his life is when he commits an act of violence. Bigger controls his fear of robbing a white man by lashing out physically at his friend. He murders Mary Dalton out of fear, and afterwards feels not guilt but relief, for he is finally in control: he has the upper hand. Bigger is comforted by the feeling of his gun in his shirt pocket because it is able to replace his fear with a feeling of power.
Killing Mary Dalton gives Bigger an entirely new attitude. He finally feels power over those who have oppressed him, and it gives him that feeling of control he has never felt before. Then, when, he is caught, he must kill again (Bessie) to feel that same powerful, free feeling. Killing recreates Bigger in the sense that it gives him an opportunity to finally have some control in his life. The sick part is that taking another life is the only way he has control over his own.
This novel would be no where near as effective if the narrative voice did not give Bigger the dimension it does. The narration is limited and focuses on Bigger, allowing the reader to be able to sympathize with him.
Post a Comment