Creepy Martyr Behavior

Chapter 21: Marked For Greatness

               In this chapter Foster suggests that if a character has a scar, or a physical disability, it’s always for a reason. This idea I can totally get behind. As he points out, no one would put their character in say, a wheelchair for no reason, because this gives your character immediate depth and a series of choices. Are they bitter? Do they see every day as a gift? You cannot just have an ordinary character with a disability, because the disability will always shape them in some way. Even if they do not get something out of their disability the characters around them can either pity them to a point of frustration or simply ignore them to the point of neglect. It’s impossible for the disability not to influence the story, no matter how minuscule.

Overall it can work two ways, the disability can reflect something about the insides of the character, maybe something blatant or way deep down. Or the physical can be the opposite of the character, turning him into a martyr. Quasimodo is the bell-ringer of Notre Dame and rarely ventures outside the Cathedral since people despise and shun him for his appearance. We pity him, we feel compassion for this unlucky hero, so pure and in love with Esmeralda on the inside and so twisted and deformed on the outside. SIDE NOTE Did you know that “it is revealed in the story that the baby Quasimodo was left by the Gypsies in place of Esmeralda, whom they abducted”?! Because, I sure didn’t know that. END SIDE NOTE  Eventually he completely overcomes his shut-in behavior when Esmeralda is killed and he leaves his sanctuary of the tower opening himself up to ridicule and hatred (which happened each time he saved her as well) to go and die by her corpse. Creepy, but definitely martyr behavior. None of this would have happened if he was a “normal” young man, especially assuming that the gypsies wouldn’t have left him in place of Esmeralda if he hadn't had disabilities.

            In House of the Scorpion young Matt is a clone. He is branded as “Property of The Alacrán Estate” on the bottom of his foot. This is inevitably his mark for greatness, and it is the basis of the whole book. If Matt wasn’t a clone he wouldn’t face the (many) problems he does. The mark itself comes in to play specifically in two instances:

1. The Alacrán family treats Matt kindly after he is brought into the house wounded until Mr. Alacrán, El Patron’s great-grandson, recognizes him as a clone as soon as they see the branding and reduce his life to a living hell, causing trails that shape his moral fiber.
2. The “Lost Boys” he makes friends with later in the book (after many obstacles) lose faith in him after they see the tattoo, as clones are considered “zombies”, giving him the mission of earning their trust back and strengthening his relationship with them.  

These shape Matt’s adventure and his character. Without the brand he would not be recognized as a clone in these two situations therefore leading a less exciting life (and basically no book).

            Lady Macbeth marks herself (through insanity) when she believes she cannot wash the invisible bloodstains off of her hands. Inevitably this marking leads Lady Macbeth to kill herself, throwing her husband into despair. Thus influencing the ending of the play Macbeth, all because of a mark, which she has imagined but reflects her inner turmoil.

                  In the end of the chapter, Foster asks us to go find out what Harry Potter's scar meant and as a Harry Potter fan I believe the scar is a token of his mother's love; and of his tie to Voldemort. The scar through hurting him helps him realize danger, thereby affecting his character marking him so visibly as someone special. (Not to mention it’s basically a horcrux so that’s really important but we don’t learn that until the last book so…)

              

BLARGH I SAY

Chapter 12: Is that a symbol?

              Well of course it is says Foster. Great. I am not one who enjoys generalities. I like specifics, and being precise. Either you're right or you're wrong, and I hate being wrong. In the world Foster proposes nobody is wrong, but by default nobody is exactly right either. He claims the symbols are open to interpretation, that whatever a symbol means to an individual is right. BLARGH I SAY.

I like my symbols categorized. I understand the need to be unique, and to let everyone have their own opinion, but in this case I can get something totally different from the text then the person whose opinion matters the most on these things – the person giving me a grade and determining part of my future. So this frustrates me a little. One can find a multitude of charts on the meanings of symbols, and typically what the chart says; rain = rebirth, spring = new life, white = pure, is generally true. But now Foster is saying I could be in a lit class somewhere and say, oh yes this white flag in this story is signifying that the enemy is NOT giving up, they are saying, “come at me bro” because to them white is the void and they are daring their opponents to run into it. And this could be correct? When white is supposed to mean surrender? I haven’t read Animal Farm but if it’s not super open to interpretation I think maybe I should. Perhaps I will always prefer allegory over symbolism. No I definitely will, but this chapter was about symbolism so back to that.

I can see symbolism’s advantages. It lets each person imprint a little bit of themselves into the story, making it relevant to them. The white flag that’s so easy to use as an example is a good example again; in America we typically put our heroes, our virgins, in white whether on paper or screen, and our villains in red (or black -just go with it). However in Asia heroes often wear red; it’s the color of bravery. So this is eternally open to interpretation, because I guess no one is wrong, and again no one is right. (I hate that.) One could look at symbols from any angle as symbols are theoretically a circle. Whichever way you look at it, it’s still a circle, but each angle gives you a different perspective depending on your or the circle’s surroundings.

 

Now I suppose you want specific examples of symbols; well you have your classic “undisputables” like Holden’s red hat in Catcher in the Rye symbolizing protection, or beans in The Bean Trees representing a chance for growth, new life. These are used time and time again. What Foster says though is I could look at them in a totally different light, say the beans represent hmm… abandonment because they are plucked or dropped from the tree (essentially their mother) and therefore they still represent Turtle, as she also dealt with abandonment. So am I still right? Even though I disagree with scholars and sparknotes about the symbolism of the bean? Maybe if I always get to be right, open interpretation isn’t so bad after all.  

Because eels scare me

Chapter Five: Where Have I Seen Her Before? 

In this chapter, Foster states that no work of literature is original. Each subject is based on another subject and so on. I suppose this is true. Though I could list several books I have read that I find no resemblance in any classic or other works of literature, it is not a stretch to believe that the similarities are sitting trapped in some book I have yet to lay eyes on. As Foster states there are numerous examples for “stolen” ideas. She’s The Man (starring freshly crazy Amanda Bynes) is a direct nod at Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night. It’s blatant, her name is Viola and her brother’s is Sebastian, she pretends to be him. It’s not exactly the same, she isn’t lost at sea, she doesn’t fear for her life, she knows where her brother is, but at the root of the story the most important idea is still there. She falls for a guy, while she’s pretending to be a guy herself. (And hilarity ensues.) Although this isn’t just referencing a Shakespearian story or borrowing pieces, it is clearly based on it. It is the use of an old idea made new. We saw Viola in the 1600s and then we saw her anew in 2006:

                                          

Shakespeare’s work and ideas are found in numerous stories today, although many of “his” ideas were originally in Greek Classics or based on historic events. Mean Girls has an overt reference comparing Regina George to Julius Caesar, and as Foster points out the references flesh out the characters without the writer having to do much work. With all of our built up emotions and understanding of the referenced characters we assign traits to the new character without the author having to subtly assign them.

I like the idea on a basic level. Even Foster thinks there is no harm done whether one sees the reference or not. On one hand, either consciously or subconsciously, the reader experiences greater insight into the text. On the other, they continue to read on, oblivious to deeper meaning. No harm no foul, right? I don’t know about that. The idea that no idea is ever really original is upsetting. Who’s to say that just because one thing resembles another, it is directly based on it? The idea of synchronicity has always intrigued me. I know it’s not really relevant to this chapter, but who’s to say that two writers couldn’t come up with an idea at the same time; one just took a little longer to develop his/her writing? Maybe the writer wasn't influenced by anything except their own neurons and synapses.

I’d like to hold onto my idealistic fantasy that literature, as Foster suggests, is not really a bucket of eels at all (mainly because eels scare me). He believes that each work or eel as you will, is now in the great barrel of the public eye and that whether you like it or not, the eel has wormed its way into one's psyche influencing everything one does or more specifically, writes. I understand why he believes this. Looking around each thought I have is almost never my own, it’s been formed by the things I have heard and seen. I am much less likely to think of something original then I am to remember a movie quote or the plot of some funny commercial. And yet… part of me wants everyone to have a blank page in front of them, let a little of their own out, and not have someone pointing to a previous canvas or book comparing, crediting the first for influencing the new, when the first may deserve no credit at all.

SIDE NOTE

I realize this post is a little lacking in comparisons and I apologize. My summer brain is still in overdrive and this is why I can only think of chick flicks at the moment. I’m working on getting my school brain back. When your brain is a mush it is hard to hunt for the theoretical mushrooms Foster mentions at the end of this chapter but I’m working on it.