Hey everybody! On the trip back home from the play, Eli raised two questions that intrigued me. In the same conversation with Eli, Jadine, and Jordan on the bus, Eli asked why? Why was Dogeaters adapted into a play, and then also asked what was Hagedorn’s purpose to writing the entire book? I’ll give some examples that we as a group came up with, but than explain my thoughts.
I began by asking the group, which had a larger impact on them, the book or the play? We all agreed that the play was much more emotional and that we could relate better with it than with the book. Reasons for this could have been for pure entertainment or even making more money, but I believe that the play was able to reach a broader audience. Even in our own class discussions, there was still a lot of confusion about characters, dreams, scenes, melodrama, and even unanswered questions such as who killed Senator Avila? (By the way, it was Lt. Pepe Carreon, if you were wondering) I came from the play with an understanding of the book that was much more elaborate than when I went into it. In one of the blog postings, Madison explains the importance of plays adapted from books because they give so much more insight than the books. I agree to a point, since I believe that a book can reveal much more information, but the play chooses to emphasize scenes from the book that best drive it to the end. I’ve seen plays that don’t even come close to the books they interpret, but since Hagedorn adapted this play, I feel as though the scenes she chose must have had more relevance in her book than others that were left out. Hagedorn must have known that her story was strong enough to attract an audience that was not familiar with the book, but with the themes within them. One guest on our trip to the play could play as an example. She was not in either of the classes that signed up to go, but was invited because she is a theater major and because she is Filipino. When she and I sat and talked together at the theater, she mentioned that most of the audience consisted of Filipinos and that she hadn’t ever seen so many in the theater before.
Now why did Hagedorn write the book in the first place? Was it to entertain, to educate, or even to blame? Did Hagedorn want to educate her readers about the melodramatic life in the Philippines or is she just using the Philippines to illustrate the devastating effects that American popular culture can have? I believe there are elements of both in the book and her play adaptation. This book reaches beyond the melodrama of the Philippines and opens up the public eye so that it may be educated by its foreign examples. Many people in America have no idea about life in the Philippines, or any country in the world for that matter, and they have an extreme impact on these countries that it is even harder to realize than the life anyway. So, I would believe that this book of fiction gives an example of life in the Philippines, but I think that is only surface deep. There are themes that reach far beneath the surface like how Hollywood romance has changed the goals and priorities of entire cultures. Just last night I heard that in Banin, Africa, school kids know the lyrics to entire songs by “50 cent” in multiple languages.
American popular culture has truly changed nations across the world, and I believe that Hagedorn wanted her readers to see a harsh example of some of these effects.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Play Vs Book
I'm very quiet during the class as many of you may have noticed. I have lots of interesting ideas but during class I rather not talk cause I learn by listening. Well I went to the play which was fabulous. I sat up on stage which gave me a new perspective. I've never seen a play from the stage and I have been to a lot of plays. I think movies and plays explain a lot more about a book than just reading the book. I would love to compare and contrast the book to the play in more depth like we did in class today. I found sitting up on the stage brought you into the play and also made you pay attention a lot more to the detail. I am the one who brought up the idea of claustrophobia in the book. The play brought that really to life.
So I couldn't figure out how to start this next section but now I do. I ended up going to lunch and talking to my two friends about how other countries try and be more like western culture. The play portrayed this very well. Just the fact that they had Rio coming back and seeing everything that happened in the past. The soap opera hosts giving a running commentary throughout the play and then ending with Rio talking about how this is the Philippines soap opera. The fact that she adapted the book in to the play shows what she wanted you really to understand. Seeing her real idea instead of trying to interpret the book is really interesting. My personal interpretation of the book was sort of similar to the play but also different.
It was different in the fact that joey and Lolita Luna did not parallel each other in the play and yet they did in the book. The claustrophobia in the play was much more apparent from the stage perspective. It also made the book a lot harder to read. it does read more like a movie script than a novel that has character development. The character development in the book is more on the relationships than actual movement of characters from one point at the beginning of the book till the end. Well Pucha sort of develops as a character. The fact that Rio states in the play that she can not stay cause she does not belong is very interesting. But then at the end of the play she says I make many trips back each year is even more interesting. And the prayer at the end of the book doesn't seem that deep but in the play it is extremely moving and painful to hear that prayer. She should of explained what was happening while the prayer was being said.
This is similar to my essay topic so if you have any input about this subject please respond so I can have input on narrowing down my essay topic.
Madison Beck
So I couldn't figure out how to start this next section but now I do. I ended up going to lunch and talking to my two friends about how other countries try and be more like western culture. The play portrayed this very well. Just the fact that they had Rio coming back and seeing everything that happened in the past. The soap opera hosts giving a running commentary throughout the play and then ending with Rio talking about how this is the Philippines soap opera. The fact that she adapted the book in to the play shows what she wanted you really to understand. Seeing her real idea instead of trying to interpret the book is really interesting. My personal interpretation of the book was sort of similar to the play but also different.
It was different in the fact that joey and Lolita Luna did not parallel each other in the play and yet they did in the book. The claustrophobia in the play was much more apparent from the stage perspective. It also made the book a lot harder to read. it does read more like a movie script than a novel that has character development. The character development in the book is more on the relationships than actual movement of characters from one point at the beginning of the book till the end. Well Pucha sort of develops as a character. The fact that Rio states in the play that she can not stay cause she does not belong is very interesting. But then at the end of the play she says I make many trips back each year is even more interesting. And the prayer at the end of the book doesn't seem that deep but in the play it is extremely moving and painful to hear that prayer. She should of explained what was happening while the prayer was being said.
This is similar to my essay topic so if you have any input about this subject please respond so I can have input on narrowing down my essay topic.
Madison Beck
Living in a Multicultural World
In class one day, we started discussing the issue of multiculturalism. For those who are new to this term or need to be reminded, one definition I found reports multiculturalism “refers to a belief or policy that endorses the principle of cultural diversity and supports the right of different cultural and ethnic groups to retain distinctive cultural identities.” (1) I believe another definition can be found to mean that multiculturalism is melting and blending of two or more cultures together in order to become multi-cultured. This can be seen with more and more frequency due to an increase in interracial marriages throughout many generations.
The problem we face, as I see it, is the vast gap and difference in these two definitions of one word. On the one hand, we are all trying to respect and support separate and distinctive cultural identities and groups, but on the other, we are attempting to embrace all of them and let a single person embody their multicultural background. Therein lays a catch-22. If we accept the separate and different aspects of each cultural group, how do we accept and then categorize a person that actually fits into more than one of the cultural groups? Does that person lose their identity because instead of having one background they have two? But then if we choose to accept this diverse and multicultural background to be a societal norm, how are we supposed to then understand, recognize and respect each cultural group as individual?
Some issues of multiculturalism can be seen in the book “Dogeaters” by Jessica Hagedorn. Sadly, in this novel, multiculturalism is not embraced as a positive belief and acceptance. Joey Sands was seen as a mutt in society because his father was a black GI and his mother was a Filipino whore. The Filipino culture, as we come to discover in this novel, thrives on the wild ideas and dreams of
Racism has been an issue for a few generations now, and while this belief of living in a multicultural and diverse society is ideal, it’s far from realistic. Because people still hold firmly to their ancestry and genealogies in order to give them “identity”, and others still contemplating which box to check on the college application under the heading of “race”, we will never be able to let go of what makes us individual and allow to be added into the mixing pot of multiculturalism.
(1) media.pearsoncmg.com/intl/ema/uk/0131217666/student/0131217666_glo.html
Jst a small warning: this bloggy thingy meanders a bit, but it still retains some value, so be patient. I hope it is at least a little interesting. I promise something even better a more to the point next time!
Last night (Sunday), a group of students, including myself traipsed over to Culver City to see Jessica Hagedorn’s novel Dogeaters on stage. And let me tell you, if you didn’t go, you missed out. In any case, I’d like to discuss a few discrepancies between the versions on stage, on paper and in my head.
The German
The first character that comes to mind in regard to differences between book, stage and mind, is the German film maker. In the book he plays a necessary, but relatively small role in comparison to other characters. He is described as pasty white in complexion and overweight – not terribly attractive to Joey, but his money and drugs hold quite a bit of importance (pg #? i've misplaced my book!). Similarly, in my mind, he was a side character of menial significance and looked akin to a very heavy, white tourist-type man visiting Huntington Beach from New Hampshire. Contrastingly, in the play, the German is Joey’s only client whereas there are several different men, most notably the American soldier. In addition, the actor playing the German did not fit the image I had in my head. The actor was rather slight, though not skinny and had long, dark, straight hair. When the German first entered, I did not recognize his character because I had pictured him so differently in my head. Joey’s other clients are not featured in order to highlight his interactions with the German. It also allows the play a different, more action- driven dynamic. Instead of lingering on anyone’s past (minus Rio’s), the play is allowed to scrutinize the “current” events more closely.
Rio’s Mother
Speaking of Rio’s past, the play completely focuses on it as though it was a game show hosted by Nestor Norales and Barbara Villanueva. They enter with bright colorful lights and disco balls, and introduce the audience to each character of the Philippino melodrama. However, in addition to several chapters, they fail to mention Rio’s mother in nearly the whole play. Perhaps it is because her story would complicate the play too much. With Rio’s mother, there would be an added perspective on the political events of the Philippines in the 1980s. Also, due to the time period in which the play is set, were the mother to appear, Rio’s visit would change entirely. Chiquitin and Pearlita would be forced to face the past in a more extreme and superficial manner than they do with just Rio’s visit. For instance, in the novel, all of the mother’s interactions with people are loud and generally cursory and quick. If Rio’s mother had tagged along with Rio throughout the stage version, then Rio’s story probably would not have had the chance to be heard. But, this is all just speculation. The fact of the matter is simply that in the book, the mother was a far more prominent character than in the play.
Last few things…
I’d just like to throw a few last things out there to think about. I suppose that this part is more for me to think about a couple points that baffled me a bit. For instance, the role of Lolita Luna - I understand that she is meant to be representative of the erotic side of the Philippines, but other than that, she seems like a rather shallow character. In the book she is a bit more deep and troubled; however, her representation in the play fit my impression of her in my head more appropriately. Also, I was rather confused about the role of Boomboom in both book and on stage. He seems like just a helping character, but at the same time I feel like he should be representative of some side of the Philippines similar to the rest of the characters. Not to mention, in the play, is he Pucha’s boyfriend? Or is he single and going after Rio?
Lastly, I’d just like to mention that Ramon de Ocampo (Joey Sands) is one fine hunk of man!
Last night (Sunday), a group of students, including myself traipsed over to Culver City to see Jessica Hagedorn’s novel Dogeaters on stage. And let me tell you, if you didn’t go, you missed out. In any case, I’d like to discuss a few discrepancies between the versions on stage, on paper and in my head.
The German
The first character that comes to mind in regard to differences between book, stage and mind, is the German film maker. In the book he plays a necessary, but relatively small role in comparison to other characters. He is described as pasty white in complexion and overweight – not terribly attractive to Joey, but his money and drugs hold quite a bit of importance (pg #? i've misplaced my book!). Similarly, in my mind, he was a side character of menial significance and looked akin to a very heavy, white tourist-type man visiting Huntington Beach from New Hampshire. Contrastingly, in the play, the German is Joey’s only client whereas there are several different men, most notably the American soldier. In addition, the actor playing the German did not fit the image I had in my head. The actor was rather slight, though not skinny and had long, dark, straight hair. When the German first entered, I did not recognize his character because I had pictured him so differently in my head. Joey’s other clients are not featured in order to highlight his interactions with the German. It also allows the play a different, more action- driven dynamic. Instead of lingering on anyone’s past (minus Rio’s), the play is allowed to scrutinize the “current” events more closely.
Rio’s Mother
Speaking of Rio’s past, the play completely focuses on it as though it was a game show hosted by Nestor Norales and Barbara Villanueva. They enter with bright colorful lights and disco balls, and introduce the audience to each character of the Philippino melodrama. However, in addition to several chapters, they fail to mention Rio’s mother in nearly the whole play. Perhaps it is because her story would complicate the play too much. With Rio’s mother, there would be an added perspective on the political events of the Philippines in the 1980s. Also, due to the time period in which the play is set, were the mother to appear, Rio’s visit would change entirely. Chiquitin and Pearlita would be forced to face the past in a more extreme and superficial manner than they do with just Rio’s visit. For instance, in the novel, all of the mother’s interactions with people are loud and generally cursory and quick. If Rio’s mother had tagged along with Rio throughout the stage version, then Rio’s story probably would not have had the chance to be heard. But, this is all just speculation. The fact of the matter is simply that in the book, the mother was a far more prominent character than in the play.
Last few things…
I’d just like to throw a few last things out there to think about. I suppose that this part is more for me to think about a couple points that baffled me a bit. For instance, the role of Lolita Luna - I understand that she is meant to be representative of the erotic side of the Philippines, but other than that, she seems like a rather shallow character. In the book she is a bit more deep and troubled; however, her representation in the play fit my impression of her in my head more appropriately. Also, I was rather confused about the role of Boomboom in both book and on stage. He seems like just a helping character, but at the same time I feel like he should be representative of some side of the Philippines similar to the rest of the characters. Not to mention, in the play, is he Pucha’s boyfriend? Or is he single and going after Rio?
Lastly, I’d just like to mention that Ramon de Ocampo (Joey Sands) is one fine hunk of man!
Monday, January 29, 2007
Should We Judge a Book by It's Cover?
As I was buying Dogeaters, I was very surprised with the cover of the book. The phrase, “don’t judge a book by it’s cover” was running through my mind as I was paying the cashier at the Redlands bookstore. However, I could not help myself showing my roommate and friends the cover of the book due to it’s uniqueness. My friends thought the cover was scary, while others thought the illustration on the cover would tell the secret from the inside. I decided that I had to read the 251 pages myself to find out how the book design compared to the inside of the book.
I was thrilled to hear that this would be the first novel we would read in class. I could not wait until I could read the story of why this author chose this certain illustration on the cover. As I began reading, I could not find comparisons to the text and to the illustration. There are many stories that are combined which made it confusing for me to understand. However, there was one character who reminded me of the cover.
The main character is Rio, who is a young Pilipino girl that grows up in America with her family and her curious cousin. Her family enjoys the “American” way of life, while Rio and her cousin enjoy the glamour of Hollywood. Sometimes they imagine themselves as characters in a movie, or even marrying some handsome actor one day. As Pilipino families grew together in America, they wanted to find something which they would belong to. Many people turned to the attention of how they can survive in a world with many different races and cultures. This is how I imagined the cover of Dogeaters.
I believe that the woman in the center of the book is Rio. This illustration depicts women’s liberation in Asian American literature. Pilipino women are strong, determined, and powerful in their own minds. The sword in the woman’s left hand could be a symbol of how these women depict themselves. In the right hand of this powerful figure, is a head which looks like a male. Together, with the sword and the male’s head, Asian American women dealt with horrible situations in their lives by just doing the best they could to survive in America such as prostitution.
While the angels up above the heavens put a crown upon Rio’s head, one is covering her face and the other is watching in astonishment. These angels depict what is good and bad in the Pilipino culture. I believe that the crown put upon Rio’s head is a symbol of the culture of Asian Americans. Asian American women can always fall back upon their culture to rely on.
All in all, there are many illustrations on book covers that might go with the theme of the book. Until I read the whole book, I realized that Rio could stand for the woman on the cover of Dogeaters. Rio is the symbol of the future for many Asian American women. The future is shown in Rio as is shown on the cover where her body is notifying the world that she is carrying the next generation of young American cultures. While standing firmly in what she believes in, a red blanket is draped around her arms to symbolize “togetherness” for women of color.
I was thrilled to hear that this would be the first novel we would read in class. I could not wait until I could read the story of why this author chose this certain illustration on the cover. As I began reading, I could not find comparisons to the text and to the illustration. There are many stories that are combined which made it confusing for me to understand. However, there was one character who reminded me of the cover.
The main character is Rio, who is a young Pilipino girl that grows up in America with her family and her curious cousin. Her family enjoys the “American” way of life, while Rio and her cousin enjoy the glamour of Hollywood. Sometimes they imagine themselves as characters in a movie, or even marrying some handsome actor one day. As Pilipino families grew together in America, they wanted to find something which they would belong to. Many people turned to the attention of how they can survive in a world with many different races and cultures. This is how I imagined the cover of Dogeaters.
I believe that the woman in the center of the book is Rio. This illustration depicts women’s liberation in Asian American literature. Pilipino women are strong, determined, and powerful in their own minds. The sword in the woman’s left hand could be a symbol of how these women depict themselves. In the right hand of this powerful figure, is a head which looks like a male. Together, with the sword and the male’s head, Asian American women dealt with horrible situations in their lives by just doing the best they could to survive in America such as prostitution.
While the angels up above the heavens put a crown upon Rio’s head, one is covering her face and the other is watching in astonishment. These angels depict what is good and bad in the Pilipino culture. I believe that the crown put upon Rio’s head is a symbol of the culture of Asian Americans. Asian American women can always fall back upon their culture to rely on.
All in all, there are many illustrations on book covers that might go with the theme of the book. Until I read the whole book, I realized that Rio could stand for the woman on the cover of Dogeaters. Rio is the symbol of the future for many Asian American women. The future is shown in Rio as is shown on the cover where her body is notifying the world that she is carrying the next generation of young American cultures. While standing firmly in what she believes in, a red blanket is draped around her arms to symbolize “togetherness” for women of color.
"Dogeaters" Theatrical Version: A satirical analysis
Note: This blog was a collaborative effort on behalf of Eli Bowman, Jaydene Kanekoa and Jordan Miyasaki, with contributing ideas from the one and only, Q.
After viewing the play “Dogeaters”, we (Jaydene, Eli, Jordan) had a delightful and intellectually stimulating conversation on the long bus ride home. The talk was focused on how the addition of the two narrators in the play, something not done in the book, enhanced the satirical value within the story. This in turn led to a deeper connection with the different themes presented throughout, and a more full and enjoyable experience.
The two narrators, Barbara Villanueva and Nestor Noralez, gave a running commentary of happenings before, during, and after each scene. In the book we see these two characters merely as actors of a radio show, depicting a melodrama of love. In the theatrical version, however, these two play a significantly more important role. By expressing the drama orally in such an extravagant and over the top manner it gives an almost glamorous Hollywood-esque feeling, even during instances of tragedy and horror.
Within their frivolous approach to the unfolding drama we can see that as conductors of the play they view it with a detached air, as if the happenings were only a spectacle to be watched, rather than real people living out real lives.
The actions personifying this flamboyant attitude can be seen in the way they dress, the way they speak, and perhaps most importantly, the way that they never lose their seemingly forced optimism, even after witnessing the most despicable actions.
The first glimpse of satire that we are given is in their flashy appearance. Noralez and Villanueva are always extravagantly dressed, using the most gaudy of costumes. Their attire is in direct contrast with the majority of Filipino people, who have neither the money nor access to these items of higher class. This satire is also seen when the two narrators kept up a commentary throughout the interrogation of Daisy Avila, conducted by General Ledesma and his troops. In the middle of the brutal questioning, the narrators break in with an advertisement for “TruCola”, a thirst quenching refreshment.
All of this can be viewed as an extension of the western world, and how westerners view life, and the people, in the Philippines. We see a parallel to Hollywood in the actions of the two narrators, and their ability to turn a blind eye to injustice, all for sake of drama. The addition of these two characters better enhances this parody, casting it in a better light for all to see.
After viewing the play “Dogeaters”, we (Jaydene, Eli, Jordan) had a delightful and intellectually stimulating conversation on the long bus ride home. The talk was focused on how the addition of the two narrators in the play, something not done in the book, enhanced the satirical value within the story. This in turn led to a deeper connection with the different themes presented throughout, and a more full and enjoyable experience.
The two narrators, Barbara Villanueva and Nestor Noralez, gave a running commentary of happenings before, during, and after each scene. In the book we see these two characters merely as actors of a radio show, depicting a melodrama of love. In the theatrical version, however, these two play a significantly more important role. By expressing the drama orally in such an extravagant and over the top manner it gives an almost glamorous Hollywood-esque feeling, even during instances of tragedy and horror.
Within their frivolous approach to the unfolding drama we can see that as conductors of the play they view it with a detached air, as if the happenings were only a spectacle to be watched, rather than real people living out real lives.
The actions personifying this flamboyant attitude can be seen in the way they dress, the way they speak, and perhaps most importantly, the way that they never lose their seemingly forced optimism, even after witnessing the most despicable actions.
The first glimpse of satire that we are given is in their flashy appearance. Noralez and Villanueva are always extravagantly dressed, using the most gaudy of costumes. Their attire is in direct contrast with the majority of Filipino people, who have neither the money nor access to these items of higher class. This satire is also seen when the two narrators kept up a commentary throughout the interrogation of Daisy Avila, conducted by General Ledesma and his troops. In the middle of the brutal questioning, the narrators break in with an advertisement for “TruCola”, a thirst quenching refreshment.
All of this can be viewed as an extension of the western world, and how westerners view life, and the people, in the Philippines. We see a parallel to Hollywood in the actions of the two narrators, and their ability to turn a blind eye to injustice, all for sake of drama. The addition of these two characters better enhances this parody, casting it in a better light for all to see.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
A Thought About Rio's Memoir
Recently, I have been taking a non-fiction writing course. In the class we have talked a great deal about memoirs. One of the major conclusions that one gets out of the class is that all memoir is fiction.
A person can’t remember every single detail of their life. In fact, they must fill in the blanks of their memory with imagination. Sometimes, authors screw around with the memory in order to appropriately convey what they were feeling at the time.
Now, I know that Dogeaters is fiction. Since it is fiction, I would have normally not had any reason to doubt
Pucha seemed unhappy about how she was portrayed. Because of this, I decided to look back at all the passages involving her. I wanted to see if there was room for misconception. After reviewing all the passages involving her, I started to think that Pucha’s letter probably has a great deal of truth to it, and that
Mistreatment of Pucha is first evident in the beginning, where
Later, on page 93,
There are numerous accounts just like this through out the book. Pucha is whining about something, being sexually suggestive in another part, or just being cruel. All of these accounts reinforce the fact that
To me, it is practically impossible that someone could be so devilish. However, if someone harbors a great deal of hostility towards another, they tend to change their memories of that person to reflect that. Since
However, one final thought. Maybe
Friday, January 26, 2007
DOGEATERS: Paradise
I remember Dr. Jha stating that it would be neat to predict how the book would convert on stage. So I figured that it is a fun and neat challenge to construct a script for the chapter entitled “Paradise.” There are some minor changes here and there to allow for the story to work on stage. I hope you guys enjoy it!
DOGEATERS: PARADISE
Setting: Manila, Phillipines
Act 1: The Club
The excitement is in the air. Buildings including the slums are getting a fresh coat of paint. Finally, it is coming.
Voices off stage:
“And so the First Lady ordered them to continue building…”
“I will see him and smile, just wait that director will see me and want to take me to America!” giggles
“Three hours ago! They built over the dead. At least it is completed. I wonder who is going to be attending?”
“Talagang sirang ulo.”
“It is here!” “The film festival.”
A thin yet handsome man dances on stage, spinning his records. He is surrounded by mirrors. Two men walk in. The thin man continues to dance as the two other men sit at the bar. Eventually the DJ stops and takes a break. During this pause, a flamboyant man walks up to the DJ.
CHIQUITING: That man over there…he told me that he wanted to talk to you. He is so lovely—di ba? He said something about buying you a drink.
Shrugs, he walks off stage trying hard to conceal his resentment.
The DJ sighs, walks over to the bar, he is encountered by another man who can not hide his excitement. Eventually the three men drink and laugh until a voluptuous woman walks through the door with two large men following her. Cat calls, whistles fill the room as all eyes are on her and her tight short dress.
LOLITA LUNA: “Am I the only girl in here?”
She giggles and drunkenly approaches the German. She whispers into his ear as she grabs onto his arm. Then she smiles while she takes a sip of his drink. Disturbed she wants to be alone and teases her body guard. Angry at the comment she made, he lunges at her. The German steps in front of her, saving her. Time ticks by. The club is nearly empty. The DJ and German get up and leave together. The bar owner and employee look at each other and smile while shaking their heads.
Scene Ends
Act 2-Studio 54
Setting: 4:00 am
The DJ and German are being chauffeured.
RAINER: What are shower dancers?
JOEY: Studio 54. I know a guy named Boy-boy there. He enjoys it. The owner is a cop that has never been to New York. Music’s good. Young boys crowd the stage, lathering their bodies with soap and then rinse themselves with water.
RAINER: Are they hungry or greedy?
JOEY: looks confused They are hungry, so they perform. Audience pays to sit there, greedy to watch—
RAINER: Is that all they do? Rub soap on their bodies?
JOEY: I told you. How many times do I have to tell you? It’s a dance—
RAINER: Are they hard? Do they come onstage?
JOEY: Some.
RAINER: Some?
Joey tired of being interrogated by the German, promises that they will go to Studio 54. The German decides to instead go directly to his house. Scene change. Huge Bedroom. Snorts cocaine and heroin. Then they drink cognac.
JOEY: We are in paradise now.
RAINER: Will you stay with me Joey? I’m scheduled to be here one week. You’ll stay with me ever night, won’t you? I’ll take good care of you.
JOEY: all week?
RAINER: Yes. Night and day. Don’t leave for one moment.
Morning. The German refuses to part with his bag, which carries his most precious possessions: drugs, passport, plane ticket, notebook, pens, toothbrush, comb, and dollars.
JOEY: looks irritated You don’t need your passport at Studio 54.
RAINER: smiles You never know I might need to make a quick getaway.
They stop in the coffee shop. Scene change. Tiny mirrors and bright plastic banners cover the room.
WAITRESS: coffee?
RAINER: Black. Lots of sugar.
JOEY: coffee con leche.
Waitress leaves. The coffee shop is empty, except for another foreigner in the corner reading a newspaper.
RAINER: Have you ever been in love?
Joey is distracted by his coffee
RAINER: Joey. Did you hear me?
JOEY: Yes. And the answers no.
RAINER: I am a little in love with you, I think.
JOEY: looks confused A little? How can you be a little in love?
RAINER: Are you sorry I’m leaving?
JOEY: Sure Rainercito.
RAINER: I told you, goddammit. RAINER.
JOEY: Okay; Rainer. You want to be sorry? I’ll be sorry.
RAINER: Whoretalk. You’re too young to be so cynical, Joey. You enjoy hurting me, don’t you? This is foolish, I suppose. I’m much too old for you anyway…would you like to order breakfast now?
JOEY: nods and orders a large breakfast
Waiter brings food. Joey devours the food. The German does not eat a bite. The stranger in the corner begins to wave and starts approaching Rainer and Joey.
RAINER: Oh shit…
Waves
…a reporter..
Joey stands up
RAINER: Joey! Where are you going? Don’t leave me alone with this bore—
JOEY: Relax. I need cigarettes. You want some?
RAINER: Have the waiter get them. For god sake, Joey. I don’t even know the man’s name! He’ll bore me to tears—
JOEY: The shop in the lobby is closed. It’s too early. I have to go outside, find a street vendor…Don’t worry, Rainer. I’ll be right back—
The American journalist excitedly approaches Rainer. Rainer is distracted while Joey quickly grabs the bag underneath the table and walks off.
Scene Ends
Act 3-Paradise.
Scene: Hotel lobby.
Joey’s face is serious. His pace is steady. He calmly walks to the hotels front entrance. Quickly, he stops at the couch and hurriedly places the bag of drugs and money in his jeans pocket. He looks around. No one is watching, everyone is tired and distracted. He leaves the bag and the rest of Rainer’s belongings on the couch.
Silence.
Joey looks outside of the lobby door as he notices the doorman is absent. Tires screech. Curious, he continues to stare out of the window and sees Senator Domingo run out of the stopped car. The senator quickly runs past him.
Crashing noise fills the scene. An explosion. Joey drops to the ground, hiding his head. The scene goes dark. A spotlight shines on the assassinated senator, illuminating the splattered blood on the lobby’s carpet. Screams fill the theater. Bellhops and waitresses stand over the senators body. Everyone is hysterical. Joey continues to look around and frantically runs off stage.
The American journalist and Rainer run into the lobby. Rainer is distraught, paranoid, looking in all directions. He looks as if he is about to cry…he is speechless. However, he is not focused on the dead corpse near his foot. He is looking for Joey. The reporter asks him something. He is unresponsive. The only words that could escape from his lips are…
REINER: …joey…
Scene End
DOGEATERS: PARADISE
Setting: Manila, Phillipines
Act 1: The Club
The excitement is in the air. Buildings including the slums are getting a fresh coat of paint. Finally, it is coming.
Voices off stage:
“And so the First Lady ordered them to continue building…”
“I will see him and smile, just wait that director will see me and want to take me to America!” giggles
“Three hours ago! They built over the dead. At least it is completed. I wonder who is going to be attending?”
“Talagang sirang ulo.”
“It is here!” “The film festival.”
A thin yet handsome man dances on stage, spinning his records. He is surrounded by mirrors. Two men walk in. The thin man continues to dance as the two other men sit at the bar. Eventually the DJ stops and takes a break. During this pause, a flamboyant man walks up to the DJ.
CHIQUITING: That man over there…he told me that he wanted to talk to you. He is so lovely—di ba? He said something about buying you a drink.
Shrugs, he walks off stage trying hard to conceal his resentment.
The DJ sighs, walks over to the bar, he is encountered by another man who can not hide his excitement. Eventually the three men drink and laugh until a voluptuous woman walks through the door with two large men following her. Cat calls, whistles fill the room as all eyes are on her and her tight short dress.
LOLITA LUNA: “Am I the only girl in here?”
She giggles and drunkenly approaches the German. She whispers into his ear as she grabs onto his arm. Then she smiles while she takes a sip of his drink. Disturbed she wants to be alone and teases her body guard. Angry at the comment she made, he lunges at her. The German steps in front of her, saving her. Time ticks by. The club is nearly empty. The DJ and German get up and leave together. The bar owner and employee look at each other and smile while shaking their heads.
Scene Ends
Act 2-Studio 54
Setting: 4:00 am
The DJ and German are being chauffeured.
RAINER: What are shower dancers?
JOEY: Studio 54. I know a guy named Boy-boy there. He enjoys it. The owner is a cop that has never been to New York. Music’s good. Young boys crowd the stage, lathering their bodies with soap and then rinse themselves with water.
RAINER: Are they hungry or greedy?
JOEY: looks confused They are hungry, so they perform. Audience pays to sit there, greedy to watch—
RAINER: Is that all they do? Rub soap on their bodies?
JOEY: I told you. How many times do I have to tell you? It’s a dance—
RAINER: Are they hard? Do they come onstage?
JOEY: Some.
RAINER: Some?
Joey tired of being interrogated by the German, promises that they will go to Studio 54. The German decides to instead go directly to his house. Scene change. Huge Bedroom. Snorts cocaine and heroin. Then they drink cognac.
JOEY: We are in paradise now.
RAINER: Will you stay with me Joey? I’m scheduled to be here one week. You’ll stay with me ever night, won’t you? I’ll take good care of you.
JOEY: all week?
RAINER: Yes. Night and day. Don’t leave for one moment.
Morning. The German refuses to part with his bag, which carries his most precious possessions: drugs, passport, plane ticket, notebook, pens, toothbrush, comb, and dollars.
JOEY: looks irritated You don’t need your passport at Studio 54.
RAINER: smiles You never know I might need to make a quick getaway.
They stop in the coffee shop. Scene change. Tiny mirrors and bright plastic banners cover the room.
WAITRESS: coffee?
RAINER: Black. Lots of sugar.
JOEY: coffee con leche.
Waitress leaves. The coffee shop is empty, except for another foreigner in the corner reading a newspaper.
RAINER: Have you ever been in love?
Joey is distracted by his coffee
RAINER: Joey. Did you hear me?
JOEY: Yes. And the answers no.
RAINER: I am a little in love with you, I think.
JOEY: looks confused A little? How can you be a little in love?
RAINER: Are you sorry I’m leaving?
JOEY: Sure Rainercito.
RAINER: I told you, goddammit. RAINER.
JOEY: Okay; Rainer. You want to be sorry? I’ll be sorry.
RAINER: Whoretalk. You’re too young to be so cynical, Joey. You enjoy hurting me, don’t you? This is foolish, I suppose. I’m much too old for you anyway…would you like to order breakfast now?
JOEY: nods and orders a large breakfast
Waiter brings food. Joey devours the food. The German does not eat a bite. The stranger in the corner begins to wave and starts approaching Rainer and Joey.
RAINER: Oh shit…
Waves
…a reporter..
Joey stands up
RAINER: Joey! Where are you going? Don’t leave me alone with this bore—
JOEY: Relax. I need cigarettes. You want some?
RAINER: Have the waiter get them. For god sake, Joey. I don’t even know the man’s name! He’ll bore me to tears—
JOEY: The shop in the lobby is closed. It’s too early. I have to go outside, find a street vendor…Don’t worry, Rainer. I’ll be right back—
The American journalist excitedly approaches Rainer. Rainer is distracted while Joey quickly grabs the bag underneath the table and walks off.
Scene Ends
Act 3-Paradise.
Scene: Hotel lobby.
Joey’s face is serious. His pace is steady. He calmly walks to the hotels front entrance. Quickly, he stops at the couch and hurriedly places the bag of drugs and money in his jeans pocket. He looks around. No one is watching, everyone is tired and distracted. He leaves the bag and the rest of Rainer’s belongings on the couch.
Silence.
Joey looks outside of the lobby door as he notices the doorman is absent. Tires screech. Curious, he continues to stare out of the window and sees Senator Domingo run out of the stopped car. The senator quickly runs past him.
Crashing noise fills the scene. An explosion. Joey drops to the ground, hiding his head. The scene goes dark. A spotlight shines on the assassinated senator, illuminating the splattered blood on the lobby’s carpet. Screams fill the theater. Bellhops and waitresses stand over the senators body. Everyone is hysterical. Joey continues to look around and frantically runs off stage.
The American journalist and Rainer run into the lobby. Rainer is distraught, paranoid, looking in all directions. He looks as if he is about to cry…he is speechless. However, he is not focused on the dead corpse near his foot. He is looking for Joey. The reporter asks him something. He is unresponsive. The only words that could escape from his lips are…
REINER: …joey…
Scene End
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Falling Through the Cracks
Falling Through the Cracks
Joey Sands; Filipino hi-bred. Unclassifiable. His background reveals no more certainty about his identity than his fanciful last name. Son of a whore, abandoned by a black GI father, raised by a corrupt and compassionate uncle, not forced, but forged into a dreaming junkie, momentarily content with the life of sex, drugs, and music that he knows and loves. The sense of uncertainty and ambiguity that surrounds Joey’s life is what makes his character so intriguing and captivating.
He is introduced as “Mister Heartbreak” at the beginning of the book, although at first his character seems to betray all boundaries of the title. He is a man-whore, a seemingly lowly and immoral occupation. But it is no job for Joey, it is a lifestyle, one that he makes all his own. Joey is much more than a lover, much more than a thief, a player, and a junkie. He is a manipulator and a heartbreaker. His dependence on sex and drugs keeps him teetering on the edge of life, which is what makes him so captivating. Watching him spiral, twist and turn in and out of peoples lives, burning and building bridges on top of fake feelings and lost hopes, is mesmerizing. His life is gripping and tantalizing, his character demands attention without even acknowledging his own overbearing necessity for approval. He admits his dependence on drugs, his job with Andres, his love for money, and the thrill of pain, but not without a casual air of superiority in his voice. He is the best in his field, a master of his craft.
Joey brings a sense of longing to the novel. Just as Rio subconsciously longs for the memories of her childhood in the Philippines Joey longs for a better life, a different life, while simultaneously pretending to make the best of what he knows. His life revolves around the idea of instant satisfaction with no guarantee of what is around the corner tomorrow brings. But his dreams are clouded with hopes and wishes of a more secure and meaningful life. A life still slightly tainted with satisfaction of course, but more meaningful than anything he has ever known. When asked by the German, “Have you ever been in love?”, memories of Neal flood silently to the back of Joey’s mind, the crumpled and tired postcard carried so long in his back pocket now bright and crisp as the day it was received. He cannot admit any feelings that are too humane, too real. It is not in his nature, and those dreams of living a life of leisure and pleasure with Neal in America, Las Vegas to be exact, are broken, shoved back into the depths of the mind left to be covered by new sensations and recollections.
The character Joey portrays in this book is one of self-struggle, self-reliance, self-hatred, and self-destruction. To understand and connect to such a character is an interesting feeling to ponder. Even though Joey is impossible to classify, impossible to tie down or catalog, perhaps it’s just that fact that Joey is everything. He is every person’s want, and need, every desire and hatred, every enemy, and every friend.
Joey Sands; Filipino hi-bred. Unclassifiable. His background reveals no more certainty about his identity than his fanciful last name. Son of a whore, abandoned by a black GI father, raised by a corrupt and compassionate uncle, not forced, but forged into a dreaming junkie, momentarily content with the life of sex, drugs, and music that he knows and loves. The sense of uncertainty and ambiguity that surrounds Joey’s life is what makes his character so intriguing and captivating.
He is introduced as “Mister Heartbreak” at the beginning of the book, although at first his character seems to betray all boundaries of the title. He is a man-whore, a seemingly lowly and immoral occupation. But it is no job for Joey, it is a lifestyle, one that he makes all his own. Joey is much more than a lover, much more than a thief, a player, and a junkie. He is a manipulator and a heartbreaker. His dependence on sex and drugs keeps him teetering on the edge of life, which is what makes him so captivating. Watching him spiral, twist and turn in and out of peoples lives, burning and building bridges on top of fake feelings and lost hopes, is mesmerizing. His life is gripping and tantalizing, his character demands attention without even acknowledging his own overbearing necessity for approval. He admits his dependence on drugs, his job with Andres, his love for money, and the thrill of pain, but not without a casual air of superiority in his voice. He is the best in his field, a master of his craft.
Joey brings a sense of longing to the novel. Just as Rio subconsciously longs for the memories of her childhood in the Philippines Joey longs for a better life, a different life, while simultaneously pretending to make the best of what he knows. His life revolves around the idea of instant satisfaction with no guarantee of what is around the corner tomorrow brings. But his dreams are clouded with hopes and wishes of a more secure and meaningful life. A life still slightly tainted with satisfaction of course, but more meaningful than anything he has ever known. When asked by the German, “Have you ever been in love?”, memories of Neal flood silently to the back of Joey’s mind, the crumpled and tired postcard carried so long in his back pocket now bright and crisp as the day it was received. He cannot admit any feelings that are too humane, too real. It is not in his nature, and those dreams of living a life of leisure and pleasure with Neal in America, Las Vegas to be exact, are broken, shoved back into the depths of the mind left to be covered by new sensations and recollections.
The character Joey portrays in this book is one of self-struggle, self-reliance, self-hatred, and self-destruction. To understand and connect to such a character is an interesting feeling to ponder. Even though Joey is impossible to classify, impossible to tie down or catalog, perhaps it’s just that fact that Joey is everything. He is every person’s want, and need, every desire and hatred, every enemy, and every friend.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Rio's Grandmothers
In this story Rio has two grandmothers, her father’s mother, Abuelita Socorro, and, Lola Narcisa Divino, her mother’s mother. Narciso Divino lives in the guest room in the back of the house. Narciso is different from the rest of her family. She is treated as invisible, called “eccentric”, and not invited to the dinner table to eat with everyone else. Rio’s father, Freddie, pays for Narciso’s doctor visits and even her husband’s hospital bills. I think Freddie is doing this to keep Narciso quiet and content in her own space. It seems like he feels guilty for the way she is treated like an outsider in her family’s house and that is why he is so generous to her.
Lola and Rio prefer to watch Tagalog movies and songs, like Love Letters, but the rest of the Gonzaga family refuses to watch them because they appeal to the “lowest common denominator” (Hagedorn 11). Rio and her grandmother don’t care about what is “corny”, all that matters to them is what they like. Many people in Manila are caught up in the glamour and appeal of Hollywood, they want to be rich and famous among other people in Manila, they want to be the Hollywood of Manila. Why does the family treat Abuelita Socorro differently than grandma Lola Narciso? Lola should be embraced more as a grandmother because she lives with them, but instead they call grandma Socorro Abuelita when she only comes to visit about once a year. Is it because Abuelita Socorro has money, or because she represents the dream to leave Manila for something more glamorous, or is it both? Both grandmas are Filipino, but they both represent something different.
Lola and Rio prefer to watch Tagalog movies and songs, like Love Letters, but the rest of the Gonzaga family refuses to watch them because they appeal to the “lowest common denominator” (Hagedorn 11). Rio and her grandmother don’t care about what is “corny”, all that matters to them is what they like. Many people in Manila are caught up in the glamour and appeal of Hollywood, they want to be rich and famous among other people in Manila, they want to be the Hollywood of Manila. Why does the family treat Abuelita Socorro differently than grandma Lola Narciso? Lola should be embraced more as a grandmother because she lives with them, but instead they call grandma Socorro Abuelita when she only comes to visit about once a year. Is it because Abuelita Socorro has money, or because she represents the dream to leave Manila for something more glamorous, or is it both? Both grandmas are Filipino, but they both represent something different.
"The Asian Mystique"
During my semester abroad in Japan a friend of mine loaned me the book, “The Asian Mystique: Dragon Ladies, Geisha Girls, & Our Fantasies of the Exotic Orient” by Sheridan Prasso. Although I didn’t have the opportunity to finish it, much of our discussion in class last Thursday reminded me of this book and I encourage any of you interested to read it. Prasso examines Asian culture and evaluates cross cultural interactions between the East and West, as well as the stereotypes held by the West of the East that are based on expectations of a culture rather than reality.
At one of our last meetings, as we began to explore the background of Asian American women, we discussed the connections between reality and stereotypes. Where does a stereotype originate and do stereotypes hold any truth? As you may recall we did discuss how some stereotypes do hold truth because of events that have happened in the past. But as time goes on and each generation changes it seems to be more and more difficult to break free of these stereotypes.
What reminded me of Prasso’s book was our discussion on sexuality and Asian Women. At one point while reading Prasso’s book it is discussed that there are women, who I believe were of Filipino decent, who are advertised on the street as being able to pop ping pong balls out of their vaginal areas in order to make money in the red light district. As we have discussed, one of the many stereotypes of Asian and Asian American women is a mysterious sexuality and interest in sex. Prasso claims that it is because of these realities and situations that some women in Asian countries have to stoop to the stereotypes that the West has of them.
Similarly, in Dogeaters, Hagedorn explores the theme of sexuality through the characters of Lolita Luna and Joey. The shower boys and various affairs that Joey and Lolita go through in search for a better life, an American life, represent the struggle that many Filipinos went through at this time. With nothing else, it was sexuality that they used this to survive. After reading the examples that Hagedorn presents it occurred to me that many stereotypes that America holds of Asian American Women are in part because of the realties of the history of their ancestors.
In addition, I also find it interesting that Hagedorn chooses to highlight the stereotypes of Americans in the Filipino culture as well. Americans in the novel are portrayed through the images of Hollywood that people in other countries were able to see. Aside from the glamorous aspect of Hollywood it is also because of many of these images that Caucasian Americans have the stereotypes of being fat, or rude and ignorant by other countries. Yet you don’t see as many Caucasian Americans concerned about this image.
Why is it that it is so much harder for Asian American women to break free of the stereotypes that were created in the past? Is it because Asian American women are often still portrayed in movies and the media under the same stereotypes that so many of them try to escape? Or is it just the simple fact that because there are so many more Caucasian Americans they don’t have to take these stereotypes as seriously of themselves or as offensive as some Asian Americans might of stereotypes of themselves?
It is difficult for me to formulate a set opinion on these questions because there are so many possibilities. Whether it be within the media, Hollywood or neither I have found that there are an overwhelming number of Asian Americans who allow themselves to fall into the stereotypes as excuses and jokes. I’m still unsure about my full opinion on the questions that I have raised but overall the questions that Hagedorn has caused me to raise from her themes intrigue me.
At one of our last meetings, as we began to explore the background of Asian American women, we discussed the connections between reality and stereotypes. Where does a stereotype originate and do stereotypes hold any truth? As you may recall we did discuss how some stereotypes do hold truth because of events that have happened in the past. But as time goes on and each generation changes it seems to be more and more difficult to break free of these stereotypes.
What reminded me of Prasso’s book was our discussion on sexuality and Asian Women. At one point while reading Prasso’s book it is discussed that there are women, who I believe were of Filipino decent, who are advertised on the street as being able to pop ping pong balls out of their vaginal areas in order to make money in the red light district. As we have discussed, one of the many stereotypes of Asian and Asian American women is a mysterious sexuality and interest in sex. Prasso claims that it is because of these realities and situations that some women in Asian countries have to stoop to the stereotypes that the West has of them.
Similarly, in Dogeaters, Hagedorn explores the theme of sexuality through the characters of Lolita Luna and Joey. The shower boys and various affairs that Joey and Lolita go through in search for a better life, an American life, represent the struggle that many Filipinos went through at this time. With nothing else, it was sexuality that they used this to survive. After reading the examples that Hagedorn presents it occurred to me that many stereotypes that America holds of Asian American Women are in part because of the realties of the history of their ancestors.
In addition, I also find it interesting that Hagedorn chooses to highlight the stereotypes of Americans in the Filipino culture as well. Americans in the novel are portrayed through the images of Hollywood that people in other countries were able to see. Aside from the glamorous aspect of Hollywood it is also because of many of these images that Caucasian Americans have the stereotypes of being fat, or rude and ignorant by other countries. Yet you don’t see as many Caucasian Americans concerned about this image.
Why is it that it is so much harder for Asian American women to break free of the stereotypes that were created in the past? Is it because Asian American women are often still portrayed in movies and the media under the same stereotypes that so many of them try to escape? Or is it just the simple fact that because there are so many more Caucasian Americans they don’t have to take these stereotypes as seriously of themselves or as offensive as some Asian Americans might of stereotypes of themselves?
It is difficult for me to formulate a set opinion on these questions because there are so many possibilities. Whether it be within the media, Hollywood or neither I have found that there are an overwhelming number of Asian Americans who allow themselves to fall into the stereotypes as excuses and jokes. I’m still unsure about my full opinion on the questions that I have raised but overall the questions that Hagedorn has caused me to raise from her themes intrigue me.
Friday, January 19, 2007
"His Mother, The Whore" chapter of Dogeaters
“His Mother, The Whore”
*The title is very fit for this chapter.*
As I was reading the chapter titled “His Mother, The Whore” in Dogeaters, I was rather repulsed. My mind kept wandering as I read trying to fathom the context of the chapter. It is so hard for me to imagine a seven-year-old child being trained to steal, cheat, get high, and have sex; but being raised in middle class United States in the twenty-first century, I am hidden from this reality. As I was reading the chapter, the only thing that kept popping in my head was how these people reminded me of the United States. There was Uncle, a low-life middle aged man taken in little boys and being their savior, yet teaching them to be distasteful and minces to society. How does that remind me of the United States, well I think of poverty stricken areas where gangs and violence is the only option for young children.
The melodrama of the boy’s life is extreme. The boy’s mother was a crack whore who could not feed him let alone herself. He was an orphan. Nowhere to go; Uncle saved him. Uncle buried his mother and gave him a place to call home. So often young children are bribed into slavery. Throughout the U.S. children are born to addict parents and feel as though they have nowhere to go and when that one person who makes the effort to care for the child, that child is free. Uncle freed the little boy; Uncle gave him shelter, food, life.
“I would do anything for Uncle in those days. We all would- grateful orphans who earned our keep, eager to please and turn our loot over to Uncle.”
I am appalled by Uncle. Letting the ten-year-old boy have a good “fuck”, as Hagedorn put it, was heartbreaking.
“Uncle watched us hump and writhe as if it was the most ordinary thing in the world, his expression benign and serene.”
I think of young Chinese women trying to survive in the United States using their bodies to put food on the table. These women's bodies were abused and yet they would become more and more emotionless as the jobs went on. This little boy could get women and would feel nothing. He could get men and he would be paid. He felt something by the men that pleasured him. The young Oriental women felt as though they had no way out when it came to prostitution, but I feel as though the little boy liked it. I could be terribly wrong with my conclusions, but I see this chapter as bringing to life the reality and the sadness that abandoned children in the Philippines were put through. This little boy did not know any better than to enjoy stealing and any other opportunity to gain money.
*The title is very fit for this chapter.*
As I was reading the chapter titled “His Mother, The Whore” in Dogeaters, I was rather repulsed. My mind kept wandering as I read trying to fathom the context of the chapter. It is so hard for me to imagine a seven-year-old child being trained to steal, cheat, get high, and have sex; but being raised in middle class United States in the twenty-first century, I am hidden from this reality. As I was reading the chapter, the only thing that kept popping in my head was how these people reminded me of the United States. There was Uncle, a low-life middle aged man taken in little boys and being their savior, yet teaching them to be distasteful and minces to society. How does that remind me of the United States, well I think of poverty stricken areas where gangs and violence is the only option for young children.
The melodrama of the boy’s life is extreme. The boy’s mother was a crack whore who could not feed him let alone herself. He was an orphan. Nowhere to go; Uncle saved him. Uncle buried his mother and gave him a place to call home. So often young children are bribed into slavery. Throughout the U.S. children are born to addict parents and feel as though they have nowhere to go and when that one person who makes the effort to care for the child, that child is free. Uncle freed the little boy; Uncle gave him shelter, food, life.
“I would do anything for Uncle in those days. We all would- grateful orphans who earned our keep, eager to please and turn our loot over to Uncle.”
I am appalled by Uncle. Letting the ten-year-old boy have a good “fuck”, as Hagedorn put it, was heartbreaking.
“Uncle watched us hump and writhe as if it was the most ordinary thing in the world, his expression benign and serene.”
I think of young Chinese women trying to survive in the United States using their bodies to put food on the table. These women's bodies were abused and yet they would become more and more emotionless as the jobs went on. This little boy could get women and would feel nothing. He could get men and he would be paid. He felt something by the men that pleasured him. The young Oriental women felt as though they had no way out when it came to prostitution, but I feel as though the little boy liked it. I could be terribly wrong with my conclusions, but I see this chapter as bringing to life the reality and the sadness that abandoned children in the Philippines were put through. This little boy did not know any better than to enjoy stealing and any other opportunity to gain money.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Suicide Note
Before getting into Dogeaters, I wanted to post a little something about the poem "Suicide Note" that we looked at on Tuesday. I love to analyze text, I'm really geeky like that. Actually, before I delve into that, I want to quote Prof. Jha:
"I have a PhD, I can make up words!"
Suicide Note. An appropriate alternate title could be Apology- she apologizes directly to her parents twice, and indirectly at the end: "Notes shredded/drift like snow/on my broken body,/covers me like whispers/of sorries/sorries."
In the beginning, she apologizes for not being good enough, even though she has worked very hard. The interjected "not good enough not strong enough not smart enough" seems to echo through the poem as her thoughts may echo through her head. The fact that it is not capitalized and contains no other punctuation reinforces the idea that it has sprung unbidden into the text. I also noted that when the line is broken up, she not only says what she is not, but also what she is.
"...fragile as wings.
not strong enough"
The contrast between fragile and strong is repeated again in the next stanza:
"...sillied and dizzied by the wind/on the edge.
not smart enough"
She is fragile and sillied, not strong and smart. She seems to believe this is solely because she is a woman. For if she had been born a male, she would "swagger through life/muscled and bold and assured,/drawing praises..."
She also draws equals between being born a son, and light. Perhaps this is a play on the word "sun", for she says: "If only I were a son, shoulders broad/as the sunset threading through pine,/I would see the light in my mother's/eyes, or the golden pride reflected/in my father's dream..."
Sunset, light, golden, reflected. All shining, glorious, beautiful words. Like she would be, had she been born a "sun."
The other main theme she repeats is the metaphor of her environment as a landscape of snow and ice, and her as a small bird. She is unable to survive, swallowed up by the cold, bitter white snow. Depicting her landscape in this way is a metaphor for her actual world, where she is surrounded by confident, uncaring white people who do not support her- instead they push her over the edge.
"This air will not hold me,/the snow burdens my crippled wings..."
"...ink smeared like birdprints in snow."
"...ice above my river."
"It is snowing steadily...
"Choices thin as shaved/ice. Notes shredded/drift like snow..."
"...white and cold and silent...."
Everything she struggles to achieve is undermined, brushed away, it is impermanent. And thus she is driven to take her own life.
Also, I have no idea what kind of significance it could possibly hold, but I enjoyed this alliteration: "...they will bury/my bird bones beneath/a sturdy pine..."
"I have a PhD, I can make up words!"
Suicide Note. An appropriate alternate title could be Apology- she apologizes directly to her parents twice, and indirectly at the end: "Notes shredded/drift like snow/on my broken body,/covers me like whispers/of sorries/sorries."
In the beginning, she apologizes for not being good enough, even though she has worked very hard. The interjected "not good enough not strong enough not smart enough" seems to echo through the poem as her thoughts may echo through her head. The fact that it is not capitalized and contains no other punctuation reinforces the idea that it has sprung unbidden into the text. I also noted that when the line is broken up, she not only says what she is not, but also what she is.
"...fragile as wings.
not strong enough"
The contrast between fragile and strong is repeated again in the next stanza:
"...sillied and dizzied by the wind/on the edge.
not smart enough"
She is fragile and sillied, not strong and smart. She seems to believe this is solely because she is a woman. For if she had been born a male, she would "swagger through life/muscled and bold and assured,/drawing praises..."
She also draws equals between being born a son, and light. Perhaps this is a play on the word "sun", for she says: "If only I were a son, shoulders broad/as the sunset threading through pine,/I would see the light in my mother's/eyes, or the golden pride reflected/in my father's dream..."
Sunset, light, golden, reflected. All shining, glorious, beautiful words. Like she would be, had she been born a "sun."
The other main theme she repeats is the metaphor of her environment as a landscape of snow and ice, and her as a small bird. She is unable to survive, swallowed up by the cold, bitter white snow. Depicting her landscape in this way is a metaphor for her actual world, where she is surrounded by confident, uncaring white people who do not support her- instead they push her over the edge.
"This air will not hold me,/the snow burdens my crippled wings..."
"...ink smeared like birdprints in snow."
"...ice above my river."
"It is snowing steadily...
"Choices thin as shaved/ice. Notes shredded/drift like snow..."
"...white and cold and silent...."
Everything she struggles to achieve is undermined, brushed away, it is impermanent. And thus she is driven to take her own life.
Also, I have no idea what kind of significance it could possibly hold, but I enjoyed this alliteration: "...they will bury/my bird bones beneath/a sturdy pine..."
Monday, January 15, 2007
On Yen Le Espiritu's Essay
The first point that Espiritu raises is that of sexual stereotypes and how they perpetuate the overall racial hierarchy. Sexuality is used to both classify (and thus segregate) and demean either sex of a particular race, whether it be by the examples used ("wily Chinese detective..., sexless, hairless Asian male...," pp1 etc) or by others. I feel that the way a race's sexuality is portrayed directly impacts the level of racism they face from their oppressors because it immediately sets the stereotyped race apart from what is culturally the norm, creating an atmosphere of misunderstanding and irrational fear of a somehow sexually deviant race. Sexuality in American media has become such a huge part of our culture that to paint an entire race in this negative sexual light thrusts that race out of what is seen as the cultural norm, making reentry into the positive social mainstream very difficult.
I had a question as to the validity of the statement on page 1, where Espiritu says that "...men of color are viewed not as the protector, bur rather the aggressor-a threat to white women." While I agree that the overarching theme of racism is directed mainly toward those of color, I wondered why men of color are specifically a threat to white women, and women of color are not seen in the same light with respect to white men. I thought it might have something to do with either the sexism that exists in our male-dominated culture and that somehow a white man isn't as susceptible to so-called "sexually aggressive" women of color, or that Espiritu was saying men of color are more sexually aggressive than women. I might have read it wrong, but I was a little unsure as to what was going on there. Another question I had was how the male and female Asian American stereotypes have double-standards as is stated ("hypermasculine" and "effeminate", "superfeminine" and "castrating"). Castrating? Ouch.
As far as my own feelings about this essay, I really took to heart the idea that the Asian American culture within America actually perpetuates racial stereotypes that exist in the mainstream society. As Espiritu says, even a traditional Asian American family, existing in and of itself, can unknowingly help further stereotypes about Asian American sexuality and gender roles. In light of that, you can see Espiritu's point of intertwined lines of sexual and gender domination and how only a comprehensive overhaul of both cultural racism and sexism can shed light on the repression that effects the Asian American population.
Peace
I had a question as to the validity of the statement on page 1, where Espiritu says that "...men of color are viewed not as the protector, bur rather the aggressor-a threat to white women." While I agree that the overarching theme of racism is directed mainly toward those of color, I wondered why men of color are specifically a threat to white women, and women of color are not seen in the same light with respect to white men. I thought it might have something to do with either the sexism that exists in our male-dominated culture and that somehow a white man isn't as susceptible to so-called "sexually aggressive" women of color, or that Espiritu was saying men of color are more sexually aggressive than women. I might have read it wrong, but I was a little unsure as to what was going on there. Another question I had was how the male and female Asian American stereotypes have double-standards as is stated ("hypermasculine" and "effeminate", "superfeminine" and "castrating"). Castrating? Ouch.
As far as my own feelings about this essay, I really took to heart the idea that the Asian American culture within America actually perpetuates racial stereotypes that exist in the mainstream society. As Espiritu says, even a traditional Asian American family, existing in and of itself, can unknowingly help further stereotypes about Asian American sexuality and gender roles. In light of that, you can see Espiritu's point of intertwined lines of sexual and gender domination and how only a comprehensive overhaul of both cultural racism and sexism can shed light on the repression that effects the Asian American population.
Peace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)