Old
School : Exploring
some of the Essential Questions
Directions: Select a significant and dense passage from chapters 4-6. Make sure that it is a passage that you can closely analyze. Consider its relevance to one of the essential questions listed below.
Essential question
#1: How is identity linked to
storytelling? If we are authors of our
own lives, how do the narratives we create about ourselves influence our
behavior, our attitudes, and our actions?
How do these stories help us to make meaning out of our experiences and to
make choices that steer the directions of our lives?
Essential question
#2: Evaluate the belief in
meritocracy. Do we totally earn our own
accomplishments and failures? How
responsible are we for the honors bestowed upon us? How much are we to blame for our
failures? Are we also responsible for
the happiness and success of others? If
we have experienced success, are we obligated to share that success with others
who have not earned it? Can a belief in
meritocracy coexist with a belief in the greater good?
Essential question
#3: How do we know if a piece of writing is good? What makes writing
powerful, effective, interesting, or worth reading? If the author intends one
meaning but the reader interprets the text to mean something very different, how
should we make sense of those discrepancies?
Essential question
#4: As different writers influence the narrator, how do his values and
his identity morph and change? Is that pliability a sign of a weak character?
What do you think of him along the way and why?
Essential question
#5: What impressions can you
draw about the characters and the professional writers from the glimpses into
their work that the narrator provides? How does their writing compare to the
details of their lives?
Essential question
#6: What does it mean to
discover one’s voice? How original are
our voices? How do we distinguish
between the people/texts/social roles that influence us and those aspects of
ourselves and our voices that are truly unique and individual? What is the difference between influence,
imitation, and plagiarism?
Essential question
#7: Notice continual references
to acting, role-playing, performance and theater. How does this motif help us understand the
characters, the school, and some larger themes in the book? To what extent does
this notion of performance become internalized? Is our identity simply an
internalization of the roles we play? Are we something more than that?
In your blog post be sure to do the following:
1.
Center your discussion around the ANALYSIS of
one particularly dense passage that you believe connects to one of the
questions above.
2.
Articulate a claim that clearly designates a
stance or an interpretation about the passage and the essential question.
3.
Closely analyze the passage. The majority of
your post should center on analysis and examining specific textual details that
contribute to the overall meaning of the passage. Consider diction, figurative
language, repetition, syntax or any other devices that apply.
4.
You can
make larger connections to other parts of the text. However, we want to see an
in-depth analysis of one passage. Doing this will help prepare you for your
paper when we come back from break.
5.
Write about 300 words and proofread.
6.
One you have finished writing your post, get
involved in at least two other online conversations. Be sure to use
respectful language! Here are some things you can write in your response:
a.
Agree or disagree and use something in the text
to develop your response.
b.
Comment on someone’s post that makes you notice
something that you didn’t think of before. Talk about what this person’s post
helped you to see.
c.
Make connections to other aspects of the text
that might develop someone else’s idea further.
d.
Offer an alternate way of interpreting the text
that someone discussed in his or her post.
Essential Question #4
ReplyDeletepg. 67-68: “It was dark when I boarded...into the long, slow death of respectability.”
This passage of Old School describes the narrator reading Ayn Rand’s book, The Fountainhead, and how he is completely in love with the book and its ideas. Here, Rand’s writing is clearly influencing the narrator’s thoughts on life, and we see this through him describing the book and how he feels about it.
This passage shows that the narrator’s ideas clearly change as he is influenced by different writers, though this does not necessarily make him weak; rather, he is very open-minded and takes in everything he reads and processes it in his head and turns it into an idea that he either agrees with or disagrees with; usually he is very weak in this sense, in that he constantly changes his mind to suit the “correct” ideas and morals of whatever author he’s currently reading.
At the beginning of this passage, he is describing the characters in the novel and how he pondered over the situations they were in: “...and considered how shabbily this world treats a man who is strong and great, simply because he’s strong and great.” Here, the narrator takes one of the book’s ideas and thinks about it realistically, which changes his view on that particular circumstance because of the way the author portrays it in the novel. This is an example of his open-mindedness and willingness to rethink and analyze situations because of the way the author writes about them.
The narrator talks about an idea that “was new and interesting to me--the idea that a woman’s indifference, even her scorn, might be an invitation to go a few rounds.” The narrator explores this idea in his head, and determines that the novel made him feel “like a sucker. It seemed that all my routine gallantries and attentions had marked me as a weakling, a slave.” Here, we see that it is not the narrator’s pliability to the ideas of writers that makes him weak, but rather his own self-image. After reading this particular passage in the book, the narrator feels weak, like a slave, just because of something someone wrote or said in a novel. This is the narrator’s real weakness: his allowance to be critically judged by others, especially writers. If anything, this lowers his self-esteem and makes him feel like he is unworthy of writing, or perhaps morally wrong in the ideas and beliefs he pursues.
He says, “I was discovering the force of my will. To read The Fountainhead was to feel this caged power...” He goes on to describe how the book made him feel as if he had no obstacles between him and his “greatest desires” other than his own self-doubt and the need to conform to “conventional morality.” This is the author giving in to Rand’s Objectivist perspective on life, and all of her beliefs and “morals.” The narrator’s open-mindedness while reading leads him to becoming entranced by Rand’s ideas, and he begins to agree with her, simply through her writing, even though what she preaches may not necessarily be reasonable or morally acceptable to the rest of the world.
This is why his ability to be open-minded is one of his strong points, because it allows him to be introduced to a new world of ideas, and he is able to change his ideals and what he believes in to fit the morally “correct” way of life, according to whatever his favorite author is at the time. It can also be self-destructive, as it can lead him to believe he is not worthy of his favorite author, or force him into believing something that is actually morally wrong. In this way, his open-mindedness is good, but too much of it, and too much willingness to let others’ writings judge him and criticize his self-worth to the point where he is forced to change himself for them, is bad for him.
DeleteAlong the way, one may think of him as weak, but others can see his willingness to change as a strong sign of devotion to the writing and beliefs of others. Whatever the case, the narrator’s ideas and beliefs clearly change with each new piece of writing he reads, and he is very easily and visibly influenced by those writings.
Before I had read your post, I had believed that the narrator being so easily influenced and changed by a book/author was a weakness in his character. After reading your post, I still believe that is true, to a certain extent. You brought up the idea that the narrator’s weakness was that he allowed himself to be critically judged by others, therefore rendering him feeling unworthy, or questioning himself. I believe this is a valid point, that the narrator cares so much about what others think of him (the way he tries to hide his true identity as evidence earlier in the book) and will therefore start to doubt his original beliefs and stances, and feel unworthy. However, I still disagree with your point that the narrator is open-minded rather than easily influenced. When reading the passage you picked out, I still get the feeling that the narrator is so easily influenced by the characters of the book he is reading, overwhelmed by how much he aspires to be like them, how they differ from what he is like. He lets these feelings take over his personality, and adapts to these characters (who he was not like originally). While this could still be interpreted as open-mindedness of the narrator, I believe the narrator’s actions in chapter 7 illustrate how easily he is swayed from author to author, belief to belief. The way the narrator switches from Rand to Hemingway so quickly does not, in my opinion, illustrate open-mindedness but rather a tendency to be easily influenced by the opinions and beliefs with others. This trait of the narrator also coincides with the narrator allowing himself to be critically judged, and go hand in hand when defining the weaknesses of the narrator’s personality.
DeleteEllie,
DeleteYou definitely have a fair point. His strong point could have been his open-mindedness, but it ends up making him weak in that he is too open-minded and unable to decide for himself between beliefs and authors and writings, and choose his own path. I suppose it is almost as if the strength of the narrator's open-mindedness and willingness to accept other's beliefs and even practice is completely cancelled out by his weak dependence on others for his ideas, and his parasite-like attachment to different authors, one at a time as each of them come to the school. He is unable to latch onto one particular thing he believes in, and this is where his weakness lies.
@ Jad Jacob
DeleteI would like to say, respectfully, that you are mistaken.
The narrator is not open minded at all whatsoever. He is most definitely easily influenced, but hid mind is very much in fact closed. Once he thinks Ayn Rand's ideals are good he closes himself off and only focuses on her, rather than gathering more opinions. Once he thinks something is good he seals himself to that belief until he is convinced otherwise. When he begins plagerising he convinces himself that it is his story all the way through his expulsion. The narrator is too closed minded to tell people who he is, or share his identity.
in conclusion, I, respectfully, think you are wrong. farewell.
Stefani,
DeleteSpelling and grammatical errors aside, I still have to disagree with you. The narrator is not close-minded; he is extremely willing to accept any ideas because of his weak will for independence. If he was close-minded when he thought Ayn Rand's ideals were "good," then he would never have changed his mind about them when he met her. He doesn't seal himself off completely persay; more like he begins a strong devotion to a particular belief, which can still easily be swayed. The narrator is actually smart in not telling people who he is; he knew he would be subject to ridicule and scorn from some, and possibly most, of his peers and possibly even his teachers if they knew about his Jewishness. He thinks about the outcome of this particular situation, and smartly decides against it, therefore being open-minded. This is obviously the complete opposite of his decision to copy Friedman's work, but nevertheless he had to be open-minded to even get the idea to plagairize in the first place; a close-minded person would either be completely focused on writing their own story and would never cheat, or be so completely convinced that they were a terrible writer that they never wrote anything themselves, and always copied off of other people. I think perhaps I used the wrong word in my initial post; open-mindedness tends to come off as a positive attribute, but I meant it more to mean weak-mindedness.
Alex Koudal
ReplyDeleteQ#4
“Her heroes were hearty, happily formed….I naturally turned mine against the snobbery of others.”
The influence of Ayn Rands’ claims and ideals heavily affect the writer and it is shown in this passage. In Rand’s book The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged, there were no signs of adolescents, pets, or any type of ordinary sympathy for other beings. Also including Dominique and Roark who seem to have no relatives, or even friends for a matter of fact. The narrator then, after realizing this, says “The self-pity I felt at this betrayal dressed itself up as fierce affection for Grandjohn and Patty, who had done this for me.”.
Before reading Ayn Rand’s books, the narrator was very ungrateful for all the support he gets from his relatives, but afterwards, realizes and begins to appreciate all that they have done for them. Also he begins to criticize Ayn Rand’s critics on what his parents so happen to be “brainless slattern-frustrated imbecile”. He then says “ I blame Ayn Rand for disregarding all this. And i no doubt blamed her even more because I had disregarded it myself-because for years now I had hidden my family in calculated silences and vague hints and dodges, suggesting another family in its place” which says that before being influenced Ayn Rand’s beliefs, he once disregarded his own family and was ashamed of them and tried to avoid all matters regarded them in any way shape or form. “ I had hidden my family in calculated silences” means that he stayed silent about the when needed to, and didn’t divulge into any details about them. “Unacknowledged shame enters the world as anger; I naturally turned mine against the snobbery of others, in the present case Ayn Rand.”The term “Unacknowledged shame” is referencing to his internal and hidden shame of being apart of this family, and depicts this shame which transitions into anger in which he takes it out on Ayn Rand, due to arrogance against hard working people such as the narrator’s parents. Due to Ayn Rand, the narrator’s values change quite heavily. He realizes that he has been ungrateful to his supporting relatives in the past, and begins to appreciate what they have done for him. I don’t see this as a sign of weakness from the narrator but more as improvements of his own individual integrity. All these realizations are thanks to Ayn Rand’s belligerent beliefs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAlex,
DeleteI completely agree with you. The author was so influenced by Ayn Rand that his ideas were changed in the matter of hours. When he saw the look on her face when he sneezed, he realized how awfully he had been looking at other people because of her book. he even was ungrateful of his relatives, who travelled far just to come visit him and see how he was doing. His identity once again changes when he realizes how awful Ayn Rand is, in his mind.
Alex,
DeleteYou helped me notice that being influenced by someone else's writing is not a weakness. I think it is beneficial to be influenced if the influence is going to impact you in a positive way.
Here is where I disagree with you. You said that after reading Ayn Rand, the narrator begins to appreciate all that his relatives have done for him. Ayn Rand's philosophy contradicts this claim alone. Her philosophy is that you should do what makes you happy and not what makes other other people happy, so the narrator starts to take this idea into consideration when dealing with his family. The narrator spends time at his grandpa's house and while there he says,“I started to feel her kindness as a form of aggression,” Here he is referring to his grandpa's wife, and how he experienced all her kindness as aggression, such as having lots of soda for him, or being offered a pillow for his back. The only reason he feels this way is because he was influenced by Ayn Rand. And now he cannot take kindness, and it makes him, “go into the bathroom and scream silently, rocking from side to side like a gorilla, my head thrown back, my teeth bared.” so from this anybody can tell that Ayn Rand influenced him negatively.
I agree with your statement on that Rand’s writing affects the readers, but the reactions from the readers may not always be positive towards Rand’s reputation. The narrator was angry at the way Ayn Rand condemned his parents as “brainless slattern, frustrated imbecile” (Wolff 93). He was very moved by Rand’s statement causing him to reconcile his relationship with his relatives. The narrator could not really accuse Rand’s for disregarding his parents since he lived with his grandparents. On page 69-70, the narrator describes his stay at his grandparent’s house. His grandparent loved their grandson, however the narrator did not reciprocate their love and only found it annoying, thus he left Baltimore early to escape their love. I believe that the narrator’s realization was not from Rand’s beliefs but from her disregards of parenting. Ayn Rand did not have any offspring with her husband, thus she has no right to accuse parents as an ignorant imbecile when she does have an ounce of clue what its like to be a parent.
DeleteI agree with Kaitlin’s response to Alex’s blog post. Kaitlin really opened up my eyes to a new point of view. She pointed out how it can sometimes be beneficial to change the way you act due to a piece of literature, and that it is not a weakness to change your character. However, if that change in your personality impacts you in a negative way, then that is not good. Kaitlin pointed out the ways the narrator temporarily changed in a bad way, especially when he was rude to his grandparents. In my opinion, after the narrator read Rand’s book he temporarily changed for the worst.
DeleteAlex, for some reason the comment I posted over the weekend has gotten deleted.
DeleteI respectfully disagree with you on that the narrator being weak in terms of his own identity. Yes, I agree with you on that by starting to appreciate what his relative have done for him is an improvement of personal integrity. Though the fact that he had to have an outside force(Ayn Rand) to push him to create a sense of appreciation, shows that he is weak. As he cannot stand to his own values. Which I find quite common in humans. That we often change our views based off new perspectives, ideas, and facts. Also the reason I think why the narrator is weak in terms of his own identity is because his parents did not have a huge impact/influence on his life. As his mother died at a young age for him, and his father did not give much regards for him. Parents usually shape values for their kids, which we in our classroom are lucky to have. The narrator had nobody to shape his values, so his is quite vulnerable to outside forces. I also see this change in thinking as a sign of higher maturity for the narrator. As he is going from an oblivious child(in terms to his environment) to an elder child aware of what he has.
Essential Question #4
ReplyDeletepages 92-94 “The self-pity I felt at this betrayal...grasp of human reality.”
I believe that the narrator doesn’t know his own true character yet. But this is not a sign of weakness, he’s still developing his identity. The first few lines of this passage, “The self-pity I felt...God knows there was plenty of weakness there.” is the narrator describing how the people he knows and the people who took care of growing up were not strong or perfect, which is how Ayn Rand says they should be. “But Ayn Rand’s cartoon vision of my parents－brainless slattern, frustrated imbecile－sickened me.” The narrator is upset that Rand disgraces hard-working people like his parents things like that, despite not knowing what struggles they faced; this was shown in the line, “She had no idea...dreams of escape.”. “I blamed Ayn Rand for disregarding all this. And I no doubt blamed her even more because I had disregarded it myself…” This is where we see the narrator’s character begin to show, as well as be shaped. He realizes that he hides from his own past, and that he doesn’t want to be a part of his family, and in a way, it’s similar to how Ayn Rand finds that people who are weak or aim for others happiness are immoral. The narrator ignored all his family did for him because he didn’t want to be like them, similar to how Rand ignores what hard-working people do, just because they’re “weak.”.
“Unacknowledged shame enters the world as anger; I naturally turn mine against the snobbery of others, in the present case, Ayn Rand.” The narrator realizes that what he did is the same as what Ayn Rand does, but he doesn’t want to admit it, so instead he puts the blame on Rand, and pretends like he didn’t do the same thing. “...I didn’t really know anyone like Roark or Dominique.” The narrator also realizes how wrong Rand was, because he doesn’t know anyone who is perfectly heroic and lives by Rand’s values. “Everyone I knew was beset by unheroic worries.” The narrator goes on and lists worries that normal people face, like flunking out of school or worrying about money. “Everybody was troubled, nobody measured up, and I began to think that the true failure lay in Ayn Rand’s grasp of human reality.” Here, the narrator is admitting that no one could ever be perfect like Rand believes they should be, and having that knowledge will help develop his character. He’s no longer afraid of being imperfect or to not follow the ideals of others. Ayn Rand influenced the narrator, but instead of adopting her ideals, he adopted the complete opposite of them, based on his own personal experiences. Because of this, I don’t think he is weak, but capable of forming ideas on his own, he just requires some sort of basis, which I think is true for most people.
Sanya,
DeleteI agree with the idea that the narrator really doesn't know who he truly is and how Ayn Rand influences him and gives him a basis to form his own ideas. I do consider this as a weakness though because the passage you mentioned,comes after the narrator actually meets her and that changes his thoughts. Before he actually met her, he read a lot of her books and really liked her and her unique ideas. But, when he sneezes in front of her and she gives him a rude reaction (pg. 83), his opinions about her and her ideas change. Not just the sneeze but the fact that she smokes and is just so rude to everyone completely changes his thoughts and I think that that is why he finally starts to appreciate and respect his family. It is true that he uses her ideas to develop his own but what if there was a different author such as Hemingway who came to their school first? If he uses Hemingway’s ideas to recreate his own, just like he used Rand’s wouldn’t they be a lot different than his ideas based on Ayn Rand’s thoughts?
Sanya,
DeleteI do agree that the narrator does not know his own identity but I would have to respectfully disagree with your idea that the narrator not knowing his identity is a sign not a of weakness. I believe that the narrator is very weak to have his own identity swayed strongly based off the morals and values of other individuals. Originally the narrator was a great fan of Ayn Rand and enjoyed her works of literature but after the narrator met her in person, he started to change. The narrator states “She made me feel that to be sick was contemptible” (Wolff 91). Ayn Rand managed to show a lot of negatives about her such as her disgust in helping others succeed and her self-centered personality. This upsets the narrator to a point that he starts to completely oppose Ayn’s values and virtues. He changes his identity greatly in a short period of time after meeting Ayn. That is a sign of weakness because the narrator is acting too rash and insecure of his own identity. The narrator relies on change agents of other individuals to help shape the narrator’s own identity. I believe that this change in the narrator’s identity is a step for the narrator to obtain his true self however, the narrator is choosing a path that is heavily influenced by others which is displaying his weak nature and lack of self confidence.
Clemens & Nidhi,
DeleteI do agree that the narrator’s ideals are easily swayed, and that could make him weak, but the reasons he has for changing his ideals so easily make it understandable. At first, the narrator related to Rand’s books, “I was discovering the force of my will.” (pg 68). Reading The Fountainhead made the narrator feel like nothing could stop him from getting what he desired. The narrator didn’t really know Rand, he had read her books but that was the extent of it. It isn’t really his fault for not knowing what Rand’s personality and true ideals were, and because of that it makes sense that after meeting her and learning her beliefs, he no longer believed in her ideals. If anything, the narrator isn’t weak, but shallow, “The problem wasn’t...was contemptible.” (pg 91) In these lines, the narrator describes Rand as something gross, and simply pushes away her ideals because of her appearance. But then he says how she had mentioned Hemingway and how she was repulsed by his work. I believe the author’s change of ideals was not one of weakness, as he stood by his stronger ideals; the ones Hemingway proposed of human reality. If another author did come to their school, I wonder if the narrator would adopt their ideals. It is possible, but I think one way or another he would still have found his own identity and have exposed it.
Sanya,
DeleteI agree with you that the narrator doesn't know exactly who he is yet and is trying to find that out. However, I disagree when you say he becomes unafraid of being imperfect and other people's opinion, after meeting Ayn Rand and reading her book, because he still is. If what you said is true, then why did the narrator not come out and confess his lie? He had the perfect opportunity to confide in Bill on p118, but he doesn't, because he is afraid to. He backs away from the chance of actually talking to someone else who is experiencing the same thing as him, simply because of his cowardice. The narrator even know this! He knows Bill is also pretending, and yet persists in keeping the persona he's created for himself, which to me indicates that he is weak. I can understand why he did it, but I don't believe the narrator has gotten rid of his fear of not fitting in or being judged. I still think he is weak of character when it comes to being honest about himself.
Essential Question 2:
ReplyDelete“Let me tell you what your value does not derive from…but this is worthless” page 82-83
I believe in most parts of meritocracy as shown in the book. In Old School, the idea of meritocracy is mostly introduced when the famous author, Ayn Rand is visiting the school. Ayn Rand was what could be considered a very radical believer in meritocracy. She believes that you should do what makes yourself happy, and you shouldn’t blame others for your own failures. She is considered very radical because of her belief in not sharing your own success with other people, and not sacrificing yourself for the good of your country or other people.
I believe that all people earn their own accomplishments and failures, because we have the right to make our own decisions in life, which could be difficult, but it is ultimately up to us.
Every day people are given the choice to rise up and do what is right, do what is in their own best interest, or just let their surroundings get the best of them. If you have done what is best for you and risen up, you completely are responsible for the honors that you receive, and same goes for your failures.
One part of Ayn Rand's theory, in the book, I do not believe in is how you shouldn’t try to make other people happy. Although, I do believe you should rise up and do what is best for yourself before you can provide happiness for other people. Obviously you need to be successful and healthy to help other people with their own successfulness and healthiness.
Another part of Ayn Rand's theory that I don’t agree with is not sharing your success with other people. I believe rather, that you should be able to share your happiness with people you love or think deserve it. I do not believe that you should share your own success with people who, given the opportunity, haven’t tried hard enough or risen above their hardships.
Overall I believe that Ayn Rand’s quote and appearance in this book is positive, but in some places it is too harsh. Her theory is also seen in the beginning of the book when you see how some of the boys that earned it, are on scholarships. Those boys, like the narrator, were able to rise above and make a life for themselves.
One of the problems I have with meritocracy is very scarcely addressed in both the book and your analysis. This problem is that some people have more means and more opportunities to rise up, while some people have more hardships to overcome and fewer opportunities that are open to them. A prime example of this would be of blacks during the time period in which Old School is placed, directly before the civil rights movement. Obviously as a black person in that time, it would much harder to find schooling and employment equal to that of a white person, even if both people worked equally as hard.
DeleteTo me, this facet is a huge problem in the system of meritocracy, and not one to be overlooked.
Rachael,I completely agree with you. What I am tying to say is, there is a problem with people who are given a choice, but do not rise above. I understand and agree with your point, especially because of all the hatred that was going on back then. Today, it is a completely different story. Most people are given an option and some just don't take it.
DeleteBecca,
DeleteI understand what you are saying, and agree that there is a problem when people are given a choice and do not take it. I guess I just see it a little differently, because I often find myself sympathizing with the person, since I believe that the problem is not specifically with the person, but rather with some other obstacle that they choose not to overcome.
Becca,
Delete45 million Americans are still below the poverty line. Are you telling me that at least 22.5 million Americans were given the choice to rise above and did not take that? I find that implausible if not impossible. If one is successful, then they need to give some of their success to the unfortunate to allow them a chance to rise above, a chance that Rand did not support.
Samantha Bobbio
ReplyDeletequestion #4
“The problem was that I could no longer read Ayn Rand’s sentences without hearing her voice. And hearing her voice, I saw her face; to be exact, the face she’d turned on me when i sneezed. Her disgust had power. This was no girlish shudder, this was spiritual disgust, and it forced on me a vision of the poor specimen under scrutiny, chapped lips, damp white face, rheumy eyes and all. She made me feel that to be sick was contemptible. There couldn't have been any other reason for her to despise me so, not at that moment, before I’d offended her by mentioning hemingway”
As different writers influence the narrator, how do his values and his identity morph and change?
“Passing a shoe store, I saw a young salesman….You-is this your dream? To grovel before strangers?..you have chosen to kneel! - (pg 70 ch. Ubermensch) The writer begins to view things in a completely different perspective, after reading the Fountain Head by Ayn Rand. And somehow is seeing the little people of society as useless. The characters in Ayn Rand’s book are strong heroes, that have no flaws. Soon the narrator began to even view his grandparents differently because they are minor influences in society, I surmise after the narrator read Ayn Rand’s passage he began to view himself differently almost badly noticing that he himself is just a school boy a minor character in society just like the people he learned to hate. So he felt extremely influenced by her writing, to uttermost change himself. But then the writer finds a way out of it all and almost excepting himself for who he is when he begins to analyze Hemingway’s story’s. Hemingway’s writing is more realistic and focuses on real people with flaws, people who make little marks in the world people who make mistakes. The narrator promptly changes his views in a matter of seconds and begins to hate ayn rand and her stories. Hemingway seems to make him happier but also see more realistically on the little people in the world.
Is that pliability a sign of a weak character?
Ultimately the narrator is weak. When a person must lie about who he is, cover who he is, it means he is afraid to show himself. He is afraid people will judge him for who he really is. Which the narrator does. The narrator is not sure of who he is. He is simply waiting for someone to tell him or to be someone else so he could avoid the real self that he hates. In his life he displays that he keeps his homelife a secret and will lie if he has to with no regret.
What do you think of him along the way and why?
The narrator has so many friends to be made and so much to share with his classmates but because he hides himself he will always be alone with himself, the person he doesn't want to be. Instead of the narrator being influenced by unreal characters in the novels he reads he should try to be influenced by people in real life that he can actually learn from.
@Sam Bobbio
DeleteI disagree, I think everyone changes a little when they are swept up in the moment. I think he isn't weak for wanting to fit in, a primal instinct. His desire to fit in leaves him open to suggestion, which is what Ayn Rand's novel does to him. This isn't weak, just innocent.
I agree with Stefani that the narrator isn't weak, just innocent. He's grown up in an environment where it's important to fit in, and he hasn't met enough people or traveled to far enough lands to be shaped into his own identity. But, after meeting And, his ideals are able to take shape. Not to say he had no ideals before, but his ideals are changing. I do agree with Sam that he narrator doesn't want people to know who he is, which I find ironic because honestly he doesn’t seem to know who he is to begin with. I do wonder if being Jewish is the only thing he’s hiding. He has, however, decided to tell everyone who he is, and although he did so by plagiarizing another work, I believe it is a big step towards changing his public identity, and realizing what his private one really is.
DeleteSam, I agree with Sanya and Stefani. I believe he is not weak but innocent. Even though he isn’t much of a child, he still might have a mind like one considering he’s been at an all boys school for four years. He hasn’t seen much of the world, made his own experiences. He hasn’t seen many people of his age outside of the school so he doesn’t know how he should show himself or act, he just follows what his peers and role models (his favorite authors) are doing. So because he hasn’t spent enough time outside of the school he may still have an innocent mind-which I guess some people could consider weak because they don’t know as much as other people.
DeleteI understand what you guys all saying, and that makes a lot of sense. I understand that the narrator and most teenagers want to fit in naturally, but I find it a weak point in his self the extreme that he goes to to hide himself in the beginning of the story. I think by the end the character is ready to reveal himself by giving the story to hemingway that displays his true character but I think that didn't really mean he was ready to reveal himself but only to impress his peers knowing that if he gave a writing gnawingly real and true he would prove that he could win against his competitors, yet again revealing only what he wants, and what he wants to be seen as is a good writer.
Delete- samantha bobbio
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEssential question #4: As different writers influence the narrator, how do his values and his identity morph and change? Is that pliability a sign of a weak character? What do you think of him along the way and why?
ReplyDelete“I began to feel their kindness as a form of aggression...my teeth bared.” (pg 69).
The narrator is influenced very easily. His identity changes throughout the book. After the narrator sees Ayn Rand speak and her form of writing, he starts to morph into a new character. While he’s with his grandfather and his wife, he starts thinking and noticing things he hasn’t before. His grandfather’s wife is very kind and cares about others, but the narrator learned from Rand that that’s not how you should be. Her philosophy is that you should do what makes you happy and not other people, so the narrator starts to take this idea into consideration and that’s what he starts to think about.
While he’s staying with his grandfather and his wife she tries to make him as comfortable as she can. After hearing Rand, he says “I started to feel her kindness as a form of aggression,” and “I couldn’t touch a book without getting grilled about the sufficiency of light and the comfort of the chair.” He uses specific words to show his aggression such as “getting grilled” with questions. The narrator goes on to mention all the questions she asks him to make sure he’s okay. He shows his anger when he repeats all the questions she has been asking him like, “Was I warm enough? Did I need a pillow for my back? How about one of the five thousand cokes they’d stored up in anticipation of my visit?” He was so angry with how she was treating him, he said he had to “go into the bathroom and scream silently, rocking from side to side like a gorilla, my head thrown back, my teeth bared.” We see it as using manners when a guest stays with you, to make them as comfortable as you can but the narrator was so heavily influenced by Ayn Rand, he’s thinking completely different than he had before. It makes him so angry that she cares so much about other people and this is how he thinks Ayn Rand would react.
The narrator obviously hasn’t found his own identity yet. That’s why he’s so easily influenced by any author he reads or hears speak. This could show his character as being weak because a part of our identity is how we understand and interpret writing. If he doesn’t see the writing for himself and only what the author wants you to feel, he’s not going to be able to create an identity for himself.
I agree with your last sentence ("If he doesn’t see the writing for himself and only what the author wants you to feel, he’s not going to be able to create an identity for himself."), and just wanted to elaborate. When he plagiarizes the story and wins the competition, that is another example of him infringing on other people's ideas and failing to create some of his own. Even after he is expelled from the school and wanders through his vacant life, he fails to settle down with one philosophy or one trail, and continues to flit from one place to another. This part of his life almost seems like Hemingway's earlier life, almost as though the narrator is trying to follow his path by going off to war.
Delete@meghan
DeleteI agree with you on the fact that the narrator is a very weak person which means he has low self esteem and can be easily influenced. I had actually chosen the same passage for my blog and I had interpreted the situation with the grandparents a little differently. Yes, the narrator was very mad at the way he was being treated by Ayn, but I believe he was more mad at himself for actually thinking Ayn Rand was good writer and that her ideas were always correct. The narrator could not understand after seeing the way she acted how he could have believed that she was this amazing writer. I now see that he was anger not only at himself but also at Ayn Rand. This low self confidence in himself brings him now throughout the book and causes his life to turn in a bad direction.
Meghan,
DeleteI agree with you that the author is easily influenced by authors and that this is evident in his actions. I like the example that you used about his grandparents because it truly signifies how altered his behavior is considering he is acting so rude and dismissive towards his own relatives. This same situation occurs when he is entering the frost competition. When choosing which piece to enter into the competition, the narrator writes one in a tradition style and chooses not to use the other one that is vulnerable and reveals his true character. I agree that his character is pliable and find that the drastic ways of his change in personality show that he has a weak character.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteClemens,
DeleteI agree with your statement that the Narrator does not know his true identity yet. This is why he is so easily shaped by others’ works. I see this as a sign of weakness for him since his open mind changes along with who he admires. Until he discovers his own identity, he will never stop changing and will not become an authentic person.
In “The Forked Tongue” (Chapter 6), the Narrator begins to discuss this doubleness he sees in himself. He now refers to himself as an actor performing “A stale, conventional role” (Wolff 109). The Narrator now seems to be disgusted with his pretending, but he still does not know how to express who he truly is.
Essential question #2:
ReplyDeleteWell my point is Mrs. Rand...he even seeks their blessing. (page 85-86)
In this passage, the Ayn Rand, a famous conservative writer, speaks to the students promoting her own, extreme version of meritocracy. Though the school believes in meritocracy to an extent, Rand believes that there should be no aid of anyone by another, unless it would benefit the helper. She promotes the extremes of the dog eat dog world, where one should even turn his back on his own brother. Though meritocracy can be a functioning system in society, Rand’s view of it would send the country into pure chaos.
Rand pushes the fact that all of our accomplishments are solely our own, and we must achieve them without any help from outside sources. She also argues that if we act with objectivism then we can never fail, even if our actions cause much distress to others. To the narrator of the book this seems ludicrous, and rightfully so. In America, successful business men have been put through school with the aid of welfare and financial aid programs. After they become successful, some feel obligated to give back to their fellow man, or attribute their success to these financial aid programs, showing that our system in America actually works. In Rand’s speech she condemns those who feel they must give back to their country what their country has given them. She calls those who give back weak and failures for essentially doing the morally right thing by helping out their fellow man. To many readers of this book as well as the narrator, Rand’s simple disregard for others causes moral strife because of its implausibility. Her ideas would never work universally in a civilized society because the rich would stay rich, and the poor would stay poor.
Rand speaks to the fact that she believes that we are responsible only for our own happiness and should not help others to become happy, even if they are experiencing a time of great trouble in their lives, or if they are in grave danger. Rand is asked about the heroism of a soldier who sacrifices himself to save a comrade, an action praised in America so much that it has it’s own medal. She responds by criticizing the soldier for not looking out for his own well-being, and being concerned about other before himself. Rand’s ideas reverse the common idea of a fight for the greater good, the general public. She slams an idea that America was founded upon, E pluribus unum, which translates to, out of many, one. Under Rand’s ideals, America would be a disjunct sea of individuals looking out for only themselves, we would be able to be attacked by any nation without a defense system, which many men would be drafted into.
Rand’s ideas could never co-exist with the greater good, however a belief in meritocracy as a whole can. The people who work the hardest should rise to be the most successful, however many of those people may need some help to get there. Some of the hardest workers may be born into underprivileged families who can’t afford to send them to a good college, or even pay for basic human necessities. Rand dismisses those ideas claiming that anyone can achieve anything if they work hard enough, a statement that is simply untrue. A true meritocracy provides necessary aid to those who are working hard to achieve the greatest good for their society and country. The systems of meritocracy and the greater good go hand in hand when one remembers that working hard, does not necessarily mean already rich, and that for America to become the greatest country in the world once again, we need to be helping merit scholars rise to the top.
@John, you are incorrect, respectfully. Ayn Rand is the opposite of conservative, she is a very against-the-crowd type of person, and she herself declared she was not conservative. I think she is the literal opposite of a conservative, and anti-conservative.
Delete@Stefani
DeletePerhaps I should rephrase that statement. Ayn Rand, a writer whose work many conservatives and Tea Partiers echo in their beliefs...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with you John, without a shadow of a doubt. Rand does have an extreme view on meritocracy but it is understandable that she would create this philosophy considering that she lived in a communist country where their happiness is stripped by their government. After reading your post, I could see why Randism would never ever work in society. Her views are so radical that she criticizes the soldiers that fought in wars to protect our freedom. Competition itself would cause society to become stagnant. In “Slice of Life”, the narrator reacts negatively to Rand’s philosophy and changes his original thoughts of Ayn Rand. Rand condemns the veterans as being weak not because they did what was morally right but because they did not pursue their objectives.
DeleteI do not agree with Ayn Rand policies but, I would beg to differ about the fact that successful business people give back to the system. There are exceptions of course but, income inequality has never been higher ever. As this inequality stand it will predominately remain that the rich will stay rich and the poor become poor. In 2007 the wealthiest 1% of American's owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth.The top twenty percent owned eighty-five percent of the country's wealth with the bottoms eighty percent owning fifteen percent of the country's wealth. If that is model of a economy where most top business owner's are not heavily motivated to give back.
DeleteDuncan,
DeleteI was not claiming that what is commonly known as trickle down economics works, only that if a successful person has been helped by welfare or another financial aid program, that they may feel obligated to give back to society. This obligation would not work under Rand's ideas. Some instances of people giving back would be the numerous scholarships in place and foundations built to help the needy like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
Essential question #5:
ReplyDelete“We had been taught not to confuse the writer with the words… even banal man who got things wrong and suffered from nervousness and fear… and who sometimes didn’t know how to behave. (pg. 96-7)”
A thought about all the writers in this book is that they all write somewhat of the opposite of what they are. There are so many impressions you can draw about the characters and visiting authors in this book through the work that they show. Ayn Rand's writing style showed that man can only achieve his own happiness and that he must put himself before everyone else. The "heroes" of her story, The Fountainhead, Roark and Dominique had no flaws and they only looked out for themselves, coincidently they didn't have any other outside family either. Ayn Rand believed that these characters in her story were the ideal people because they were technically flawless. The narrator is very enraged by the fact that Ayn Rand thinks that way of people and herself, an example of her narcissism is on page 84 when she is asked what is the single greatest work written by an American author, she answers with her own book, and then when asked if there is another, she says another one of her books. This shows that Ayn Rand is so selfish that she believes that she is better than everyone else and preaches that she is. This is not true, because in all physicality Rand is just like any other human being with flaws.
Another person who doesn’t write who they truly are, is the narrator himself. He’s too busy at looking at everyone else’s work and trying to be like them that he can never see that he is his own individual and that he should write about him. An example of his conformity is on page 70 when he explains how Ayn Rand’s work affects him. “The Fountainhead made me alert to the smallest surrenders of will..,” the author is always acclimating to the person he is currently inspired by, like Ayn Rand after he read the fountainhead, or when Robert Frost visited and how he called his poem “Red Snow.” That title has a double meaning to me. I think it could interpret how he idolizes and wants to be like Robert Frost, hence the Snow in the title. But the poem is about killing an elk in the winter time. I feel like it could also be the narrator killing his private self so he won’t have to suffer with dealing with it which is like the “red” part of the title, red coincides with blood. His past writings have been the opposite of his true self or just a mirage of who he wanted to be. In the passage on page 96 he is finally realizing why Hemingway is such a talented writer. It’s because he writes truly and even his characters in his stories and poetry were if not totally, maybe even a little bit of a reflection of himself. He uses his own experiences in his writing and the narrator is now enlightened by that prospect. The narrator forgot to see that Ernest Hemingway was a human being too and not a superficial one, that he got scared too and always had difficult situations to handle. This the narrator is now seeing and it will help his writing style a lot more.
I agree with your analysis of the narrator's poem "Red Snow." I never looked at the meaning of title that way before but I completely agree with it. He is "killing his private self" because when he chooses that poem over the one that actually shows who he is, it is him slowly killing off his private self. With what you said last, and I would like to elaborate that the narrator was so busy trying to replicate good writing he forgets to see what creates this good writing. Real stories and feelings that people have. As you said, the narrator is now seeing this and it will help him write about himself more.
DeletePg. 93-94 “That much was true...Ayn Rand’s grasp of human reality.”
ReplyDeleteWriting can not be classified as good. It can be grammatically correct, interesting, accurate, persuasive, or entertaining; but these do not have the same meaning as good. Many people misinterpret a piece of writing being well versed in all of these subjects to be good, however a piece of writing doesn’t have to be interesting to be good. It is also ridiculous to try and ask if a piece of writing is interesting because no two people exclusively have the same interests and disinterests. Even if you wrote a poem about dirt, a botanist might find it to be their favorite poem. There is a reason why the entire world never has and never will unanimously agree on whether or not the Hunger Games was a good book; everyone has differentiating opinions. In this passage the Narrator is reflecting on why Ayn Rand’s book impacted him so much, and how it did despite the fact that it was unrealistic.
Powerful and effective can be more easily described than good. An effective book is simply a book that carries out the author’s wishes. Ayn Rand temporarily carried out her wishes when she changed the Narrator's attitude. If an author want’s their readers to be less homophobic, and they write an inspiring book with a gay protagonist who connects with the reader, then it’s effective. In the Ted Talk we watched in class, Ted came off as persuasive because he used real life examples that connect with the reader and appeared powerful because of this. However because noone share the same exact opinions, effectiveness differs just as much as goodness. Powerful writing is always effective, however effective writing is not always powerful; there is a difference. Effectivity is the author’s message getting across. Powerful is the message strongly changing the reader’s life or thoughts and behavior. When the Narrator reads The Fountainhead, he begins changing his entire perspective on life, and just because he read a book about that particular mindset. A message doesn’t have to be morally right or long-lasting to be powerful. The narrator soon changed his ways back after realizing how ridiculous Ayn Rand’s values were, but that doesn't make her writing any less powerful.
“It had dawned on me that I didn’t really know anyone like Roark or Dominique.” Ayn Rand’s writing is inaccurate in several ways, mainly her perception of human behavior. Accuracy tends to sway the label of good vs bad the most. People find inaccurate pieces of information or portrayals annoying. Inaccurate interpretations can also be extremely vexing.
When a reader misinterprets a text it is typically due to personal error or the author being ineffective at exclaiming their message. At first the Narrator tries to shrug off Ayn Rand’s message as his misinterpretation, but he continues to realize that she is the source of the problem and he, in fact, correctly interpreted her message. “I blamed Ayn Rand for disregarding all this. And I no doubt blamed her even more because I had disregarded it myself-...” Here the Narrator is upset at how effective Ayn Rand’s writing is, and he is denying how powerful it is simply because it impacted him negatively. He doesn’t want to admit how much of an effect the book had on him so instead he blames Ayn Rand, even though he let it affect himself in the first place. Countless interpretations can be made from a piece of writing, and while only one of them is correct, any number of them can be accurate. The author’s interpretation is the only correct one, but many other interpretations have enough premises and evidence to be accurate.
In conclusion, writing can not be good or bad. Each individual reader has different backgrounds, opinions, ideas, interests and values that affect their perception of good and bad. A message is the key to power and effectivity, and misinterpretations can be accurate, but are never correct.
Stefani, I agree that writing cannot be classified as good or bad. Whether a writing is good or not is a subjective matter and is purely the opinion of the reader. One’s background and ideals may affect the way a they will interpret a piece of writing. Different interpretations also show the way that different people think.
DeleteStefani,
DeleteI have to mostly agree with what you said about how classifying writing as "good" or "bad" is subjunctive and therefore an inaccurate label. However, I'd like to add that some writings can definitely be described as "bad." A story with tons of huge gaping plot holes, poor use of literary devices, and ineffective introduction of a message that would get no higher than a D in a tenth grade English class could definitely be universally labeled as “bad,” since I’m sure no one would enjoy reading it, except maybe the author himself. However, there is another problem within this—what if the writer was three years old? Then the story would probably be considered a work of genius, for someone so young to be thinking on such a high level of literary intelligence. One must consider writing in respect to the author’s abilities, and also the time period. Any clueless person reading Shakespeare today would call his writing out on its horrible grammar and the extreme difficulty in actually understanding the text.
@Stefani
DeleteI have to disagree with you on your point that writing cannot be good or bad. I would wholeheartedly say that a piece of writing must be interesting to be good. However it does not have to be interesting to everyone. As long as it is interesting to a group of people then it is a good book for that group. In your example using the botanist and the poem about dirt, I do agree with you that only a specific group of people would find that poem interesting. Therefore it would be a great poem for people who are interested in botany.
On the other hand, it could be a poem about dirt which is not coherent, and like Jad said in the previous comment, some writing can be labeled as bad. If writing cannot be good or bad, then why have we, as a culture developed classic books that are universally considered good?
I believe that if a book is interesting to many, even if it is just in one field, it can be considered a good book. We as a culture may not agree on some books, such as The Hunger Games, but with books like To Kill a Mockingbird, there are very few people who do not agree on the fact that it is a good book.
Just because a unanimous decision cannot be reached, does not mean that a book cannot be good because of that. If that were the case, then nothing could be good in life because no one agrees on every single topic with anyone else in this world. We, as a people, cannot judge based on the pleasure of everyone, because everyone cannot be pleased.
While I agree that opinions about writing differ and that therefore it is hard to label writing, I think that you are confusing “good and bad writing” with “liked or disliked writing”. This poem about dirt could be a very well written poem and a good piece of work and a botanist might like the poem, whereas others might not find it as interesting. The Hunger Games might not be liked by everyone, but “liked” and “good” are not synonymous. A piece of literature can be classified as good writing, but perhaps not to everyone's taste. Of course that doesn’t mean that our bias towards a particular book won’t blind us from it’s flaws. I think that a reader should be able to be objective enough as to understand the difference between good and bad writing, and not let their interest in a book decide whether it is “good” or “bad”. Writing will always be a sort of subjective matter, as the author’s opinion will differ from Reader A’s opinion, which will differ from Reader B’s opinion, and so on and so forth.
DeleteI really appreciate Ellie’s comment, as it made me see a new point of view; that even though you may not “like” a book, it still is a “good” piece of literature. I believe that a good reader should be able to appreciate a piece of literature for its writing, not for what is discussed in the book or if the book is to their liking or not.
Delete
DeleteI’m not sure if I am agreeing or disagreeing with any of you six ^
I quite honestly do not understand the concept of judging writing as good or bad. Writing isn’t a scientific hypothesis to be judged based on accuracy, effectiveness, or accomplishment. Writing is more so a type of art. It appeals differently to everyone.
Take Jackson Pollock for example. His art consisted of splattered paint on a large canvas. There were many who said that it was not real art, and that real art comes from those who put a great effort into it. There were also many who absolutely adored his work, said it evoked great emotion from them. Is he a bad artist for not putting in the effort the first group wanted, or is he a good artist for producing the emotion from the second group?
On that thought, let’s transition back to writers. Shakespeare obviously had put great effort into his writing, working to make it rhyme, writing it in iambic pentameter, all while trying not to lose meaning, and his hard work definitely paid off, he has practically been made immortal through his work. What about Allen Ginsberg? There is no visible structure to his poem, Howl, for example, and it seems he just writes down what ever is flowing from mind. Yet look at how influential it has become. Is either one of them a bad writer for not doing something the other has, or a good one for doing something the other hasn’t? What did they intend? Do their intentions even matter when it comes to how the work is interpreted?
The impact of writing, or how powerful it is, is based simply on the reader. I may not care for Ginsberg’s poems at all due to my lack of interest in politics and contemporary culture, but my love for romantic, comedic, yet also tragic work may lead me to admire Shakespeare’s work. And that may be completely different for the next person.
Overall I’m trying to say that there is no definitive way to say that writing is good or bad, powerful or weak, effective or not, etc. After all, we’re human, and how precise can you really get with egos that are always changing? Since there is no definitive way of judging writing, we don’t benefit much from doing so. It would be much easier to simply have our own ideas of said work.
@ John H.
DeleteI agree with your statement that not everyone can be pleased, however i have some insight as to why literary classics are considered so. Many people dislike the classics, and some of them are bad, but they are considered great because of what they did to society. To Kill a Mockingbird directly calls out racism in the justice system, which is a remarkable thing. Most of us agree that the ending of Old School was kind of terrible, but why did we read it? It must be important if our teacher wants us to think into it. And I also agreed that incorrect grammar or plot holes can lead to an opinion of bad writing, however the simple question is: Are we defining writing as the technical form of script with conforming plots and rules? Or are we defining writing as the free flowing art that is literature? Back in the day people though paintings were bad just because they were "wrong". Will we look back on books we considered to be bad and reevaluate our opinions? Can books without understandable plots still have good and interesting characters?
Stefani,
DeleteIt boils down to what Ellie said. There is a fine line between good writing and enjoyable writing. What you said about people disliking the classics is simply untrue. People with degrees in literature almost always agree on which books are good and bad. We read Old School because it is part of what we are supposed to be learning this year in 10H. Maybe we did not enjoy the ending, but that doesn't mean it was not good writing. You focus on the individual's thought and not the thoughts of many, or a whole group as I stated in my last response. Also books without understandable plots cannot have interesting characters because without a plot there is no good character development.
Essential Question #2
ReplyDelete“‘If the wound is received through an action undertaken for the happiness of the man himself, it might be heroic...Here, she said, is a true blessing for you, in the name of the Individual, Capitalism, and the Spirit of John Galt.’ And with her cigarette holder she traced a figure in the air—a dollar sign” (Wolff 85-86).
Based on her strong beliefs in Individualism and Objectivism, Ayn Rand would answer this question by stating that each person is responsible for his own—and only his own— happiness. In this passage, Rand is visiting the boys at school and the topics of self-sacrifice and happiness come up. As they discuss heroism, Rand states that a soldier receiving a war wound for the sake of other people is weak. She states that if the wound was for the man’s own happiness, it might be heroic.
Rand believes that a person is solely responsible for their own accomplishments and failures. She tells the boys that those who are “good” in pursuing their happiness (such as her and her characters) will receive good things in life as a result, while those who try to look out for others will never achieve much. She believes a person cannot blame others for their failures and that they are not responsible for another person’s success. Since she believes that a soldier sacrificing his life for her is weak, irrational, and immoral; Rand would also believe that it is immoral for a successful person to share their success with those who have not earned it.
Rand employs juxtaposition as she describes those who are successful versus those who are not. She uses herself as the example of the honorable person: saying that she makes no mistakes and is perfect. Rand also adds that she had no help in achieving her high status as a writer. She tells the boys that although The Fountainhead was rejected twelve times, she did not accept defeat. When she writes, she also makes her characters idealistic, successful people who work towards their own happiness. In contrast, Rand associates Hitler with those who believe in self-sacrifice for the greater good. She says that these people think it is “Good to bully and rob and sacrifice others for the public interest” (Wolff 96). As she makes bold statements (and uses this historical evidence to her favor), Rand continues to support Objectivism and denounce self-sacrifice.
Because of her strong opposition to self-sacrifice and helping others achieve happiness, Rand’s version of meritocracy cannot exist with a belief in the greater good. In contrast, the boys at the Narrator's school demonstrate meritocracy, but they also work towards the greater good. For example, the narrator strives to become a good student and writer (he is on a scholarship) so he can improve his life. Nevertheless, all the boys participate in chores around the school and try to see each other as equals. Wolff most likely explores these two contrasting versions of meritocracy to show how different people interpret the same philosophy.
I agree completely, I also feel that what rand suggests is un-achievable. Though i think people are naturally selfish and most begin to think about themselves before any one naturally, I suppose there I agree with rand. But in life you are bound to grow close with people and learn to love them just as much as yourself or maybe even more and thats were her philosophy fails to make sense.
Delete- samantha bobbio
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNidhi,
DeleteI have to agree with most of what you said. While it is true that the narrator is heavily influenced by each visiting author's writings, he is actually disgusted with Ayn Rand when she visits and sees her and her writing in a completely new light, despite having fallen in love with The Fountainhead previously. Her philosophy of Objectivism, not to mention her rudeness and air of arrogance when she addresses the students, turn the narrator away from Rand, her writings, and her teachings. I think it is very interesting that even though the narrator believes The Fountainhead to be a good piece of literature, he suddenly hates it, just because of the author's attitude and beliefs. I agree with you that this is a sign of weakness, but at the same time, you can see it also shows that the narrator is open-minded, as he is open to all new views throughout different authors and literatures, and still manages to change his mind about Rand because he looked at her and her literature from a different perspective when she came to the school.
Nidhi,
DeleteI agree with you on most of what you said, like Jad. The narrator's opinions and ideas are constantly changing depending on which author is at the school and whose book he is currently reading. He is pliable because he is still young and so much is being thrown at him at once, so many ideas and points of views on the world. All of which is enhanced by what is going on in the world during this time such as Word War 1 and Civil rights and so many more historical events. This is not a sign of a weak character, but it is his path to finding his true identity, and being open-minded to new ideas as Jad said.
All in all the narrator needs to experience all of this so he can interpret it and form his own identity and his own ideas. Even in the future when he plagiarises the story, he is finding more out about himself and making mistakes and coherently forming his identity, like when he says, “From the very first sentence I was looking myself right in the face.” (125). This is showing the reader that he is starting to discover his true identity, and that sometimes you need someone else to take the first jump before you do to express something, and that is why you have to be open-minded and go through trial and error with ideas.
Jad,
DeleteAs you mentioned, the reason the narrator starts to hate Ayn Rand’s writing is because of her rudeness and the way she responds to the people around her, such as the look she gives him when he sneezes. Now that he’s finally met her and she isn’t just some unknown author from a book he likes, he starts to look at The Fountainhead from her voice. He starts to see the book as something written by a rude, mannerless person- which is why he hates it so much. I think that if this is really building his character and helping him understand his true self, then if he never met Ayn Rand and she was still an unknown person to him, then he would still agree with her beliefs and values. I think that the only reason he started to hate her and her book so much is because meeting her gave him a whole new perspective to look at, but if he never met her, then her ideas and her book would still be enjoyed and agreed with by him.
Kaitlyn,
DeleteIt is true that the narrator is exploring different bits of the world and is really trying to figure out who he is by reading about different authors, but I think that if he was really just examining the different authors and their writings and taking their ideas to create his own character, then they wouldn't be changing so rapidly and abruptly. Like with Ayn Rand, he is quite fond of her book and her ideas at first, but if he was truly examining her ideas and creating his identity based on that, why would he suddenly hate her so much? If he only liked her ideas, then why would the presence of her and her rudeness effect him so abruptly that he suddenly doesn't like her ideas or her writing anymore? If he was really attempting to create or build his identity, he would take some of her ideas which he likes, despite hating her, and use those to create/improve his identity. Not just completely change hate her book and her values. This, in my opinion, shows that the narrator is weak because rather than picking out certain ideas and using them to create his own identity, he is being swayed back and forth by the different people and the different ideas he encounters.
(My original post, edited to include paragraph spacing)
DeleteDifferent Authors- Different Moods
Essential question #4: As different writers influence the narrator, how do his values and his identity morph and change? Is that pliability a sign of a weak character? What do you think of him along the way and why?
“ I began to feel their kindness as a form of aggression… my teeth bared” ( Wolff 69)
Each author coming to the narrator’s school changes his ideas and the way he really thinks. Each time a new author arrives, the narrator starts reading books written by that author and starts to believe in the things that author believes in. In chapters 4-5 he has been reading books by Ayn Rand and the ideas reflected in her books change the way the narrator thinks.
Since Ayn Rand is an aggressive, selfish, woman with brutal thoughts, the narrator takes those ideas and applies them to real life. In this passage (Wolff 69), the narrator’s grandparents are taking great care of him but the narrator considers this a form of aggression.The narrator doesn’t like how they are selflessly taking care of him, as according to Ayn Rand, everyone should be selfish and do things only if it benefits them. Since his grandparents are being selfless, he becomes so frustrated, he starts getting angry and even slightly violent, as shown in the last line of this passage (Wolff 69). This shows the influence of Ayn Rand since a lot of her ideas are a little aggressive and show a slight form of violence
Ayn Rand’s writing has influenced the narrator in such a strong way, he follows her morals and values which are very harsh and considered “erroneous” by society. This can be considered a sign of a weak character because he truly doesn’t know who he truly is. As each author comes to their school, he follows that author and starts to become who that author is. This change can be seen when the narrator finally meets Ayn Rand and suddenly starts to disagree with her ideas and beliefs. It is so astonishing to see that someone who was so in love with The Fountainhead and read it a countless number of times has suddenly shown strong hatred toward the book. For example, the main characters of The Fountainhead start to become unimportant and atrocious to the narrator, it is almost as if he is disgusted with the narrator just after a short interaction he had with her. He even mentions how he couldn’t even read her books the same way because of the way she behaved with him.
Pg. 80-85 “I came in at the last minute...applause from her chorus.”
ReplyDeleteEssential Question #3:
It is my belief that one can consider certain writing to be “good” writing. While I admit that this is completely subject to opinion and personal preference, it is possible for one person to believe that something is good writing. I, for one, believe that The Count of Monte Cristo constitutes good writing, due to my taste in literature and my interest in Victorian-era writing, as well as the epiphanic message that I found at the end of the book. That being said, I am sure that many others don’t believe that this book deserves to be called good writing. What makes writing good is its ability to move the reader and to teach them. Most people’s favorite books are ones that make them cry or laugh, that left their mouth dry, their heart pounding. And for me, these books are the ones that I consider to have good writing—because it is these books that make me feel, empathize, and understand.
But what makes a piece of writing so powerful and interesting so as to be considered good writing? For me, it is not necessarily the caliber and skill of the writing in a technical sense, but the words’ ability to make me feel something. If something truly makes me feel, then I consider it something worth reading.
In Old School, this definition of “good writing” can clearly be seen in Ayn Rand’s visit to the school. While so many of the students have renounced her ideals, there is a group of Rand’s fans who arrive at her talk and her question and answer session with the students. The students and the fans show how “good writing” can be so subjective, for the student’s believe the writing to be terrible while her fans believe it to be the greatest in existence (much as Rand herself does).
These differences of opinion come about because of the differences in unique personalities and ideals. Because every person is different from the next, they will all see different meanings in each and every piece of writing. Just because one person interprets something differently is not reason to scoff—on the contrary, it is a great thing, because it means that people are unique creatures.
Rachael,
DeleteI completely agree with your opinions on how good writing can really vary from person to person and it really depends on who you are and what type of writing you like to call good. To add perspective from a writer’s point of view, I think that if a writer can in some way connect to what they are writing and show that connection to the reader, it will be a good piece of writing. For example, the narrator plagiarized from the woman who wrote Summer Dance because he felt a connection with the main character of that book. If someone truly knew him and his life story, they would probably enjoy that book and consider it good writing since they can see that connection between the writer and the writing.
I agree with everything you said about what makes a piece of writing good; that it isn't necessarily the author himself that makes something good but the reader who interprets it, and if they are able to feel something while reading. I also agree with your take on Rand’s writing, that her fans were subjective and found it to be amazing but many of the students found it to be horrible. I strongly agree with the last thing you said about how others ideals aren’t meant to be laughed at, and on page 83, when Rand is explaining her ideals, “Unreal. And why do they say that...in each of you.” I think it is shown how strongly people feel about their ideals, and even if we believe that their ideas are absolutely ridiculous, they aren’t something to ridicule.
DeleteRacheal,
DeleteThe ideas that you presented really spoke to me. I have found myself many time talking to my friends and finding differences in our tastes in things. What makes a good writer in my opinion is that he is able to bring himself down to the readers level and tell the story in such a way that he can make it personal to specifically you the reader. What's interesting is how many things in a persons life like some memories, their dreams, or goals affect their decisions and interpretations of things. Many times one person might like a book because of emotional attachment, because it is in their realm of thinking they grew up in, or it is written aimed of people with the same dreams and goals. It are things like this that draw readers in and affect their decision with its is good or bad. It is interesting to think about what effects that decision because that is what affects views the views of that person. This is why so many time people have different opinions on things.
Nidhi,
DeleteI really like how you elaborated with how the narrator felt that Summer Dance was a good piece of writing. It was quite obvious that everybody understood why he had plagiarized it, because they all saw the value in the piece as well.
Sanya,
What you said about how others' ideas aren't something to ridicule really resounded with me. I think that this connects to faith (whether religious or otherwise) and how people are able to believe in things that others feel to be entirely untrue. Even if what they believe contradicts with other people's ideas, it is important to accept their ideas and to respect them. To me, this relates to Old School because all of the boys try to show their beliefs in their writing, but they are so unable to do so because they are afraid that their ideas will not be met with the acceptance and respect that they deserve.
Wow i was really blown away with your writing, most people cant seem to put this idea to words. You explained this perfectly and I feel a sense of understanding now that I have never felt before.
Delete- Samantha Bobbio
EQ #7
ReplyDeletePg 109
“By now I’d been absorbed so far into my performance that nothing else came naturally… When I caught myself in the act now I felt embarrassed...I wanted out. That was partly why I wanted to go to Columbia... No other boy in my class would be going there.”
This passage from the book displays the motif of acting/theater & shows how hard the narrator has tried to conceal his true identity & he may want something more now. This is explained within the first sentence where he is saying that he sees himself as the person he’s made everyone else see him as. His “performance” is his act of hiding who he really is-a Jewish boy who doesn’t have a mom, a lot of money & has a troubled father. In the middle of the first paragraph the narrator says, “In the first couple of years there’d been some spirit of play in creating the part, refining it, watching it pass.” So he’s saying that it was fun for him, he enjoyed creating another persona that he lived by at the school. He was still “creating” & “refining” the character that he was making himself to be. He was adding his last finishing touches on how he was to be seen as. But when that process was over, he was “watching it pass” as in he watched as everyone believed that he was just a smart, well read kid that was like the rest of the boys at the school in every other way. Because that’s all he wanted them to see him as.
But it tired him, the fun part was over. He says, “There’s more to me than people knew!” The narrator is admitting that he doesn’t share everything with his peers, that he’s “a stranger to those I called my friends”. & Now he knows that he’s in too deep, he’s created this role that he can’t play anymore. When he says, “I wanted out” it is showing that he has tried so hard the years he’s been at this school to not be himself, that all he wants to do now is be himself. He doesn’t want to play by this “stale” role anymore-it’s boring to him now. Or does he just want to be someone else again? He said he wanted to go to Columbia University because he “wanted out”-out of that role he was performing. He then goes on to explain what the typical person who attended Columbia would be like. He makes sure to state “No other boy in my class would be going there.” So he knows that no one that knows his fake identity will see him in college. This probably means he is going to try on yet another character role considering that’s part of the reason he wanted to go to Columbia is because of the type of people there. & The type of person that goes to Columbia he says goes to jazz clubs, had a lover, you read newspapers on the subway, you ate weird food, etc. He’s basically describing a type of our modern day hipster, a person who tries really hard to not be like everyone else. I found this part particularly interesting considering he spent years of his life trying to be like everyone else, so the fact that he would want to stand out is kind of astonishing since it’s such a huge switch from his persona at that time in the book.
With all of that being said, I think that the identity of the characters in the books are just an internalization of the roles they play. They hide things from each other & cover those hidden aspects of their true identities with lies. For example, both the narrator & his roommate are Jewish but they both still go to church & blend with the other Christians. This is significant because it shows how the boys are living in the lies they have created, rather than just not revealing certain parts of themselves. This shows how their true identity is becoming the role that they play. I don’t think the narrator is something more than the role he plays-he still knows his roots, where he came from, but he was trying to get rid of that part of him. For example, when he wrote the poem about the fireman, he was relating it to his own childhood and relationship with his father. But when he chose not to publish that poem he was getting rid of that part of his past.
Roma, I agree with you when you say that the narrator is tired of the role he is playing and wants to get rid of it. And I had never thought about the fact that when he went to Columbia he would adopt a new role. When I read that passage I actually thought he might become honest about his roots, his true identity and not create a new one for himself. If I think along your line of thought, that makes me dislike the narrator more than before because instead of trying to become honest, he would become a bigger liar. I still think that he would not have created a new identity because he mentions several times that he was tired of acting and pretending, for example in the quote "When I caught myself in the act I felt embarrassed." He feels embarrassed about his lie and wants to end it. Still, I find that it's a very interesting take on that specific line, and can agree with you about it.
DeleteZoe, thank you for pointing that out. I agree that it could be seen that way and I believe that you are right. I thought that he would go to Columbia with a different identity because he seemed to enjoy creating these new roles for himself. I completely overlooked the line in this passage on page 109 where he said “All that was gone.” I thought that line could’ve meant that only the fun part was over but I now see that it could also mean that the whole acting thing wasn’t fun for him anymore. That the rush of lying was gone and that he wouldn’t get it back, even with a new identity. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, it’s always good to look at the passage through someone else’s eyes and hear their opinions on it as well.
Delete“Her heroes were hearty, happily formed…….They wouldn’t have shown up at all”. pg. 92
ReplyDeleteQ#1
This specific passage has a very important meaning to the plot of Old School. The narrator makes his thoughts of hatred clear about the writing style of Ayn Rand. He says that Ayn creates these fictional characters in her book so that they are perfect in every way and that they have this amazing life when really that is not true. At one point, he says “The heroic life apparently left no time for children, or domestic cares, or the extension of ordinary sympathy”, which shows that he is mad at himself that he had not given his appreciation for his grandparents when they came to see him when he was sick.
My interpretation of this passage is one with disgust for the writer Ayn Rand. She makes the narrator see a completely different life that is a lie as to what life really is. This relates to question #1 because when you are telling a story, you can create these fake characters and it can change your reader’s way of thinking about their lifestyle now. This is what had exactly happened to the narrator. He at first is in love with her writing and ways of thinking, but after actually meeting her and seeing the true Ayn, he changes his thinking completely. He had expected so much from her, he believed she would be just like the main girl character in her book. She was the complete opposite in both physical appearance and he did not like her attitude of thinking she is superior to everyone around her.
This quote really shows the way authors can influence our behavior or attitudes about things, “For several weeks I’d measured other people against them, other people had always come up short. Now I couldn't read the novel without trying to imagine the two of them changing my sour sheets, walking me to the can”. He starts to feel pity for his grandparents because he had treated them terribly when they were caring for him. Before meeting Ayn, he drifted off from her and could not even handle reading her books again. His love for her shows how he was influenced by her and steered more towards her thinking of how things should be in America. Ayn catches the eye of certain readers who are weak and cling on to the awful ideas she creates so that she can have followers of her ideas she creates. That is why the character had really liked her, he has no self-confidence and can be influenced very easily.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI respectfully disagree with you Natalie. I agree with your feelings on Rand. Though I believe that happy heroes could be possible in life. As because, after learning about Rand personal story, and her experience in Russia, during a time when Russia was violent. I saw that happy heroes were possible, if people stood up for themselves, and didn't worry about other. I don't believe in the idea of happy heroes, but I find it possible for people to be one. We could also interpret this to be a way for Rand to find sorrow for her personal, tough background. Instead of a way to to change others feelings about themselves, and change their life values and beliefs.
DeleteI agree with your interpretation of this passage, that the narrator has disgust towards Rand. I also agree that the narrator was more in touch with Rand's characters in her book, rather than Rand herself. Once he met Rand, he all of a sudden didn't like her writing because he didn't like her. Why do you think this is? If he did like her books and characters in them, why wouldn't he give it another shot? It may be because like you said, he's just so disgusted with her he can't even look at one of her books again.
DeleteNatalie, I agree with you that Rand had a heavy influence on the narrator but I must disagree with you on the part where you were talking about the amazing/perfect life. I believe there is no one perfect life. Everyone has a different idea of how they want their future to be like. Some people’s perfect life includes having a family, some don’t. Some may want to be daunting and powerful, some may want something completely different. So maybe in Rand’s mind, her characters did have the perfect life-the life she might’ve wanted perhaps? And when the narrator met her in person I think what he realized was that they were two completely different people and it hit him that he didn’t want the same things she did. I believe this is one of the main parts in the book where the narrator creates his own path.
Delete@Meghan
DeleteHonestly, I think the narrator was influenced by her writing so much because she had these large ideas that maybe could of intimate him. He admired her ideas and how she let out her true self, not caring if people judged her unlike the narrator. Then after meeting her, he realized he had been wrong. He had not thought clearly about if she was different from her characters in her book. He won't give her a second chance because, like you mentioned, he is disgusted with her and I think he feels a bit betrayed that a writer he had admired treated him.
@Roma
DeleteI might not have been clear, but I agree with you and I met to say that Ayn creates this very fictional life that is perfect for her characters in her book. That is why the narrator is shocked when he meets her for the first time. Also, I see now that it is a big step for the narrator to make in the book. He does make his own path which is to stop reading this book. This shows that he can be a strong person, but then when he copies the writing of another author, it brings his self down again and shows his weakness.
@Natalie
DeleteI agree completely with your last sentence that he feels "betrayed that a writer he had admired treated him like that." Anyone who is treated with that much disrespect and disgust would probably want to give it back to them. Like you said, he also had this image of a life that wasn't true and he was ultimately let down. The way Ayn Rand treated him in person probably made him not want to even think about her or her books anymore.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWriting Can Reveal Your True Identity
ReplyDeleteQuestion #3
“Everything’ okay. That was the last line in the story, this story where nothing was okay….This was not how I would ever want to be seen, though in my own cigarette-craving I had done that very thing, and more than once.” (Old School Pg 125-126)
You know writing is good when you can relate to it. It is effective, interesting, and powerful when you can see your own story being told through the author’s words. This particular passage exemplifies that when the narrator is startled by this story because of the truth that he finds in it. He says “From the very first sentence I was looking myself right in the face.” A good piece of writing is something that makes you feel a connection, that feeling of vulnerability that writing brings forth, because it make you feel what you don’t want to feel. “The whole thing came straight from the truthful diary I had never kept… the shameless manipulation of a needy, loving parent and the desperation to flee not only the need but the love itself.” The deeper meaning that the narrator recognizes is due to his personal experiences and regrets. “Feeling all the while as if my inmost vault had been smashed open and looted and every hidden thing spread across these pages.” The language in this quote signifies just how powerful writing can be. This particular piece left the narrator vulnerable, out in the open, like the whole world could see the secrets that he feared most. The words “smashed” and “looted” portray the image of writing stealing a part of you, stealing the false identity that the narrator has worked so very hard the create.
He mentioned the same type of living, and emotional situation earlier in the book when he wrote the poem about the firefighter. He stated that “I could see myself there, and I didn’t want to. Even more, I didn’t want anyone else to.” (pg 36) This is another example of a piece of writing that made him feel and think about something he tries to avoid at all costs. The narrator, along with the rest of the human race, is struck by that sense of vulnerability and fear that if they understand who they really are based on how the writing makes them feel, that it will become real and they can no longer run from it. In the lines “ the almost physical attraction to privilege, the resolve to be near it at any cost: sycophancy, lies, self-suppression, the masking of ambitions and desires…” the narrator recognizes his desire to be someone that he he is not, along with how exhausting it is to have to constantly act, think, and feel like the person you are trying to portray to the world.
The way a person intends the meaning of their writing to be, or how they interpret someone else’s writing explains that person’s character, and who they are. When the narrator in Old School interprets the piece of writing in this passage, the reader learns more about what the narrator is trying to hide, and just how much of an inner struggle with his identity he is going through. The discrepancies between what the author intends and how a reader interprets the text are because of the different emotions or personal experiences that the writing evokes for each person. The author who wrote the piece of writing in this passage that the narrator has a strong emotional connection with, may not have intended to convey what the narrator got out of it. However, that does not lessen the narrators connection with the piece in any way. The writing causes him to think “ How do I begin to write truly?” He sees his own reality in a another person’s words, but his interpretation is just as significant as what the author intended.
Delete@Devin
I completely agree with all of your logic in your response. I see how you can relate the narrator thoughts to his actions. The example of the fire poem you had mentioned shows how it was so personal for him, therefore he did not put that poem in the competition. It also shows how weak he is of a character. Going back to your first paragraph, you made me see and think more of this passage. I got thinking of how the narrator is convincing the readers that his writing is good writing because he lets himself out of his cage. When you say great writer let their story out, I feel as if the narrator can agree to this with his true self, but his fake identity will not let his true identity be shown. He is afraid of being judged and this later on affects his life. If he can not show his real story, then he is not a great writer.
Natalie,
DeleteYou make a very good point, I also think that if the narrator were to find him true self then the writing he produced would be true and good, it would holding meaning and value. You are also correct in saying that it is his fake self that is holding him back. His fear of being an outcast coupled with his lack of true identity is what prevents him from creating writing that is worth being written.
Essential Question # 1
ReplyDeletePassage- pages 81- 82, Ayn Rand speech, up until the end of the second paragraph on page 82
THE IDENTITY AND OUTLOOK OF AYN RAND
In this passage Ayn Rand is telling her audience of boys of her experience in Russia, as a student, and how she survived during this time period of revolt and protest. By doing so, Rand crafts an identity which eventually causes her to be identified as a brave, brash, ignorant,and mean women, who is only concerned with herself.
“Mr. Lenin shot so many of us we had to rent the coffins in which we carried our teachers and friends to their graves.” Here Rand is able to explain the harshness of the huge amount of casualties due to the protest and revolt in Russia during this time, by telling the audience that the suppliers of the coffins could not allow people to buy the coffins, and could only allow people to rent them. As people were dying in bulk amounts day by day, and the demand for coffins were huge.(High demand and low supply.) Which allows her here to explain how she survived by using her theories, and not because she “gave in to fear”. Not because she “kissed the rings” of their “new Russian popes”. But because she “did not accept defeat”
When Rand expresses to the audience “ I did not accept defeat. That is why I am here” She solely identifies herself with being the the only one(in the region/area/Russia) who did not crumble due to the fear of the powerful Russian leaders of the time and successfully resisted their authority, by using the word “I” Which then eventually allowed her to survive(and not die), and become a successful author.
Now by telling her audience(the group of boys) of how she did not succumb to the fears of the protest. She crafts an identity which causes her to be perceived as a brash, and brave women. As by telling her audience that she was not afraid of people during the protest who could kill her or ruin her life, she is causing herself to be seen off as a women with no fear, and a women who wanted to be successful in life. Which is supported by her success as an author(which the boys/audience are aware of), and also as we previously discussed, Rand solely identifying herself as being the only one in the time of the protest to fight for herself and her future.
Rand story to the audience of her struggles during the protests in Russia, shows herself as brash, brave, and most importantly self-confident. As she was not afraid to fight fear and death, for her future and success. Which she strongly supports later on during her speech when she criticizes the writing of authors such as Ernest Hemingway, who her audience widely admires. As she is not afraid in showing her opposing opinions in relation to her audiences opinions. Causing her later on to also be perceived as ignorant and adamant, by her audience due to the clash of each other different ideas.
We saw the same reaction in our class, when we watched the interview on Rand, and learned about her belief in her idea of objectivism. Which basically states that to be happy, a person should only care about himself/herself.. Which took large criticism from our class, as we have been raised to care about others and be helpful towards others. Which caused our class to leave the classroom with the idea that Rand was mean, and not nice person. Causing us to somewhat identify her as a “witch”.
The similarity between our class and Rand audience in the book was that, we both only remembered our bad views of Rand, as they personally related with our beliefs and values. But we did not consider her personal background, and her personal story, and what caused her to beliefs to be what they are. Even though in the book and the video Rand gave us this information.
This part of the the book I found to be insightful on how Ayn Rand became the person who she became. She experienced great trauma in her life no wonder she became self involved is he says it herself it was a survival instinct. The problem is she used this survival instinct in the midst of a revolution in a collapsing nation so when she bring this ideology over to america no wonder that her policies seem backwards or unsustainable they were not originally intended for a world market place or any major philosophy in a structured system. I also, agree with you that in her interpretation of herself, she does crafts a story and her as the hero. This story telling leads to others identifying with her. Think about it intentional or not, what is better for a writer or philosopher than to have people who follow you because they see themselves in you?
DeleteMine could not finish on one entry so here is the rest:
ReplyDeleteSo yes, storytelling about one's personal background does cause people to identify the author. Though storytelling only provides a base for identification. Its the actions which authors take(regardless if the actions support their story or not) and values which are connected to these actions, which provide the roots of identifying someone. In our case, Rand personal background caused us to see her as brave, but her actions and beliefs made us see her as ignorant and mean. Which in our case is supported somewhat by her background story. As it is very possible, as we have seen in history and today to be both mean, ignorant, and brave at the same time.
@Ankur
DeleteI disagree with your statement that Rand is brave. In the time period the book is set in, Rand is a coward. She condemns the normally considered brave act of sacrificing oneself for a fellow man. She does not believe that one has a duty to fulfill to please others. When challenged, many times she avoids the questions by praising herself and continuing to build herself up. This is a clear act of cowardice, as a brave person can see their flaws and overcome them, and would answer the question straightly, not in a roundabout fashion. When one thinks of acts of bravery, many acts of selflessness come to mind as well. As clearly shown by the book, Rand has no belief in selflessness and only looks out for herself, typical behavior of many off history's cowards.
@John H.
DeleteHello, again. I respectfully disagree with your statement.
I think Rand is brave to have an unpopular opinion. She had radical views and told people about them. She was not a coward, although some of her opinions were flawed, she didn't believe so. Being a coward is going against what you believe in, and being shameful. In a comment you said before about one of my posts you said "We, as a people, cannot judge based on the pleasure of everyone, because everyone cannot be pleased." (direct quote)
who is to say opinions are an exception? We cannot judge Ayn Rand's opinions because as a people, we all disagree, or in your terms, cannot be pleased by her opinions. Her opinions do not violate laws or target the oppressed. She is saying that the oppressed should be allowed to fight for themselves without punishment, and they should be allowed to fight back for themselves and take what they want and be happy. If people decide to let others walk all over them then they are giving in to the oppression. In today's world if people revolt they are killed, Ayn Rand believes they should be allowed to revolt, and nobody should be allowed to make anyone do anything they don't want to.
@John Hess
DeleteI still respectfully disagree with you. I feel like(correct me if I am mistaken) that you have fallen into the trap of believing that being brave means being a kind and caring person too. No, to be brave means to have the ability to stand up to any danger. Which Rand demonstrated during the Russian protest, as she stood up to people/leaders who could have killed here with ease, which decreased her chance of survival. As if she did not stand up for herself, she had a greater chance of survival, as nobody was specifically after her. Also Rand demonstrates bravery when she openly criticizes author who her readers also enjoy. Which is brave, as by doing so, readers might not read her books anymore, do to opposing opinions. Which is a danger, as Rand needs people to read her book to make money and survive. Still, I can see where you coming from. Together I think we will be able to see where personal morals and ethics come into place while analyzing these compelling questions about identity!
Ankur,
DeleteAyn Rand did not stand up to anyone. She simply avoided death during the Communist Revolutions. She simply is not the brave person you think she is.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhat it means to discover one’s voice
ReplyDelete“From the very first sentence I was looking myself straight in the face... Anyone who read this story would know who I was” (Wolff 125). Q#2
To discover one’s voice is to discover the potential of oneself, but it also means to look yourself straight in the face and see who you actually are. People can find their voice in many ways, and the way the narrator of Old School finds his voice is by reading another person’s narrative, and I think he is not wrong to do so. The narrator even says in the passage, “From the very first sentence I was looking myself right in the face.” (125). and once someone finds their voice, it is hard to steer away from it. Someone’s true voice speaks not only of the great accomplished parts of oneself, but also the bad or boring details of oneself, and that is what makes a voice true and what allows other people to connect to it.
A lot of times peoples voices are original, but we are often influenced by other people and texts which really shape and originate our voices to reflect upon oneself. Others people’s writing also ensures us that we can really let our true identity out. When the narrator reads “Summer Dance” he really see’s the side of himself that he does not let anybody else to see,“I hope nobody saw me pick up the cigarette butt off the sidewalk...It made me cringe. This was not how I would ever want to be seen, though in my own cigarette-craving I had done that very thing, and more than once” (126). When the narrator reads this he is insured that it is okay to do things that are shameful, and he knows that other people do it too and that he is not the only one. This passage perfectly describes him, and when he retyped it, I think he felt as though he was writing it for the first time. He was so used to doing that, like retyping Ernest Hemingway’s books. He felt like it was his own.
The narrator has never really written about the bad things about himself, and he also has never really talked about it either. Because he read this book that perfectly described him and his life, he found his true voice and felt like it was truly his writing and story after he had changed the names of the characters and places to his own. The story was his own, at least in his mind it was, and the reader can tell when he says, “ I didn’t have a lot of adjusting to do. These thoughts were my thoughts, this life my own .” (127). Also after these passage we can totally tell that the narrator was influenced by the story and his own thoughts into thinking he wrote the story. We can see this process by the amount of repetition in the pages leading up to him plagiarising. First he kept retyping people’s books, then he constantly told himself, “These thoughts were my thoughts, this life my own.” I think all the repetition made him confused, and go a little crazy.
During reading this I also thought about figurative language, and there was a force telling the narrator not to plagiarise but he blatantly ignored it, “The typewriter kept inching back and as it retreated...broke my trance”(127). This is symbolism because it represents someone telling him to stop, like a sign that he is going to get caught for what he is doing, but he doesn’t even notice because he is in a trance. This is important because it warns the reader that something bad is going to happen.
continued:
DeleteI also think the narrator has always been struggling to find his voice, like how he never said he was Jewish , and when he read the story, something clicked in his mind because the writing so perfectly described him, like in this passage, “But in writing these words I felt at least an intuition of gracious release” (127). This arises the question, what makes a voice true? That is a very complicated question. There is the definition of true as in pure and true as in fact. True as in fact, is facts, and what the narrator says are facts. True as in pure is, in my opinion, impossible because everybody is influenced by something or someone and that alters their own thoughts and self. This moves us on to the question how do we distinguish between the people/texts/social roles that influence us and those aspects of ourselves and our voices that are truly unique and individual. The answer to that question is we cannot. We realize this when the narrator gets terribly confused and thinks the story “Summer Dance” is his own. The narrator may have thought these thoughts at one time, but it was not he himself that actually put it into words and writing, and that is what makes it unique to someone else, and plagiarism when the narrator writes it.
There is a slippery slope between influence, plagiarism and imitation and it all goes into making a persons voice true. Influence is just having an effect on a person, development, or behavior of someone. Plagiarism is directly and intentionally taking someone’s ideas or work and passing them off as your own. Imitation is just a thing intended to simulate or copy something else, like the narrator copying the famous books. The slippery slope can either get you into a lot of trouble or make you a better writer and true to yourself. Being influenced helps you write not only about the great accomplished parts of oneself, but about the bad or boring details.
Kaitlin,
DeleteI agree with your point that though "Summer Dance" may not be his own writing, he still finds his own voice in the words. The meaning that he interprets shows his true character because this person, in the way he perceived the writing, has allowed him to say all of the things he could never admit. I found your connection about the typewriter jamming to be a symbol of warming very interesting. When I first read that part in the book I simply saw it as being jammed because he was typing so rushed with the excitement that he had finally found himself and was letting it in. Your conclusion makes a lot of sense and I can see how that is an important use of a literary device.
This is answering question 6 not 2, my bad
DeleteEssential Question #2
ReplyDelete“Let me tell you what your value does not derive from… and the guilt-peddling Jesus industry!” page 85
In this passage, Ayn Rand clearly articulates her stance on meritocracy and benefiting the greater good through sacrifice. She believes that people should only prioritize themselves, and themselves only, and that self-sacrifice is to become a slave to another. In order to fully gain the true experience of life, one must fight for themself and their own gains. Ayn Rand makes it clear that she is very strongly opposed to self-sacrifice and believes it is detrimental to a person’s identity to contribute to the greater good.
What is really interesting about this passage is how Rand’s views contradict (rather extremely and vehemently) the commonly shared values of American society. Common American values and beliefs that are generally shared throughout the country, such as the majority vote and the provision of welfare are rejected by Rand’s philosophy because they focus on the greater good rather than the individual. Rand believes in the opposite of the greater good, the pursuit of the individual’s happiness. She does not believe that meritocracy can coexist with the greater good; to believe in the greater good is to believe in helping others often through self sacrifice.
To a certain degree, Rand’s views seem logical. We have an unalienable right to the pursuit happiness as stated in the Constitution, and it is fully within our rights (not only as American citizens) to pursue this. However, Rand adds onto this belief by stating that seeking power that derives from others is detrimental to one’s pursuit of happiness. Which also seems rather logical. If your happiness and identity is derived from other’s approval and definition of yourself, you are not truly creating your identity and a life for yourself, but merely a shadow, made up of other’s views and definitions of yourself.
However to believe that this is all that Rand is saying, that this is the extent of Rand’s beliefs, is incorrect. Her views stray outside these views and transcend into something much more unconventional and radical. Rand believes that one should not only put themselves first in all scenarios, but as she says within the passage, “You must revere yourself.” Note the use of revere, a word choice that is normally associated with objects/people that we typically “worship” or hold in great esteem. Contrasted with word choices such as “put yourself first”, it sounds much more forceful and less mild, more vehement, and less approachable. Another example of Rand’s diction is the use of slave in the quote “When your approval comes from others, on approval, you are their slave.” Again, her word choice indicates a much more forceful and compelling view. Other quotes that illustrate this stance compare those who encourage self sacrifice to common murderers and to live a life of prioritizing yourself is to be at war with the rest of the world.
Continued:
DeleteRand’s views also contradict the stances that the narrator’s school has on meritocracy and the greater good. The school believes in meritocracy, but also that meritocracy coexists with a belief in the greater good. The school’s belief in meritocracy is showed in the way they select students to earn an audience with a guest author, and their belief in students earning scholarships to their school. The school also shows their belief in the greater good by emphasizing egalitarianism and equal opportunity for everyone. It is also interesting how Rand specifically targets Christianity in this passage, calling it the “guilt-peddling Jesus industry”. This can be explained as the principles of Christianity contrasting with Rand’s philosophy, and can be seen in some points as complete opposites (thinking of others versus thinking only of yourself).
In conclusion, this passage gives us insight into Rand’s character (her forceful and vehement way of expressing her opinions) and her views on meritocracy and the greater good. We can see her philosophy as an extension of some views that could typically be held in society, a sort of further development which changes these views into something much more radical and hard for some to accept. Overall, her philosophy might be hard to apply to some people as it forces meritocracy to conflict with the greater good, and prioritizes meritocracy and the individual above everything else.
Ellie,
DeleteI agree with all aspects of your interpretation and your ideas that came about after reading this passage. I agree that you think that, up to a certain extent, that Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism is logical. I believe that it is also logical to because if you think about finding happiness in your life, you should base your happiness off of the values you cherish and hold dear to yourself. Once you start being heavily influenced by the ideals of others for obtaining happiness, you start to lose you own identity and your true self. To add some more support to your idea, Ayn Rand talks about soldiers giving up their lives to save others and she states the following “If the sacrificed themselves for mine, they died weakly and, I should add, irrationally, even immorally.”(Wolff 86). Ayn is stating that soldiers that give up their lives so that others can obtain happiness is irrational and immoral. She believes that your happiness should be purely based off of your own works and doings rather than the works and doings of others. This is relating back to your idea that obtaining happiness is based off of your own morals seem logical which therefore makes Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism seem more understandable to others who completely oppose and disregard it. I think that the narrator will continue to go against Ayn’s philosophy because it contradicts his own virtues but, while attending a school that believes in meritocracy, the narrator will learn to embrace Ayn’s philosophy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMartino An
ReplyDeleteEssential Question #2
Passage- Page 82-83
“She contemplated the fire…...against the John Galt in each of you.” (Woff)
Meritocracy is the belief of that the social hierarchy is based off of ability instead of birth. Our accomplishments and failures cannot be totally earned by ourselves. During a team sport such as soccer or crew, you work together to either win or lose based on your team’s synergy. You could be the best soccer player or rower on the team, however if your team chemistry is poor, your team will perform poorly. In the book, the narrator was on a scholarship to the school. His accomplishment to attend the prestigious school was not only achieved by himself but with the help of others who saw him as a student with potential for great success.
Charities and welfare programs are examples of our responsibility in a modern society to provide happiness to others. Almost every modern religion dictates to us to help each other out despite our differences. We are morally obligated to help each other out, but radicals like Ayn Rand believes that helping others block us from our happiness. Rand personifies self sacrifice in the form of slavery. During her meeting for “true readers”, Rand tells the boys that those you try to help others is worse than murder and those who help others will become bonded hostages. Helping others only makes you into their slave and they will use you to pursue their happiness. Rand accentuates objectivism over self sacrifice by telling the students that they were destined for greatness instead of sacrificial victims. By not helping others, Ayn Rand is advocating a huge gap between the rich and the poor.
Sharing our success is parallel to the trickle down economic theory. Wealthy and successful people are obligated to invest/share some of their wealth to help the those who failed to become successful. This ideology, used in the Reagan administration, at first seemed like a great idea but would turn into a mess. Despite the negative outcomes, many celebrities and even ourselves share our success for our own reputations. Those “certificate of virtues” handed to us from the church and the state in exchange for sharing our success is worthless in the eyes of Ayn Rand. She does not condone compassionate acts because our happiness should not be derived from the perceptions of other people but from ourselves.
Randism cannot coexists with greater good however meritocracy has coexisted with common good for centuries and has produced benign results. Randism would only promote a cutthroat environment where people are literally stepping on top of each other to pursue their happiness thus Rand’s utopian society could never pursue a common goal. Meritocracy coexisting with common good can be observed in the Ming dynasty where students, both poor and rich took Imperial examinations to become chinese officials. By allowing both the poor and the rich to take the civil exam that would determine their position, the Ming dynasty has produced affluent officials that would govern China for many centuries. Rand believes that those who discover what they’re capable of will become successful, however this is partially true. Similar to the earlier question above, our accomplishments cannot be completely earned by ourselves.
Martino,
DeleteI agree with your statement that meritocracy can not coexist with randism. The school is built around meritocracy values, and when competition and determination to triumph over others begins to infiltrate those values, the entire system of meritocracy begins to crumble. The narrator seems the influence that randism has on his school when it comes to writing competitions and the authenticity of friendships amongst the boys. Throughout the novel he comments that his school’s facade portrays meritocracy but that in fact the original ideals are now in shambles. Boys fight over writing, and judge one another’s pieces, each believing to be better than all other. The narrator himself speaks of the false friendships that he holds, never truly being able to trust them with his secrets. If the school truly possessed meritocracy, then maybe the narrator would have true friendships, and would not feel such a need to pretend to be someone he is not. Randism is the cause of the selfish, backstabbing, and fake environment that makes up this school.
Clemens An
ReplyDeleteEssential Question #4
Passage: “That much was true. But Ayn Rand’s catron vision… in the present case of Ayn Rand”(Wolff 93).
Throughout the book, the narrator is being influenced by different authors as he meets them and starts to interact with them. The narrator truly does not know his own identity and is struggling to find his true self. The narrator is changing his views constantly to find a suitable character that characterizes himself in a way the narrator wants others to perceive him.
The narrator originally admired and was interested in the works of Ayn Rand but after meeting her, the narrator strongly shifted the values that he shared with Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand seemed to talk to him in a condescending tone and she acted like she was superior than him. Her philosophy of objectivism seems too far-fetched of a philosophy to live by and the narrator seemed to strongly oppose that concept. The narrator also finds Ayn Rand silly and cartoonish because she basically made an implication that his parents were brainless slattern. He goes on to explain that she doesn’t know what his parents went through to carry on during tough and hard times. Ayn Rand creates implications and an imagery of his parents that are so sickening because she is assuming and being superficial on the virtues and values narrator’s parents. Ayn Rand is slightly ignorant and naive in that she creates this noxious image of the narrator’s parents without understanding the deeper complications and issues of the narrator’s parents. She is being complacent by regarding her values and morals based off of solely her egotistical viewpoint. The author though does not blame her because the narrator himself have disregarded the efforts of his parents for many years and the narrator has been hiding his family. After being embarrassed by his family, finally he uses his family to go against the snobbery of Ayn Rand. The narrator has his values shifted enough to go against the values of Ayn Rand. He finds that shame for his family will soon turn to anger so he finally starts to go against Ayn Rand’s values. The narrator no longer admires Ayn Rand and he completely becomes disgusted in Ayn’s attitude of superiority and snobbery. By doing this the narrator is changing his identity and values based off the fact that he goes against Ayn’s values by using his family, that he long was embarrassed of, as an example. He is constructing his new identity and morphing his values by doing this.
The narrator shifting his values and identity based off of the values of other individuals is a major sign of weakness in my opinion. The author is letting his own identity be compromised because he wants to be perceived by others in a more appeasing way. The narrator is lacking confidence and self-esteem in himself because he is allowing others to dictate his own identity. I believe that the narrator is a passionate individual that has many positive attributes but he slowly loses some of those attributes as he becomes influenced by others. I admire him for being so open to others but I dislike him in the fact that he changes so severely based off of the values of other people.
Clemens,
DeleteI disagree with much of what you said about the narrator and Ayn Rand.
You say that the narrator is weak because he is changing his values, and that it indicates a lack of self-esteem and confidence. But the narrator is simply at a point where he is open to new ideas, and such drastic changes as the one brought on by Rand’s ideas are simply a phase that he is going through (and we see him move past it as well). As he becomes more experienced, he will learn to control what influences him, and become more selective and skeptical (in a good way).
“Ayn Rand is slightly ignorant and naive in that she creates this noxious image of the narrator’s parents without understanding the deeper complications and issues of the narrator’s parents.” First of all, Rand is in no way oblivious to the complications of parenthood, she simply has different views on it, which didn’t comply with what the author had learned. And Ayn Rand is one of the last people I would call naïve, she is well informed on most issues, but she simply doesn’t share views with many regarding those issues. Another big thing: Rand had no reason to try to “[understand] the issues of the narrator’s parents.” She hadn’t even known of their existence, let alone that their son would be reading her work, and grow to dislike her so. She was a writer, expressing her ideas in her work.
I think one of the issues with writing about someone like Ayn Rand is that we let our own biases get in the way (not unlike the interviewer in the clip we saw in class). We need to put aside her views (and whether we agree with them or not), and focus merely on how the narrator has been influenced by them.
Sreedurga,
DeleteI would respectfully like to disagree (somewhat) about your point that Ayn Rand is well informed on topics such as parenting. While Rand might “not be oblivious to the complications of parenting”, there is a noted difference between knowing about something and experiencing it. You might know the technical way to raise a child, but without the experience, you have no real knowledge about raising a child. Some things require experience in order to truly and fully know about it, one of which is parenting. So yes, while Rand might be informed about parenting, she does not truly know enough about it to form an opinion about the narrator’s parents, she does not have the experience nor the credentials to back up her opinions. Therefore, while she might have different views on parenting these cannot be reliable views because she does not have the credentials (actual experience in parenting) to back it up.
Essential question #4: As different writers influence the narrator, how do his values and his identity morph and change? Is that pliability a sign of a weak character? What do you think of him along the way and why?
ReplyDeleteThe Narrator and his views change and morph throughout the book. The Narrator's personality changes based on the ideas of other not by his own, but that doesn’t make him a weak character. Based on when Robert Frost came to visit he was a lot more relaxed and had more about nature just like what Frost wrote about. The Narrator tries to reflect Frost style of writing to be able to win the award to have a meeting with Frost, but the poem that he writes is not what he wants. The Narrator also writes a second poem based on his experience with the the school being on fire. This poem since it came from his own ideas and experiences it reflected he and his personality, but he doesn’t send this in for the contest and loses with his other poem. So in a way he hides his personality behind the ideas of others.
When Ayn Rand come to be the guest author at the school the narrator reads some of her books to get ready. While he is reading we see his ideas and way of viewing the word change much more than with Frost. He becomes harsher and with his ideas and his words. “I began to feel their kindness as a form of aggression.” (Wolff, 69) This is where his ideas start to change his way of thinking and the way he acts but not his true personality. As he does with his poem for Frost, the Narrator hides his true personality under the ideas of others. The way most people take a piece of literature, is they read it and then express their opinion on that person's idea. Instead of expressing his opinion the Narrator let their idea consume him and we, the readers, are not able to see who he truly is or his real way of thinking. Of course everyone’s views changes and shifts with most everything they read but the Narrator changes so much that it is undefined who he really is. This shows how easily swayed he is and it is harder and hard to like him because of his indecisiveness. With that in mind it is easy to see how weak of a personality the Narrator truly has. We see this because of his giant changes the Narrator takes to be accepted and at times we doesn’t even know who he really is, it’s possible he does not even know who he is.
@Evan
DeleteSo are you saying he is a weak person or not? I mean, it shows that he can easily be persuaded by the famous authors writing and opinions easily, so that does make him kind of weak. However there must be something inside that makes his identity true, if so what would it be? I do agree on how his writing styles changed throughout the book so that they would appeal more to the authors though. That's a great point and another way to say the narrator assimilated to other peoples opinions. I think you know that the character changes a lot throughout the book, but its still unclear whether you think of him as weak or not.
p 117-118 “How’s yours going?…No acknowledgment of who we really were…Until now…In some murky way I recognized my own impatience to tear off the mask…like nobody’s business.”
ReplyDeleteThis passage is about Bill offering the narrator a chance to drop the facades they’ve both upheld throughout the years at school, and how the narrator, though sorely tempted, refuses, for fear of exposing the truth. Bill makes his offer under the pretense of asking the narrator how his story is coming along. “His question was serious, the interest behind it wearily intimate, undefended...” Bill’s openness surprises the narrator because even though they’ve known each other for years, they’ve never actually been honest with each other, always keeping up an act. Both boys realize that they are starting to internalize their façades, but can’t seem to do anything about it. This is a perfect example of the acting motif present throughout the book. The two boys have created personas for each other because they want to be like everyone else at school, but it has created a barrier between them, and they are tired of it. Bill realizes this and wants to try and tear it down, shrug it off to gain a bond with his roommate.
In this passage we understand the characters better because it clearly shows how tired of acting both boys are. They are conscious of the fact that they want to be truthful with each other and that their personas are impeding this. Having kept up their roles for so long, they can’t come straight out and tell the truth because they can no longer shed them. “In some murky way I recognized my own impatience to tear off the mask, and it spooked me.” Bill’s unspoken offer to being truthful really tempts the narrator, but he is afraid of being vulnerable, and letting everyone know who he truly is. That he is troubled about their lost friendship shows he actually cares, is not completely who he pretends to be, because he is not absolutely cool and uncaring. However, his refusing Bill’s proposal is proof that he cares more about revealing his true self than their possible friendship, which is quite selfish of him. After the narrator’s refusal and assurance that his book is doing fine, Bill pauses, and then says his book is coming along great too. Many things go unsaid in that one small pause. Bill understands that the narrator does not want to be frank, accepts it, and seals the fate of their relationship by copying him and acting nonchalant too. He has closed in on himself again and there won’t be another chance for the narrator to forge the gap between them. The narrator’s role of a cool and collected boy has become so ingrained in him that it has become part of his identity, and his refusal is proof that he could not eliminate it no matter how much he wanted to. The longer you keep up a façade, the harder it will get for you to distinguish between your true identity and your fake one, until one day they will seem the same to you, and you will be unable to separate the two.
Question 7: Acting
ReplyDeleteThe narrator has struggled with his public vs. private persona throughout much of the story. In the more recent chapters he is trying to break this habit of putting forth his public persona so his friends can know the real him. “By now I’d been absorbed so far into my performance that nothing else came naturally...It seemed stale, conventional role, and four years of it left me a stranger even to those I called friends.” (Wolff 109). The narrator has been having trouble with not acting out he sometimes catches himself. He acknowledges how ridiculous that this the situation is and so the the narrator leads you to believe he is about to come through with a major revelation about himself.
One of reason why I think that he is too far gone and may not have a true self anymore is because he truly believes that this story is his own. This shows that he does not know himself enough to honestly write a story that shows true character. Which is odd because in the beginning of the book he does write a short story that shows his true self the one about the lonely fireman returning home. I think the author discards this story at the time because it is too close to home and maybe it easier to share a story that is similar to your own without being your own. Our identity does to some degree become shaped by our environment but, it should not be dictated by it as it does for the narrator. Especially after his friends thank him for opening up he continues to acknowledge it as his own story. Which was the whole reason why he was hiding himself in the first place was to be saved from ridicule by his classmates. Even though during this time in american history being too forward with one internal self and showing some vulnerabilities was frowned upon it is exactly what the school to be about. The reason why “his” story was selected was because of it’s raw honesty about how he thought. This shows that the author need to act out this public persona is so deep rooted he no longer can write originally about himself.
Despite all the way he thought he had come and how he had finally found himself he is still as undecided as ever. It shows a lot that he thought he had found himself and is still as far as he had ever been from finding himself.It is hard to think that he would find himself shortly after leaving the school he must of had a long road a head but, when he talks to Ramsey in the hotel he seemed to be satisfied with who he is. That could be because he found himself or that he never gave up the act.
Dunc
DeleteI agree with most of what you said including how he believes that the made up story of himself he presents to people is actually true. The narrator is not a pathological liar, which is what I first considered. He does have some traits including believing the lies he tells and telling lies that make him look like a better person or leaving out some parts of himself that he does not want other people to know. I think he just experienced many personality disorders, especially when he plagiarized the story "Summer Dance" and was flabbergasted when he got kicked out for plagiarizing, because he truly believed he wrote it, which is evidence in a personality disorder. So yes, one could argue that he did not have his identity yet but I think these factors played a role in what happened too.
Duncan,
DeleteI agree with what you said, especially about the fact that he truly believes that he is who he pretends to be, and that is how he has gone too far with his act. Even at the end of the book, when and after he had been caught for plagiarizing his story in order to meet Ernest Hemingway, he still believed the story to be his own, even though it obviously was copied straight from Susan Friedman's work. He thinks he has found himself within his writing when his own writing is not his own and he is not himself. I'm not sure that he ever found his true self and was satisfied with himself, even at the end, like you said; when he talks to Ramsey at the hotel he still doesn't want to go back to the school as an author and even when meeting Friedman he still feels horribly guilty towards her. I think he never truly reconciled with himself for what happened to him at his school, and he never really recovered from being someone he really wasn't. So in the end he'd either have to give up and live his unsatisfied, incomplete life, or keep up the act for a very long time.
ReplyDeleteEssential Question #4: As different writers influence the narrator, how do his values and his identity morph and change? Is that pliability a sign of a weak character? What do you think of him along the way and why?
“I become touchily aware… But Ayn Rand jolted me into taking sides” (pages 92-94, spread out amongst the three pages)
In the span of about three pages, the narrator seems to realize how he’s been oblivious regarding Ayn Rand’s books. The way she portrays her characters as perfect and idealistic seemed to have appealed to him very much, and he began to see the rest of the world as imperfect and everyone in it as not living up to his (actually Rand’s) standards. Once he meets her though, his ideas of her and her ideals are completely reversed; his perception of the author changed his views of her work. Of course his plasticity is not unexpected, he seems to be at a stage where he is open-minded, but he is not experienced enough to be able to close off certain things, or enough to prevent new ideas from changing his personality so drastically.
“Before now, I’d taken their good looks for granted… It hadn’t occurred to me that the author actually thought an afflicted face was deserving of scorn.” Here we see that he is beginning to leave his cloud of oblivion and realize that the characters in the book are not realistic. He said he took their good looks (and later on he mentions perfect health) “for granted”. By this he most likely meant that, in the context of the book, the characters good looks and health simply flowed with the book, with no complications, so there was no special attention to be drawn to these features; were there reasons that they shouldn’t have been good looking or healthy, he probably would’ve realized that they were unrealistic early on.
“But Ayn Rand’s cartoon vision of my parents- brainless slattern, frustrated imbecile- sickened me.” The narrator is starting to feel personally hit by Rand’s ideals. The way she sees people like his parents as “slatterns” or a dirty, untidy women, and “imbeciles” or stupid people, for what they have done with their lives. We can see his strong repulsion, “...sickened me.” and this was likely caused by the fact that his parents have spent so much of their lives bringing him up, and Rand seems to be mocking that, saying that they’ve wasted their time.
With all of these things contributing to his realization, the narrator is finally coming back out from this temporary Rand bubble. These erratic changes in thought are fairly normal. He is at a point where he is experiencing new ideas, reading new works, so he is subject to change, drastic ones too (because of this point of open-mindedness). Once he passes this phase though, he’d become more cautious of letting a writer influence him so much; he’d become slightly more skeptical. And as he becomes more and more experienced, and discovers himself a little more, he will be able to control his influences.
Essential Question #2
ReplyDeletePage 85-86,”Well my point is, Miss Rand...you are an industrialist, are you not?”
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines meritocracy as, “A system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement.” Today, the majority of American society believes in meritocracy, as I do. It is believed that people should be chosen for positions based solely on their ability and talent. However, I do not believe that we totally earn all of our accomplishments or failures. I would like to acknowledge that often, there are some factors that may or may not determine a favorable outcome. It is not sensible for a person to think that all of their failures or accomplishments are completely their doing. It cannot just be all you, all one person. In general, there are so many components that influence a person’s outcome. Such as their economic status or level of education available to them. I believe that it is unkind for a person not to share their happiness and success with others. While it is ideal that people be judged based on their talent and ability (and for example, not on their appearance); this concept is flawed. A belief that meritocracy cannot always coexist with a belief in the greater good, because sometimes there is an outside variable that should be considered.
In the passage I selected, Ayn Rand articulates her beliefs. She strongly states that a person’s character is flawed if they self-sacrifice. Rand considers that type of behavior to be weak. She is talking to the boys at the boarding school, answering their questions. Rand is discussing her thoughts regarding individual’s responsibility for the happiness of others. In part of her question and answer session, one of Rand’s answers in particular really infuriated me. When a student said, ”To my way of thinking a war injury is more likely a sign of heroism than weakness, ” Ayn Rand replied in a way that I cannot wrap my head around.
Rand states that, ”If the wound was received through an action undertaken for the happiness of the man himself, it might be heroic. If for the sake of others, as self-sacrifice, I would call it weakness.” Rand’s comments lack compassion, and her word choice shows that; for example, when she uses the word “weak” to describe the battle wounds of soldiers. Rand articulates that self-sacrifice, even if it is for the greater good is weak. In my opinion, a war injury is heroic and I have the highest respect for our soldiers fighting for our freedom. Soldiers fight to protect our liberties and freedoms, such as the freedom of speech; which Rand exercises without hesitation. So, I am going to respect what Rand is saying, because the freedom of speech is an unalienable right. However, I could not disagree with what she said more. I strongly believe that it is illogical to say that soldiers who died fighting for Rand’s freedom (freedom of speech, might I add!) are weak. Without soldiers fighting for our country, we may lose our freedom. I find that her opinion lacks compassion, and that disgusts me. If soldiers were not fighting in wars, and unfortunately sometimes dying, then she would not be able to sit safely in a warm cozy room discussing her beliefs. It is extremely thoughtless to say that soldiers fighting for our country, ”died weakly and, I should add, irrationally, even immorally.” I find her words to be callous. And I can assure Rand, that most of the people who are serving our country are not doing it solely for her safety; they are doing it for the greater good. I find that quality to be truly heroic.