Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Week 6 Readings and Responses

Liminality: Response to Judith Ortiz Cofer's "American History"

Liminality, which derives from the Latin word “limen” (threshold), is defined as “the condition of being on a threshold or at the beginning of a process.”  The term is often used in anthropology and sociology to describe an undefined, middle period, especially during a rite of passage, and suggests the idea of a person straddling various roles in society and yet not quite belonging to any of them.  Elena, the narrator of Judith Ortiz Cofer’s story “American History,” stands quite clearly in an incredibly liminal space.  She is the child of immigrants from Puerto Rico who live in Paterson (yet wish to move to Passaic and eventually return to Puerto Rico).  Linguistically, she exists between the Spanish of home and the English of her school and outside life (the sheer repetition of statements like “My mother said this in Spanish,” which occur at least three times in the story—perhaps a bit too often to not sound somewhat clumsy—makes clear the importance of this linguistic difference).  She lives in an apartment in “El Building,” a tenement in the city, yet prefers to sit outside on the fire escape and stare at the one house with a yard in the neighborhood (in a rather strong “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn” reference), straddling quite literally the space between her crowded and loud existence and the quiet, pastoral scene that she dreams of.  Her family is Puerto Rican, and yet she can’t seem to understand Puerto Rico, and would even prefer to be in Paterson, a place that she hates.  She is a straight-A student who is not allowed to enter Honors courses.  She has just experienced menarche, and is neither a girl nor a woman.  I could continue, but perhaps I will stop there.  Suffice it to say (at this late point) that liminal is a good term to describe the position of this young woman.
                We as readers first encounter this young narrator (Elena) at the time of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, a man revered by the Puerto Rican community of Paterson, whose “photograph would be hung alongside the Sacred Heart and over the spiritist altars that many women kept in their apartments” (93).  As we see above, Elena exists in a middle ground, a liminal space, not quite belonging anywhere.  Feeling alienated at school and teased by her classmates, she has found “only one source of beauty and light . . . that school year,” a young man named Eugene who has recently relocated to Paterson, NJ, from Georgia (94). Eugene, much like the older Jewish couple who until recently lived in his house, is different from all that Elena knows, and lives in the seeming paradise of a small house with a yard that sits in the shadow of El Building.  This house, which sits directly beneath the fire escape of Elena’s family’s apartment, is a sight of beauty and color in a gray and dark space.  While El Building is a “monstrous jukebox” and “gray prison,” his house is a place of flowers and trees, with a green door that promises esperanza—hope.  Unfortunately, as we see, “El Building blocked the sun to such an extent that they had to turn lights on in the middle of the day,” and esperanza is not something likely to be found behind that particular green door (100).
                The hinge upon which this story turns is, of course, the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  In the midst of this very public tragedy, felt greatly by those in her immediate community, Elena experiences her own private tragedy, when she is turned away by Eugene’s mother, who communicates clearly and harshly (though in a “honey-drenched voice”) that Elena is not wanted.   A threshold this is indeed, as Elena has just rejected her mother (importantly, her books get in the way of her mother’s embrace), who has told her, “You are forgetting who you are Niña . . . You are heading for humiliation and pain” (100).  She is, in a very real way, totally alone at this moment, neither here nor there, leaving one place and being rejected at her destination. 
                Importantly, we see that this public tragedy, the death of a beloved politician in a very public event, fails to have a great impact on Elena, as her private misfortune is too strongly felt to be overshadowed.  And, while her mother can share her won sorrow in “someone else’s kitchen, seeking the solace she needed,” and “talk sadly about the young widow and her two children, as if they were family” with Elena’s father, Elena hides in her room, alone and faking sleep.   For Elena, this moment in “American History” is indeed important, though her individual history is much more important that the “History” that those around her are witnessing. As Cofer herself notes in an interview with Margaret Crumpton, situating this private misfortune at the crossroads of a national misfortune allowed her to consider this distinction between private and public, and the explore how the young narrator would respond in such a confusing environment (Cofer 98).

                In the final scene of the story, we see Elena, staring out the window at the “white snow falling like a lace veil” over the “face” of the light (102).  This image is a beautiful one, and seems to offer a variety of interpretations.  Perhaps the clearest of these is that the veil demonstrates both Elena’s sorrow and the sorrow of the outside world, mourning their own separate tragedies, though  I’d argue that perhaps this take on the image only partly works, since one would normally wear a black veil in mourning, not a lacy, white one.  One can also look at this in other ways, for the point at which Elena sees the snow—neither in the clouds, nor on the ground—is also a threshold of sorts, a middle point.  In staring at the snow at this point (at which it surely is quite beautiful), Elena makes a conscious decision to avoid seeing the ultimate fate of the this particular snowfall, bound to “[turn] gray as it touched the ground below” (102).  The imagery of snow occurs at other places in the text, most importantly on page 97, in which Elena describes Clifton and Passaic, suburbs of Paterson, as places “where people mowed grass on Sundays in the summer and where children made snowmen in the winter from pure white snow, not like the gray slush of Paterson, which seemed to fall from the sky in that hue” (97, my italics).  Taking this into account, we may even be able to eke out a somewhat hopeful, optimistic ending to this story, for the veil that Elena witnesses outside her window is not falling “from the sky in that hue” (gray), but rather appears white, if only for a moment, full of promise and beauty.      



Works Cited
Cofer, Judith Ortiz and Margaret Crumpton. An Interview with Judith Ortiz Cofer. Meridians , Vol. 3, No. 2 (2003), pp. 93-109

Response to Frank Chin's "Railroad Standard Time"


                Frank Chin’s short story “Railroad Standard Time” is complex and intricate—like the workings of the watch that keeps the “Railroad Standard Time” of the story’s title.  Using the symbol of the railroad and the railroad watch, Chin’s narrator describes a struggle with history, genealogy, and inheritance characterized by a fight against the constraints of simplistic notions of race and ethnicity.  The narrator details a confusion with the meanings of cultural markers and a personal rebellion--acts of “outlaw” status, best characterized by his use of the inherited watch, which is “two jewels short of new railroad standard and an outlaw watch that could get [him] fired” (85). 
                As the title shows, the theme of time (and by metonymy and metaphor, the watch) is of great importance in this story.  The watch, given to the narrator by his mother upon the death of his grandmother, had formed part of the collection of railroad watches owned by his grandfather, a man whom the narrator has never known.  The watch, he tells us, is with him throughout the important events of his life:
I wore it braking on the Southern Pacific, though it was two jewels short of new railroad standard and an outlaw watch that could get me fired.  I kept it on me, arrived at my day-off courthouse wedding to its time, wore it as a railroad relic/family heirloom/grin-bringing affectation when I was writing background news in Seattle, reporting from the shadows of race riots, grabbing snaps for the 11:00 P.M., timing today’s happenings with a nineteenth-century escapement. (Ride with me, grandmother.)  I was wearing it on my twenty-seventh birthday, the Saturday I came home to see my son asleep in the back of a strange station wagon, and Sarah inside, waving, shouting through an open window, “Goodbye, Daddy,” over and over.  (85)
The watch is also with our narrator in the most recent events of the narration, as we read of him traveling south to his mother’s funeral, driving down the West Coast – “The watch ticked against my heart and pounded my chest as I went too fast over bumps in the night and the radio on, an all-night run down coast, down country, down old Highway 99, Interstate 5.  I ran my grandfather’s time down past road signs. . .” (88).
                The watch, as we see, is a powerful symbol – it is an inheritance from a grandfather, a rebellious gesture against the movement of time, a link to his mother and grandmother and all the memories and symbolic power that they embody.  There is a sense that the watch, as a symbol, is much more than just a “railroad relic/family heirloom/grin bearing affectation,”—it rather something much more important, much more weighty.   Perhaps most importantly, the watch is like connective tissue that links him with a past from which a certain severing has occurred, and with which the narrator is not truly familiar.  The inheritance, after all, comes from a man whom the narrator has never known, but who he has imagined in a way that best suits his needs, and in direct contrast with how he has been described to him by the women in his life--“I like to think he was tough, had a few laughs, and ran off with his pockets full of engraved watches. Because I never knew him, not his name, nor anything about him, except a photograph of him as a young man with something of my mother’s face in his face, and a watch chain across his vest.”
                This sense of a severed past and a difficult inheritance, which is nonetheless present (perhaps too present), is evident in other details in the story.  In the opening scene of the story, we see Ma, after the death of her own mother, giving the narrator his grandfather’s watch in a scene that is loaded with rich, powerful imagery.  Speaking to him in Chinese—“As if my mother would say all the important things of the soul and blood to her son, me, only in Chinese from now on”—Ma presents him with this inheritance,  speaking to him in a way that recalls “familiar scenes new to me, and ancient” (83).  The scene, heavily weighed down with solemnity, is interrupted by the narrator’s questioning of his grandfather’s name:
I asked her what her father’s name had been, and the manic heat of her all-night burnout seemed to go cold and congeal.  “Oh,” she finally said, “it’s one of those Chinese names I . . .” in English, faintly from another world, woozy and her throat and nostrils full of bubbly sniffles, the solemnity of the moment gone, the watch in my hand turned to cheap with the mumbling of a few awful English words.  (84)
                This sense of a genealogical breakdown is evident too in later generations, for we see the narrator’s family leave him, driving off in an unfamiliar vehicle to live with another man.  The watch, which we see that the narrator is wearing at this moment, gains greater importance in its symbol as an heirloom for its current owner to pass down to the next generation as well.  This symbolism is only heightened by the breaking down of this natural passage of the  treasure:
I kept his watch in good repair and told everyone it would pass to my son someday, until the day the boy was gone.  Then I kept it like something of his he’d loved and had left behind, saving if for him maybe, to give to him when he was a man.  But I haven’t felt that way in a long time.  (88)
                In general, this sense of a broken genealogy, of a link that has failed to materialize or has become confused somehow, is in evidence throughout the story, as we see with the narrator’s thoughts about his own sense of what being Chinese means to himself and to how those in the US view a Chinese-American man.  In a sense, this breaking of a connection is a conscious act, in which the narrator seeks to change how he interacts with the world and how the world portrays and sees him.   We see, for instance, that when his wife leaves him, taking his children with her, he stands there, impotent, and yet is angry with himself for acting in the way that would be expected of his as a Chinese man:
I stood it.  Still and expressionless as some good Chink, I watched Barbara drive off, leave me, like some blond white goddess going home from the jungle with her leather patches and briar pipe sweetheart writer and my kids.  I’ll learn to be a sore loser.  I’ll learn to hit people in the face.  I’ll learn to cry when I’m hurt and go for the throat instead of being polite and worrying about being obnoxious to people walking out of my house with my things, taking my kids away.  I’ll be more than quiet, embarrassed.  I won’t be likable anymore.  (85)
The narrator has been raised in a world in which his lessons on how to act, to speak, to communicate in the society in which he lives have been consistently lessons of how to act as a Chinese-American man “should” in American society:
When we ate in the dark and recited the dialogue of cartoon mice and cats out loud in various tones of voice with our mouths full, we looked like people singing hymns in church.  We learned to talk like everybody in America.  Learned to need to be afraid to stay alive, keeping moving.  We learned to run, to be cheerful losers, to take a sudden pie in the face, talk American with lots of giggles. (87)
                These two lessons, of how to act in the world as a Chinese-American male, are of course very different ones , for he has learned to be a “cheerful [loser],” but now, in an act of rebellion against simplistic notions of the Chinese male as a peaceful, contemplative, impotent figure, he would rather fight back, to not “be likable anymore.”  As others have pointed out, this preoccupation with Asian American masculinity is something of a hallmark in Chin's work.  As Wenying Xu writes, "His main objective in literary production is to dismantle the hegemonic, emasculating representations of Asian American males in the United States" (Xu 78).
                It is this sense of something new, that leads the narrator to impugn both his own novel and the works of other Chinese-American writers, whom he sees as telling the same story, as “sweat[ing] out the same exact Chinatown book, the same cunning “Confucius says” joke . . .” In his telling of it, these novels make Chinese culture something exotic, something alien and “oriental”—“The thousand-year-old living Chinese meat makes dinner a safari into the unknown, a blood ritual.  Food pornography.  Black magic.  Between the lines, I read a madman’s detailed description of the preparation of shrunken heads” (86). 
                Interestingly, it is the death of Ma that has this effect on the narrator, for it is not until her death that he hates his own novel and the company that it keeps, that he finds it be a part of a clichéd list of Chinese-American literature that fails to capture the essence of life and instead recycles tropes of the “Chinaman” and what such a label means.  As he sees it, these novels, his included, play into familiar stereotypes of Chinese-Americans, and affect the way in which Chinese-Americans see themselves and how the rest of the world sees them – these are stories “to make the dykeish spinster teacher cry” (86).  To break from these stories is an act of individualism that demands calling everyone out, those of his “community” included.
                It is also, of course, the death of Ma that leads the narrator on his epic trip south, riding along the coast in a whirl of memories and recriminations, keeping time still with his grandfather’s watch.  This epic trip south, to return home to commemorate yet another break in the genealogical chain, of course also fits neatly within the familiar automotive journey trope of American literary and cinematic tradition.  Importantly, the rhythm that carries the narrator south is made up of the beats of both the ancestral watch (“The watch ticked against my heart and pounded my chest as I went too fast over bumps in the night”) and the sanitized, aggravating, and also nostalgic beats of country and western music :
The music’s run through Clorox and Simonized, beating so insistently right and regular that you feel to sing it will deodorize you, make you clean.  The hardhat hit parade.  I listen to it a lot on the road.  It’s that get-outta-town beat and tune that makes me go. (90)
It is, we see, the combination of these rhythms, the family/Chinese rhythm and the American, school-learned beat of country music, that lead the narrator home along a path that leads “past what’s left of Oakland’s dark wooden Chinatown . . . parallel all the time in line with the tracks of the Western Pacific and Southern Pacific railroads” (90).  It is through this combination of influences, individual and unique, that the narrator finds himself, and finds his way home.  This is no peaceful, easy journey, however, but rather one in which our narrator drives, “riding a mass of spasms and death throes, warm and screechy inside, itchy, full of ghost-piss.”  

Works Cited
Xu, Wenying. Masculinity, Food, and Appetite in Frank Chin's "Donald Duk" and "The Eat and Run Midnight People." Cultural Critique , No. 66 (Spring, 2007), pp. 78-103

Response to Gregg Shapiro's "Tattoo"

                Greg Shapiro’s Tattoo is a straightforward and touching poem (as opposed to Levine’s The Survivor, also a poem for this week, whose subject matter is also the Holocaust, and which is a terribly beautiful and distressingly difficult poem) in which the speaker laments the pain that his father has suffered (and continues to suffer) and expresses a sort of latter-day survivor’s guilt for his own relative lack of wounds.   As we see, however, the speaker himself has also suffered greatly, and bears (perhaps without even knowing it) the scars and wounds of the Holocaust. 
                The tattoo of the title is a strong symbol, for it stands in as a physical mark left upon the speaker’s father—proof in ink of the pain that he has endured.  This is not the only sign of the violence that he has suffered—we see as well that: “There were stories in the lines on his face / the nervous blue flash in his eyes / his bone crushing hugs”—the tattoo is perhaps merely the clearest of all the signs, for it stands out, “blue as blood on his left forearm . . .” (34, 35).  The speaker’s wish, in light of what he considers his luck at having escaped his father’s fate, is to heal his father, to somehow “scrub the numbers from his flesh / extinguish the fire and give him back his life” (35). 
                Sadly, however, we see that the speaker is not unscathed, and though he has of course had the luck to have escaped, in a direct fashion, the horrors of the Holocaust, he still must bear, in his own way, the scars of the acts committed there.  The language used to describe this latent, genealogical pain is violent, even more so than the language used to describe the father’s own suffering.  We read, for example, how his father is “spilling his protection, like acid, until it burns,” how his hugs are “bone-crushing,” and how “Questions choke me” (34, 35).  Obviously, we see that the line in which the speaker speaks of being unharmed is quite untrue: “I am sorry my life has remained unscathed / His scars still bleed, his bruises don’t fade” (35). These wounds spread from generation to generation, transmitted perhaps through the “stories in the lines on his face” (35).
                Communication between father and son is perhaps one of the places in which the greatest harm has been done over generations.  The father and son, having lived completely different experiences, do not find a place of encounter, a place of common experience:
                                                We don’t breathe the same air
                                                speak the same language
                                                live in the same universe
                                                We are continents, worlds apart

And of course, as we see in the opening lines of the poem, though the father’s pain is clear, both due to the “stories in the lines on his face” and the tattoo upon his arm, the speaker’s father “won’t talk about the numbers” – he wishes to protect his son from the pain that he has lived through, though in doing so, he inflicts new wounds.  

Response to Cheryl Clarke's "14th Street Was Gutted in 1968"


In 1968, days after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., riots broke out in Washington, D.C.  What initially began as a peaceful, though angry, demonstration quickly turned violent and destructive.  By the time the riots had ended, days later, the destruction to downtown D.C. was terrible, and the city has never truly recovered, as any visitor to the capital can clearly see (this was especially true up through the ‘90’s).  What was once a thriving and diverse city center has remained a wasteland of sorts, and those who once lived there fled long ago for the suburbs. 
                Cheryl Clarke’s poem 14th Street Was Gutted in 1968 does a good job of capturing the violence and sadness of this moment, focusing on the burning of the buildings that the speaker and her community “had known all [their] lives.”  For Clarke, the loss of this primarily African-American community is compared to the “death of Otis Redding”—evoking not only the sense of catastrophic violence that characterized Redding’s death in a plane crash, but also the feeling of an ignoble and premature death for something/someone in the prime of creative output never allowed to mature to full potential. 
                This loss of community, of 14th Street, is also of course bigger than just the loss of a street.  As portrayed within Clarke’s poem, the burning of 14th Street becomes one more act of violence and loss in a series of actions by whites to take what they want by force.   We should consider, for example, that during this same time period (through the 1950’s and ‘60’s), the US policy of urban renewal, which James Baldwin referred to as “Negro Removal,” resulted in the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of African Americans.   Evicted from their homes, these people watched as their neighborhoods were destroyed and buildings torn down in the name of progress and the betterment of their lot.[i]  Stretching back just a bit further, we can of course also consider the conquest and colonization of the Americas, slavery, genocide of the Native American population, etc.  For Clarke’s speaker, the loss of 14th Street is just one more in a line of familiar acts:
                                Since that time the city has become a buffalo
                                nearly a dinosaur and,
                                as with nearly everything else white men have wanted
                                for themselves,
                                endangered
                                or extinct.
                The surgical imagery that Clarke uses to describe her “sense of place” here is quite interesting as well. She writes:  “My sense of place was cauterized,” continuing within the metaphor (and real description) of burning with which the poem opens.  Cauterization, “the process of destroying tissue with a cautery,” is a process in which intense heat is used to close a wound or remove growths such as warts.  This is a practice used less today than in previous eras in history, and while sometimes successful in closing wounds that would not close up otherwise, it is carries with it a great risk for infection at the wound site.  In other words, cauterization destroys in order to heal, and yet can carry great risk with it.  Such a description could be placed on the processes of urban renewal and its ilk (destroy “blighted” areas so as to allow for healing, growth, etc), yet in this case the speaker uses the metaphor to refer to her “sense of place.” It is the very burning of the neighborhood that in some ways allows it to live on in memories, in “sense[s],” and in poetry, and yet it bears saying that there is a passivity on the part of the speaker in this moment, for we read that her “sense of place was cauterized,”  not “I cauterized my sense of place.”   There is little positive that we can take from this “healing” by fire, and in that line of thinking, Clarke’s speaker leaves us with the final words to describe this neighborhood – “endangered / or extinct” (41). 
                               




[i] In my city, Asheville, this is easily recognizable—were there were once thriving neighborhoods of African Americans, replete with African American-owned businesses, community gardens (before they were “hip”), and healthy communities, there are now abandoned buildings and public housing projects. 

No comments:

Post a Comment