Zora Neale Hurston & The Museum of [Un]Natural History

 

Zora Neale Hurston wrote about the oppression of the minority in her essay, "What White Publishers Won't Print".  She posed an important question - why do people remain skeptical about "the internal life of minorities"?  Why does the majority refuse to believe that the minority has a deeper side?

Hurston used the Museum of Natural History (pictured above) to help answer the question that she posed.  She said that: 

"[The American Museum of UNNatural History] is an intangible built on folk belief.  It is assumed that all non-Anglo-Saxons are uncomplicated stereotypes. ... They are lay figures mounted in the museum where all may take them in at a glance.  They are made of bent wires without insides at all."  

What is the problem with this, exactly?

Hurston says that we cannot move past the minority v. majority issue until the majority begins to see the intelligent life within the minority.  Until we see "them" as "like us" then we will continue to separate ourselves and remain ignorant to minority cultures that could potentially enrich our own culture.

Hurston was not the only one to see fault with the Museum of Natural History's "typical" exhibits.  The following poem, "Museum of Unnatural History", was written by David T. Bruce. 

"Museum of Unnatural History"

Festival of art
Grants to patrons granted
Penalty paid with interest
Refuse to play?
Don’t look the other way

Keep a watchful eye for phonies
Facts are rarely represented faithfully
Homogenized canvas
The broadest stroke is used
Statues erected as visions crumble
Readings are rhetorical
Scripted spontaneity

National museum of relics
Carbon copies, misprints
Words of mass destruction
Mementos engraved with dreams of futures past
Symbols now our laurels
We live in yesterday

We preach a fierce morality
While we dance around the truth
The art of diplomacy carves a monument of hypocrisy
Watercolor dreams for our youth
Washed away by pious despots
A country cunningly annihilated

Notice the words and phrases that Bruce uses to describe the museum.  Take special note of his use of the word "dreams".  "Dreams of futures past", he writes.  Here, he plainly states that the museum does not represent fact or actual events.  Instead, it is a dreamlike representation that should not be taken seriously.

What is the harm in this, then?  Why do Hurston and Bruce write such negative things about a museum?

Think about the children.  Our future generations will go to these museums.  If we continue to present the minority as stereotypical, flat, and uninteresting then this majority v. minority struggle will continue.  The minority will continue to be oppressed and the majority will continue to miss out on the advantages of the minority's culture.  

So how do we prevent this from happening?  How to we fuse the majority and the minority into "one"?  Hurston believed that a change in the majority's thinking is the only answer.  The majority must stop thinking in terms of "us" and "them" in order for anything to change.

This change in thinking may take many more decades to achieve.  Change always takes great effort and much time.  But a necessary change is always worth it.

The Oedipus Complex

Sigmund Freud developed the idea of the Oedipus Complex.


Oedipus was a mythical king of Thebes who led an odd life.  He was adopted as a young boy and unknowingly murdered his father, Laius.  He also unknowingly married his mother, Jocasta.  When he realized these things, he became so upset that he gauged out his eyes.  For your convenience, I have included a more detailed summary of Oedipus.

Freud fittingly referred to Oedipus in the name of this complex because the complex deals with children having unusual fixations upon their parents.  Freud believed that when a child was between the ages of 3-5 that the child developed an oral fixation upon the parent of the opposite sex.  The child then shows hostility toward the other parent.  The tension, then, creates a sort of love triangle between the two parents and the child.

The figure below from Psychoanalytic Electric Publishing illustrates this love triangle.  The large "O" represents the father, the small "o" represents the mother, and the "S" represents the child.

The child wishes to master the mother.  In this case, Freud uses the term "master" to mean master the mother's affections and attention.  The child feels jealousy toward the father, who sometimes has the mother's attention.  The father then tries to warm up to the child and has mixed feelings about his role as a parent because punishment is made difficult.  The two parents, then, may begin competing with one another for the child's attention.

The Oedipus Complex plays a role in one episode of "Frasier" in particular.  In season seven, episode one, entitled, "Momma Mia", Frasier falls in love with a woman named Mia.  He does not realize that Mia is the spitting image of his late mother, although both his brother and his father notice it.  In the episode, Mia shows Frasier a maternal kind of love.  She takes him shopping, takes care of his "boo-boos", and play mediator between Frasier's and Nile's arguments.

When Frasier realizes that Mia is the spitting image of his mother, he becomes unsettled and eventually asks her to leave.  Niles then discusses the possibility that Frasier may have an Oedipus Complex resulting from Hester's death.

The episode dealt exclusively with the Oedipus Complex when presenting in adulthood.  Freud, Lacan, and Klein all focused on the Oedipus Complex as presenting in children.  I found it interesting to watch a representation of an adult dealing with these unresolved issues.

The episode is a fun watch if you're interested.  It was not on YouTube in English and I had problems finding another site that had decent video/audio.  However, the episode is on Netflix if you're interested.

Dover Beach

I am by no means a poet, or even a reader of poetry.  Actually, when we covered poetry in my creative writing class at Northeast, the instructor actually announced to the class - after having read one of my terrible poetic attempts - "now, Jessie is not a poet..." (which was, by the way, less than flattering).  But, when we covered "Dover Beach" in that class, I was intrigued.  I've always been a sucker for tragic love - or, failing that, tragic circumstance.

We read part of the poem aloud in class, but I suggest that you read the entire piece, which you can find here.  

Or, if you would prefer to listen to an explication, I have provided one below.  The pictures you see in the explication are of Dover Beach. 

Arnold may have written this poem on his honeymoon with Frances Lucy.  According to The Victorian Web, Arnold had been in love with her for a year before they were finally married.  He had asked Frances Lucy's father for her hand soon after meeting her, but Arnold was denied because he lacked financial stability.  Later, Arnold took a job as an Inspector of Schools.  Only then did Frances Lucy's father consent to the marriage, because Arnold was making much more money and could support a family.  He and Frances Lucy honeymooned at Dover Beach, which is why many believe the poem was composed then.  However, Arnold had visited Dover Beach a few months before, so he could have composed a draft of it then.

Could you imagine your new husband composing such a melancholy poem on your honeymoon?!

But, Arnold had a lot to be sour about.  As "Dover Beach" alludes, he was quickly losing faith in humanity. 

Works Cited
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/arnold/touche2.html

Are you a Dandy or a Flaneur?

(Image by Danilo Rizzuti)

Charles Baudelaire talks about two specific types of people - the Dandy and the Flaneur. 

Which are you?

The Dandy
The Dandy is, above all else, reserved.  It is safe to say that the Dandy is an introvert - someone who lives quietly within themselves.  Dandies do not seek attention and prefer "behind-the-scenes" roles.  They are also very conscience of their perception to others and remain well-groomed and nicely dressed.

The Flaneur
The Flaneur is the opposite.  Flaneurs live in the moment and embrace life.  They are most comfortable when they are submerged in people.  They are definitely extroverts.  Flaneurs were a result of modern city life.  They interacted with the city without ever being a true part of it.  The following video provides a great example of the Flaneur.

So . . . are you a Dandy or a Flaneur? 

Nothing Funny About Hell - And That's Okay

(Image credited to Michelle Meiklejohn)

Often I have wondered why Dante's The Divine Comedy is considered comedy.  It's not funny!

Reading Dante's Letter to the Can Grande (p. 188-190) cleared this up for me, though.  For some of you, the distinction between comedy and tragedy may have been covered in high school or in sophomore lit.  Not for me.  I just changed my major to English and am still working to finish getting my required lits.  I also didn't pay attention in any of my high school lit classes.  Shame on me, I know.  But its the truth.  And the reason why this post is dedicated to differentiating between comedy and tragedy.

Hopefully, I'm not the only one new to this distinction!

The Comedy
Comedy is explained in Dante's Letter to the Can Grande, where he writes, "Comedy, on the other hand, introduces a situation of adversity, but ends its matter in prosperity..." (p. 190).  Put simply, comedies begin with the main character in an unpleasant situation (such as in Hell) and end with the character in a better situation (such as in Providence).

The Tragedy
Dante also explains tragedy in his letter, writing that  "...tragedy is tranquil and conductive to wonder at the beginning, but foul and conductive to horror at the end, or catastrophe..." (p. 189). In other words, tragedy is the opposite of comedy.  Tragedies begin with the main character in a good situation and end with the character in a worse situation (usually they end with the main character's demise).

So the next time you read about a play at your local high school, think twice when you see the words "tragedy" and "comedy".  Not all tragedies are sad and not all comedies are funny!!

 

Horace On Writing

(Image credited to Ian Khan)

I have been writing since I was a little girl.  As a child, I drew stories in crayon.  In middle school, I finished my first novel.  In high school, I wrote the majority of my second novel, which I finished as a college sophomore.  I completed my third novel in August of 2011 and am currently seeking agents.  I have also read more than fifty books on writing.  So when I say I know a lot about the subject, you should believe me.

Perhaps this is why I enjoyed reading Horace's "Ars Poetica".  In his letter, he explains how to write a great poem, but most of his advice can be applied to writing fiction as well. 

Horace's Writing Tips As Found In "Ars Poetica"

1. Keep it simple.  "Let it be what you will, but let it be simple and unified." (p. 122)  Here, Horace warns against what he calls "purple patches".  By this he is referring to writing that draws attention to itself.  (For more information about the meaning of "purple patches" look here.)  This piece of his advice has made the list because throughout the years, several writers have warned against elaborate writing.  William Strunk, co-author of "The Elements of Style", has said before that "vigorous writing is concise."  If you have access to any composition textbook, check the first chapter.  I'm sure you will find a section devoted to simplicity.
2. Write what you know.  "You writers must choose material equal to your powers.  Consider long what your shoulders will bear and what hey will refuse." (p. 122)  This has to make the list because every composition class I have ever attended stresses the importance of writing what you know.  I attended a writing conference last spring and the guest author and instructor, Michael F. Smith, lectured about the importance of understanding your subject.  He went so far as to say that he will not accept anything fantasy or futuristic from his intro to creative writing students.  He claimed that only excellent writers (such as J.R.R. Tolkein) can write well about what they do not know or have invented themselves.  
3. Create well-rounded characters. "...remember that your character should always remain faithful to what is associated with his age and suits it." (p. 126)  Horace is not talking about character traits, here.  Instead, he is talking about age.  He stresses that each age brings new traits and desires to the characters.  This advice has also lasted.  Mark Twain even said that, "the personages of a tale should be alive, except in the case of corpses, and that always the reader shall be able to tell the corpses from the others." Well-rounded characters become the soul of a novel.  I have read (as I'm sure many of you have) novels in which the characters are flat but the plot is interesting.  In theory, limp characters could be excused as long as the writer does everything else right.  But this just isn't the case.  Characters (and their dialogue) bring the novel to life.
4. Show, don't tell.  "What comes in through the ear is less effective in stirring the mind than what is put before our faithful eyes and told by the spectator to himself."  (p. 126)  I have taken five composition courses and each instructor would remind the class of this rule often.  Anton Chekhov once said, "Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass."  This advice is timeless! 
5. Know your grammar.  "It's not every critic that notices lines that aren't tuneful, and Roman poets have enjoyed undeserved licence.  But does that entitle me to make mistakes and scribble away carelessly? ... In that case, all I've done is to avoid blame; I have not deserved praise." (p. 128)  Every profession - both artistic and otherwise - has a set of guidelines.  To ignore those is to become mediocre or worse.  Yet so many writers try to ignore grammar and usage!  Stephen King wrote in his book, "On Writing" that, "If you don't have a rudimentary grasp of how the parts of speech translate into coherent sentences, how can you be certain that you are doing well?  How will you know that you're doing ill, for that matter?" (p. 114)  Grammar is an essential part of any writer's toolbox - as King discusses in his book.  Without it, the writer is lost and the editor is to be pitied!

For me, these are the basic principles of writing.  I have seen them multiple times in one book or another.  This is why I was so excited to find them in Horace's "Ars Poetica," which was written between 48 B.C. and 32 A.D.  How can these rules, which are centuries old, be argued with?  How can people continue to tamper with them?  New tricks and processes for writing will continue to come and go.  But the good writer must stick to the basics in order to excel!

Works Cited

King, Stephen. On Writing. New York: Pocket Books, 2000.

Leitch, Cain, Finke, Johnson, McGowan, Sharpley-Whiting, Williams. The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism, Second Edition. New York: W. W. Norton Company, Inc., 2010.

OnlineUniversities.com. OnlineUniversities.com. 12 July 2010. 22 January 2012 <http://www.onlineuniversities.com/blog/2010/07/12-timeless-writing-tips-from-mark-twain/>.

Pick the Brain. 10 Writing Tips from the Masters. n.d. 23 January 2012 <pickthebrain.com/blog/art-of-writing/>.

Are Plato's "Philosopher Kings" truly free?

I have been reading Plato since I was a college freshman, and each time I come away a little more enlightened.  His writings and his ideas are deep and hard to comprehend, but once I do understand them, I get the ever-satisfying "light-bulb-effect".  Pow!  Oh, so THAT'S what he meant! 

The first time I experienced this "light-bulb-effect" was in sophomore Philosophy.  We were talking about Plato's allegory of the cave.  Granted, I had read about it the night before, but it hadn't made much sense to me.  When Dr. Stone began to lecture on it, though, I began to comprehend.  When I went back to read the text that night, everything I finally got the big picture. 

Instead of reiterating Plato's allegory, I have included a brief video that illustrates his points:

 

I want to focus on the escaped prisoner, the one who was actually able to experience life.  This is what has always fascinated me about Plato's allegory - that there are a select people who are able to free themselves from the mundane and who are able to understand the world.  In World Lit I, the term "philosopher king" was used to described these escaped prisoners.  We learned that the philosopher kings had a responsibility: it was their job to enlighten the prisoners who were still bound.  

So, I wonder if it really was a blessing or a curse to be set free?  If we are freed from the world as we know it and are able to become enlightened, what use would it be if it becomes our duty to enlighten the others, who are still trapped.  To me, this is like trying to describe a sunset to a person who was born blind.  Wouldn't the philosopher king, then, be trapped again?  He would not be bound to a cave wall, but to those who remain imprisoned.  He could not enjoy life - not fully, at any rate - while trying to enlighten others.  So, are the philosopher kings truly better off?  Is it better to become enlightened only to be bound to those who remain ignorant or to never have been freed at all? What do you think?