Need-Based

The debate about whether Carl should be in Claire's class is interesting. It seems to raise the question of who deserves to be a student.

We know from his well-received performance at the Bus Stop that Carl is brilliant and talented. Claire invites him to come to her poetry class, and he concurs. At first, he is hesitant and skeptical about being in the class. He probably thinks he doesn't belong there: he knows that he and classrooms do not go well together, and although everyone raves about his poems, he does not even perceive them as a form of art - "it's just rap" (259). When Claire asks him if he wants to be in the class, he is inclined to express his apathy (but instead he says he is.. learning). So, what is Carl's motivation for attending the class? The answer could be Claire. She has "that special teacher thing", there is "the right amount of flirting" going on between them, and she earnestly wants him to do well (260).

Claire declares that anybody who needs her class will stay in the class (261). Her intentions are quite noble; she brings "waifs and strays" from outside the Wellington community into her class, and fights to keep them in. But simultaneously, she is keeping out 120 Wellington students from her class - people who pay their tuition fees and the resources the university has to offer. Isn't it unfair for these students? What is it that determines who "needs" or who "deserves" an education? (Is this whole issue parallel to college admissions?) Consider:

- talent (Carl)
- potential
- passion
- determination/ambition (Zora)
- money

Carl: Claire thinks he needs the class as he has talent which she wants to refine, but he is largely apathetic about the class. We see a world of difference between this and later when Erskine creates a job for him in the Black Studies Department as Hip-Hop Archivist. There, he finds the drive to work, and benefits far more than he could have in Claire's class. My interpretation of this plot point is that.. even though going to college is the norm, it is not something that benefits everyone. Carl would probably be miserable if he had been kept in Claire's class, but he found a place outside of the classroom where he could pursue his passion and utilize his talent in a way that suited his tastes.

Chantelle, Bronwyn, Wong: They seem to be in a category of people who are talented but do not have the opportunity to go to college. I like the fact that Claire takes them under her wing and wants to cultivate their talent, because I think everyone should be given the chance to obtain education. But I understand the dissatisfaction of the other 120 students on the waitlist - I would feel the same way if I was the first student on the waitlist, I pay $50,000 a year for tuition, I really want to learn more about poetry, and yet a free spot in the class goes to some non-student, at the discretion of the professor.

The conversation between Claire and Jack ends when Claire says, "I know what happens in universities," and it implies how much politics and economics and other factors go into the operation of an educational institution. At the end of the day, an educational institution is not just about education.

Belsey children

I was kind of touched and sort of relieved at the scene where Jerome, Zora, and Levi all just happen to run into one another as Jerome is getting off the bus to come back home. As much turmoil, tension, and general unease as there is in their family right now, I thought their excitement about the spontaneous reunion was very reassuring. Since the beginning the Belseys are portrayed as a very dubious act of a family. Especially because of the way Jerome describes his (although somewhat facetious) awe at how well the Kipps family operates. Their little accidental reunion was very cute, though, especially the way none of them could believe that they had actually run into each other that way and they even went so far as to call Kiki and excitedly tell her what had happened. And the kids of course all go into the coffee shop and have a nice talk together… even though their awkward family situation is discussed (the tension between Kiki and Howard) and the Kippses, including Victoria, are brought up. Altogether it seemed a very positive and hopeful scene; maybe the Belseys can still persist as a family in some way or another.

The thing that worries me most, though, is how distant Levi can be. I understand that he is trying to be cool and “street” and all that, but the way he can just completely disengage from his family whenever he wants/feels like it is rather disconcerting. For instance, after a while at the coffee house he just suddenly says goodbye, gets up and leaves. Similarly, he said he was “out” when his family went to the concert and walked away from the family when Howard was fooling around and being embarrassing. They all laughed at this and I thought it was funny too, but then Levi really did disappear for the rest of the time they were at the concert and did not sit with his family. I was saddened at this because Levi just seems so disconnected from his family in a very real way. I don’t doubt that he still loves them, but he just doesn’t care in a certain way. He also seems to be getting into possible trouble with the odd group of friends he has chosen to hang out with (all of whom are much more legitimately “street” than he is, although he has to lie and pretend he is as legit as they are) and the fact that they are hustling now. I’m kind of worried because I feel like Levi will probably continue down this path into more dangerous and destructive activities as he feels the need to prove himself to these people.

Growing Up

I was really struck by the section in the very beginning of the novel, during Jerome’s emails to Howard, when Jerome says, “now, listen to this next bit carefully: in the morning THE WHOLE KIPPS FAMILY have breakfast together and a conversation TOGETHER and then get into a car TOGETHER (are you taking notes?) - I know, I know – not easy to get your head around. I never met a family who wanted to spend so much time with each other.” This brought up a lot of the questions about morals and values that I have been thinking about lately. I grew up with family dinners every night, family workouts and chores every weekends and family vacations every winter break and every summer break. A lot of my friends, however, grew up eating dinners by themselves in their rooms, with no curfews and no family vacations. Before I came to college, I was so jealous of their freedom. I wanted their independence and freedom. However, now that I finally have that independence, I realize how much I miss all that family time. I realize that the point of it all was not to enforce the rules or to limit my freedom; it was so that we would end up wanting “to spend so much time with each other”. It is also interesting to look at the expectations American families put on their college children. Up until I left for college, I was expected to spend that much time with my family. However, once I graduated, everything changed. I was not allowed to stay home for college and was almost not allowed to come home more than twice a year. My dad does not want to have conversations with me anymore because he “did not send me to college so I could talk with him”. I went from having mandatory family time to having limited family time. I guess I am just really confused about how I am supposed to grow up. Is it possible to grow up at home? Or do you need to be across the country in order to do that?

On Being the Professor's Kid and Leaving Home for College

So, as we know, in On Beauty both Victoria and Zora go to school where their fathers' teach. Not just work, not even just teacher (not make teaching sound all that simple, but you know), but have this huge, talked about, on-going argument. And while not everyone knows, it has to effect their (already vastly different) social experiences.

As the post below me talks about, a big part of college is the social aspect. How major of an aspect is up for discussion, but you can't put a whole bunch of young people in one place and not expect some kind of dynamic to emerge. And to me, that at least part of the point. We've discussed this [American?] phenomenon in class-- why do we feel the need to make college the time to strike out and away from home and comfort/? So, as we know, in On Beauty both Victoria and Zora go to school where their fathers' teach. Not just work, not even just teacher (not make teaching sound all that simple, but you know), but have this huge, talked about, on-going argument. And while not everyone knows, it has to effect their (already vastly different) social experiences.

As the post below me talks about, a big part of college is the social aspect. How major of an aspect is up for discussion, but you can't put a whole bunch of young people in one place and not expect some kind of dynamic to emerge. And to me, that at least part of the point. We've discussed this [American?] phenomenon in class-- why do we feel the need to make college the time to strike out and away from home and comfort? In On Beauty, Jerome chooses to go to Brown over Wellington but Zora decides to stay at home. I think this is reflected in her maturity. Sure, academics wise she's on top of her game, but Zora seems me to be a bit behind the curve of maturity. I feel like she would have been better served to try and make it a bit more on her own, especially because of her father. While Zora seems to relishes the insider-info she has (or pretends to have, in some cases), I feel like I would hate it. It seems to me that college is at least somewhat about finding your own way, learning to navigate the university bureaucracy, etc. Although Zora doesn't have her way paved easily, its a difference and seems to me less valuable experience.

Adultery, flirting with the enemy, and more affairs…

The developing relationships between Carlene and Kiki, as well as Zora and Claire are interesting. While the relationships between supposed enemies improve, the situation between Howard and Kiki only seems to worsen. I feel obliged to sympathise for Kiki, given the fact that Howard refuses to give her an explanation to the affair. She has every right to be mad at him, and her ugly comments concerning the affair are fuelled by her rage towards his deception. Their heated confrontation reveals the deep love that Kiki had for Howard, and has left her somewhat mentally fragmented. Howard acts very insensitively towards Kiki, especially when he gives the comment “I married a slim black woman” and admits that physicality was a factor that contributed towards the affair. I experienced a loss of respect towards Howard for his shallowness and willingness to further cripple Kiki’s already shaky state of mind.

The inability of Howard and Kiki to make amends to their broken marriage has harsh consequences on the three children. When Zora, Jerome and Levi all meet coincidentally in Boston, there is sympathy towards Levi for being the one who has to live under the roof in the midst of war. I am impressed by their maturity towards the subject, and also their ability to analyse the situation of Howard and Kiki and see the faults in their marriage.

When Zora follows Claire outside to smoke it is clear that there are alternative motives to her decision. The novel suggests that perhaps Zora seeks affirmation that relations between herself and Claire are not hostile in wake of the actions of her father. The casualness of their conversation comes as a surprise to me, as I would have expected Zora to express more anger towards Claire for ruining the marriage between her parents. She seems to brush off the affair and treat is more lightly than it should be. Whether or not Zora actually intends to truly befriend Claire puzzles me, but it seems that her passion for literature and the academics overwhelms her personal troubles. Claire’s invitation to get Zora to give a speech at the university also makes me ponder whether there are underlying motives to her decision. Claire makes it clear earlier on that she does not see potential in Zora, so it would seem an unfitting choice for such an important event. Perhaps she feels obligated to make amends for the affair. Given the talk with her boss earlier concerning her refusal to offer Zora a place in her class, she knows her power as a teacher are also at stake.

I feel insecure about the Carl and Zora relationship. It is shocking to know that Carl once slept with his geography teacher, and worse still that he continues to flirt with his teachers, Claire Malcolm included. Claire’s flirtation with Carl is described as being “just the right amount of flirting”. I found this statement disturbing, as how can student teacher relationships within class especially ever be justified? Zora’s affection for Carl will hurt her, and she is too naïve to even notice the mutual flirtation between Carl and Claire.

Racism and Identity

The children of Belseys, especially Levi, seem to be suffering identity and racist crisis. Levi is obviously trying to be more black than rest of his siblings. He becomes a hustler while Jerome goes to Brown and Zora is also in a prestigious university, Wellington. But is that the definition of being “more black” or is that simply the national prejudice against the race? This brings out the question of what exactly do people mean by being black? What is Zaddie Smith saying about people’s impression of what being black should be through her method of introducing Carol and through her contrast of Carol and Levi? When Carol was first introduced in the novel, his portrayed image, his speech or his accent automatically tempt me to fit him in the African American race. I felt like I was checking off a list of traits that makes him African American. So has the society, the media create in us an unspeakable racism that Zaddie Smith tries to reveal? Well, I think by creating a character such as Levi, Zaddie Smith is doing just that. Levi is trying to be more black and he seems to be extremely concerned of how society sees him as. I think Levi, like Smith, knows that there are assumptions and prejudices in the society regarding what a African American male should be like that he tries to become one to conform to society’s view. He confirms to the society’s prejudice of blackness. But yet, he is only half-black. (Well, I want to say more about this but I am not sure how to proceed. I think this issue is very interesting but I have trouble getting my thoughts on paper. Therefore, I tend to jump from thoughts to thought).

Then what does it mean to be half black? It is interesting that if a person is half black, people tend to associate that person with African American decent rather than with white decent. But the Belsey childrens do not think that they are authentic black enough. At least for Levi, which we could see it in his action.

As for Kiki, I think she is the one who tries to get her children away from the idea of trying to conform to be black. She slaps Levi when he says the f word and say something in the lines of “I try..” I think this enough to justify that Kiki tries to get Levi away from the conformity.

Friends for the low price of 50,000+/Year

Why do we go to college? To learn about things is the answer we get when we’re younger, to find a job is the answer we get when we get older, to experience life is the answer my parents tell me, to meet my future doctor husband is the answer my best friend gives me (half-joking). As freshman year is soon ending, which is bittersweet and scary, I am trying to figure out the answer for myself. Practically, I guess for my parents’ reasons and ideally, for the reasons that I learned when I was younger. But since Spring Break, I have kind of been lagging with the effort that I had been putting into my work, as I try and figure out what the answer to that important question is, hoping that the answer was to develop close relationships with my friends that will span my whole life.

If you ask Carl, he blantantly just says that you’re paying money “just so you get to talk to other people about that shit”. I laughed when I read it, partly because he’s so blunt but partly because it’s exactly true. I do my readings so that I can talk in class and prove that I did the readings, which hopefully makes me a better and more intellectual and developed person in the process, but I don’t know if it works like that. I know that I do these readings for the mandatory history class only for the fact that I have to write a paper every so often. And we learned in psychology that information only is retained if it develops some long-term importance, that when you cram for a test, you are not memorizing for meaning, but rather for semantic recognition, and this is how I usually do best. So am I really learning anything, or am I just paying to “talk to other people about that shit “ that I read about?

I think I am learning, but to what extent, I’m not sure. I know I have learned a lot more about myself than anything about history or calculus, which is probably more important anyway in the long run. Because I don’t know how often I will need to know how to take a derivative, but I’m guessing that I’ll need to know how I think and react and function in the real world, eventually. But for now, I think it’s okay that I do my work and concentrate on enjoying my friends as well, as I’m still a naïve dumb freshman, right?

Political novel tied into a Family

This novel illustrates the political war going on in out country right now. From the distrust, issues of race, and understanding what politicians are actually fighting for Zadie Smith has tied in to the Family War discussed in On Beauty. This novel embraces the political struggle between conservatives and liberals and the voice of the middle trying to be heard. Howard Belsey, a professor stuck in his ways, and not understanding how to give up a family feud is the mirror for the liberals in this book. Monty Kipp, who supposedly has the perfect house and family resembles the conservatives. Howard and his the rest of Belsey family from the beginning of the book are described as a bit crazy and not as organized. Howard and his wife are also an interracial couple with children that are all pursuing very different life paths. This description tends to mimic the stereotype that usually liberals have. The Kipp family on the other side are very put together and as perfect as they come, from a beautiful wife to the beautiful children Monty Kipp has it all which also ties in with the typical stereotype of conservatives. The feud going on between the two of unnecessary reasons illustrates the struggle going on in the political world right now. Both leaders in these political sides scream the same ideas and issues with a few differences yet will never accept it or are willing to agree to that matter. Yet the rest of these two parties seem the similarities between the two and are willing to learn to compromise and find a solution that fits them both which is illustrated between the two wives. This novel embraces the idea of finding a middle ground or in this case the middle political group instead of feuding on extreme sides about stuff that in the end does not even matter.

Race

Is such a small word.

It sounds unimportant and it just rolls of the tongue like any other world, but in reality it holds more weight than many multiple syllable words.

Zadie Smith shows how the question of race, the existence of race, the institution of race . . . well, how race in general affects everyday life in On Beauty. People like to believe that race isn’t as important as it seems. Unfortunately, it is, if only because people think that is is/should be. Also, Smith cleverly deals with racial stereotypes.

Howard is white and Kiki is black. This is made known to the reader in a backwards way near the beginning of the book, so the reader is aware that conflicts involving race will arise eventually. The workings of the interracial relationship between a white man and a black woman have been explored in countless books and movies (my personal favorite being Guess Who), all of which relay the same message; that interracial relationships are complicated by complications not found in one race relationships even if the people involved in the relationship “don’t care” that their significant other is of a different race.

When Howard cheats on Kiki with a small, white, fellow professor she thinks it says something about what he is really looking for:

“‘Could you have found anybody less like me if you’d scoured the earth?’ she said, thumping the table with her fist. ‘My leg weighs more than that woman. What have you made me look like in front of everybody in this town? You married a big black b**** and you run off with a f***ing leprechaun?’”

She also mentions in this exchange how she gave up everything for him—she suggests that she gave up being black for him. She says that her life has pretty much been white-washed and she was okay with it because she loved him and he loved her. Now that he had an affair with a white woman she’s not okay with any of it anymore.

And then there are their kids. Jerome and Zora are very intelligent and go to top colleges, which already causes them to beat the stereotype for African-Americans. They are well-spoken and refined—people would probably call them “Oreos” because apparently if you speak well you “act white.” The difference between the speech of Zora and Carl is well-illustrated, and I think their interaction is supposed to show the varying degrees of blackness (you know, just like there are varying degrees of whiteness). Is race as important of a factor as to how people turn out as environment and upbringing?

Well, in Levi’s case, I guess the answer would be yes. Levi thinks he’s a thug, which is actually really comical. He has a British, art professor father and lives in the suburbs of Boston, yet he wears a do-rag and wears his pants super low (“LOOKING LIKE A FOOL WITH YOUR PANTS ON THE GROUND” :). He even adopted a Brooklyn accent . . .? One of the most memorable passages in the book so far dealing with race deals with Levi. His boss brings out the “n” word—he tells him to stop acting like one. Levi is first stunned, then confused, then furious. He quits on the spot.

If I were going to write a paper based on this book, it would most definitely deal with the race question. Zadie Smith seems to have a lot to say about it.

Recipe For Disaster

Most of the characters in On Beauty are of a different ethnicity from those in the books we have been reading so far in the course, so it takes me a while to reconfigure my mindset and get used to them -- especially to Levi's "faux Brooklyn accent." Zadie Smith's writing is not action-packed like Wonder Boys, but she writes in a way that somehow makes the characters come alive in my mind and I find myself being drawn to their lives.

There are contrasts between the Kippses and the Belseys, as is evident from the title given to the first part of the novel: Kipps and Belsey. From Jerome's emails, the Kippses are portrayed as a conservative and loving Christian family. He describes them as "a family who wanted to spend so much time with each other"; and later when we first have a direct encounter with the Kippses, we find that Michael Kipps is very protective of his sister, Victoria, and Carlene Kipps is an amiable lady. The Belseys seem to be a more flawed, but more realistic family -- they interact in a way that people only do with family.

However, after the discovery of Howard's one-night stand, the family seems to begin to fall apart. Kiki decides to forgive Howard and tries to hold the family together. Of the three children, Jerome appears to be the most affected by his father's affair. Kiki thinks of Jerome's temperament as the mildest among her children; I perceive all three of them as being capable of intense emotion, passion, and opinion, but in varying areas. Jerome feels very strongly about family matters, so he "falls in love" with the Kipps family -- sort-of an "ideal" family -- and is upset that his own family is disintegrating.

"It's like, a family doesn't work any more when everyone in it is more miserable than they would be if they were alone. You know?" (pg. 60)

It is also interesting to see how the two families' lives are intertwined: Howard and Monty hate each other, Jerome falls in love with Victoria, the Kippses move to Wellington, Levi talks to Carlene, Kiki and Carlene become fast friends. By bringing the Kippses to Wellington, Zadie Smith is setting up a stage for disaster. Being in closer proximity would only generate greater friction between the two families. Indeed, I think Howard and Monty's being in the same university will create more tension and conflict (I don't see them suddenly becoming best buddies). Kiki and Carlene's friendship comes as a surprise, and almost feels like a betrayal, like they are each "fraternizing with the enemy".

Hmm... I wonder how the title connects to the novel.

Lisa Lowe: Metaphors of Globalization

Lisa Lowe's talk on the Metaphors of Globalization ventured farther than my knowledge could handle for the most part. I was intrigued by her opening slide depicting an art piece at the Tate Modern in London, having only visited the gallery itself this month. The vastness of its size shocked me, and I found her insight into viewing it from different perspectives and angles to be interesting. I was expecting her to bring up the subject of McDonaldisation, as it is the inevitable subject to bring up when discussing the matter of globalization. I agree with the cultural homogenization and commercial saturation that McDonalisation has had on our world. She also mentioned how time has compressed since the 1960s, when the world was only 1/50th the size it is today. It was something I had not thought of but thinking about it now, seems to be a valid argument. Is globalization really about the deepening between the rich and the poor? It is an interesting comment but I don't necessarily think it is completely true. I could not really relate to the latter part of her talk when she referenced to the movie Babel, having not watched the movie myself.

notes on lecture

Lisa Lowe’s lecture, Metaphors of Globalization, was about how the social sciences have tried to represent globalization through metaphors. She argued that it was impossible to view the totality of globalization from a single point, comparing it to a statue that she saw in a London museum. All the sides and different complexities of the statue couldn’t be seen from one point and instead the viewer would need to walk to different parts of the room in order to see everything. She described how historians and cultural anthropologists explain the “human experience” like a blanket and it isn’t until recently that they have studied it from different angles, like the asymmetrical power relations that are seen in the world. During the post-World War II time period, Western countries felt that non-Western countries needed to modernize. They considered the Oriental as a late-comer to the game and could succeed cause of its Protestant work ethic, while Muslim and African countries were not considered to have the ability to catch up and were considered demonizing. She also spoke of different metaphors for describing globalization, like AIDS for example. She drew the parallel between the two by stating that it showed the influences of the media and was a metaphor for an insecure world. It is a world with unforeseen negative effects like SARS, swine flu, and the avian flu. She also described how Coca-Cola and McDonald’s used to the objects that were the most commonly associated with globalization. It was interesting to note that “fast food” was an indication of how time was becoming compressed by people.

Substances/Escape

(In addition to my previous post "Cigarettes and Chocolate...milk)

There is also the example of Deborah getting frustrated with how things are going with her family at dinner and she decides to opt out of the whole dinner/ceremony and instead choosing to go upstairs and eat magic mushrooms. This is obviously a form of escape—complete mental escape. Because using drugs to have a “trip” completely changes your perspective on the world and your mind set, so she could not be further away from her problems. Grady also uses a hallucinogen (although much milder) in the form of marijuana to sort of escape his life. The pot and prescription pills actually seem more to dull the pain in his life so that his problems fall to the background and he does not have to think about them or deal with them.
Another form of escape evidenced in the novel is dressing up as the opposite gender. The transvestite (Anthony, I think his name was) pretends to be a whole different person altogether in order to (for one thing) escape his life for a while, which I think is a really interesting idea. Obviously, he is gay (as he has relations with Crabtree) but the other aspect truly seems to be a need to pretend he is someone else. Definitely trying to escape. Maybe from his unaccepting family? He mentions something about having masculine brothers, at least.
James Leer also tries to escape in a non-substance abusing way (although he has plenty of experiences with substances thanks to Grady and crew). Leer knows extensive amounts of information about movies and movie stars and he seems to almost lose himself in all that. He also tries to play his own character in the book he wrote as a form of becoming another person. (He might also be a pathological liar. The two circumstances are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but either way they are forms of escape and trying to become/be perceived as a different person).
I’m not sure if I will go the route of using only substances in my paper to say that the characters use them for comfort and/or escape. Or maybe I will just stick with the idea of escape (which means the cigarette examples and chocolate example would not fit). I’m just not sure exactly which way to take the paper yet.

Grady and his Women

I remember reading a quote that read, "Undressing her was an act of recklessness, a kind of vandalism, like releasing a zoo full of animals, or blowing up a dam." Even though it is kind of a racy quote, I was still somehow struck by it. It was said by Grady, and it kind of opened my eyes to what kind of man he is.

Grady’s relationship with women is very interesting in Wonder Boys. There is the relationship between Grady and his ex-wife, his lover, and the student half his age whose living in his home. I do think that Grady is a womanizer; he’s already been married thrice, and falls in and out of love on a regular basis.

But the way he describes getting intimate with a women kind of deters me from liking the “protagonist” in this novel. Even though I really do not consider myself a feminist, I can’t help but feel almost degraded by the way he describes undressing a women. He describes it as if he’s getting a major rush of adrenaline, and how what he’s doing is almost like a game for him. He describes it as an act of vandalism and recklessness, and relates it to unleashing zoo animals or blowing up a dam. I think that Grady has a very immature outlook when it comes to women, especially since he relates having sex with juvenile acts of recklessness.

I think that it his lack of understanding of love, trust, and fidelity that gets Grady in trouble with his female companions. He mentions that he cheated on every single one of his ex-wives, and now he even wants to cheat on his lover. I think that it is sad how everyone around Grady seems to be not too surprised about Grady’s behavior. For instance, James, Crabtree, Sara, and his ex-wife’s sister, seem to accept this kind of behavior as something not unusual. I feel that it is only his (ex) parent-in-laws that seem to have a problem with all this infidelity, for they have been married their entire lives. But it is interesting how fidelity is represented in an old couple, perhaps Chabon symbolizes fidelity as an antiquated act that has long been forgotten to all but the elderly?

American Identity and Names in The Professor's House

I'm writing on The Professor's House and know what I want to write about, but I'm not sure which side of the argument I want to be on. I know that we're supposed to look at the novel on it own, but I couldn't help but think about when it was published in 1925. The Fitzgerald-y '20s sure, but also politically a time that really concerned itself with "American Identity". Immigration was pretty big deal, so even though all "real" American were decedents of immigrants, there was this huge divide. Sacco and Vanzetti trials, stuff like that. And we see that in Cather's novel; Augusta is German, and so is the old house's landlord, the St. Peter's family really likes French stuff (Godfrey, in some sense, came of age in France, plants this lovely French garden, is half-Canadian, looks Spanish, etc.). So there are all these juxtapositions of different nationalities, and yet the St. Peters family is distinctly American. So there's all of that European immigrant stuff in contrast to being "truly American" in contrast to the Native Americans, Indians. Think about Tom's trip to Washington. The bill that would allow the Blue Mesa to get the attention it deserved from the Smithsonian was passed over in favor of bill that would pay for an international thing; overseas the priority over the homeland, because how much is the quote-un-quote homeland even represented in Washington.
This brings up the question of origins, roots, which I also think are central to this novel. Bear with my for a second, but Tom Outland seems a lot like Jay Gatsby (from The Great Gatsby) to me. Like Gatsby, he's the main character of the story without really being its protagonist and the readers' image of him is completely constructed by what other people think of him. Although we do hear Tom's voice for a whole section, its through Godfrey's memory, and though I don't think that there is evidence to support any motion to distrust Godfrey's memories of Tom's Story, it's notable that this entire separate section is being reproduced out of Godfrey's mind. Tom is constructed the same way the idea of "Americanism" is constructed. There are all these different ideas about what is means (meant...?) to be an American at this time, what that says (said) about your identity as a person, and they come together to create this unspoken, but socially contracted truth. I think this novel argues that all of the American parts listed are important elements of the American identity, that you need the French, Spanish, southwestern, Indian, Chicagoan, French-Canadian, German, Catholic, etc. etc. etc. perspectives to make up the collective American self.
The challenge of this argument is that no character particularly mentions it, but I think there is expositional evidence enough to support some claim about the diverse nationalities listed. There's also a lot in the names, though that would mean a little extra research. Augusta, who is German, has very Greek or Latin sounding name I think. And why is our main character’s name ‘Napoleon Godfrey St. Peter’? Maybe names are an entire direction to go in, although I don't know how that's arguable.

Prewrite

"And there can be no question of money between me and Tom Outland. I can't explain just how I feel about it, but it would somehow damage my recollections of him, would make that episode in my life commonplace like everything else."

"Godfrey," his wife had gravely said one day, when she detected an ironical turn in some remark he made about the new house, "is there something you would rather have done with that money than to have built a house with it?"
"Nothing, my dear, nothing. If with that cheque I could have brought back the fun I had writing my history, you'd never have got your house. But one couldn't get that for twenty thousand dollars. The great pleasures don't come so cheap. There is nothing else, thank you."

The Professor's House seems to say a lot of things about money and how exposure to money changes the people who come into contact with it. Cather says a lot about how money ruins people and relationships. Rosamond is ruined by the money that she inherits from Tom's patent, and this money also ruins her relationship with her sister. It also distorts her memory of Tom to some degree. She creates Outland “as a memorial” to him, but she seems to forget all about the mesa and the Southwest and Tom's humble nature. The money has made her relationship with Tom ordinary. Her father refuses to take some of her money for this very reason. Money is a pure matter of utility for Cather, so any relationship that is defined in the parameters of money becomes a commonplace, but useful, thing. Using the money from Tom's will defines Rosamond's relationship with Tom as one that is based on money, and so reduces him to a source of funds. I think that this idea of money as a utility that cheapens whatever it comes into contact with is the idea that Cather is trying to leave us with. At the end of the novel, when the professor resigns himself to a life without happiness, what he is really resigning himself to is a life on his wife's terms, a life saturated with money. All of the real and pleasurable things that are presented in the book are immaterial things, not dependent on extravagant wealth, like the mesa and the laughter of the little girls, the study, the view of Lake Michigan. The professor is holding onto these things, rather literally, for dear life. Sometimes, though, appreciation of these pleasures is tainted by or only attainable through money. The hotel that overlooks the lake costs more, the little girls must be clad in party dresses, the mesa needs money to be excavated.

Pre-writing Assignment 2

“I had lost everything: novel, publisher, wife, lover; the admiration of my best student; all the fruit of the past decade of my life. I had no family, no friends, no car, and probably, after this weekend, no job.” (342)

At this point in the novel Grady finally comes to realize the impact of his reckless lifestyle. Being stripped of everything that ever meant anything in his life enables him to see more clearly, in a way that he was unable to come to terms with before, vulnerability and isolation forces him to evaluate himself. This is a turning point in the novel, and ultimately enables Grady to turn over a new leaf living a life without drugs, with a child that he cares for and with a new wife.

But is Grady too harsh on himself in admitting defeat in his life? Has he really lost everything up until this point in his life and has it all been his fault? I definitely agree that Emily’s decision to walk out on Grady was entirely his own fault, given the fact that he committed adultery. Their marriage was wreckage in the making, it would only be a matter of time before Emily would discover the affair, but only with the combined events in Grady’s life does the gravity of his mistakes hit home hard. Grady also has no one but himself to blame for the lack of presence of family in his life. He made it clear that he did not wish to have children of his own even though the option was available when Sara announced her pregnancy and her desire to keep the child.

I would dispute the fact that Grady Tripp claims to have lost the admiration of James Leer. Tripp went to great lengths to protect Leer, even sneaking him out of Leer’s own house to get him away from his unloving family. But did Leer even admire him that much to begin with? It never occurred to me that through all of Tripp’s efforts, Leer was the least bit appreciate of Tripp, let alone stand in admiration of him. The case of Crabtree is a more complex scenario, in many ways I feel as though their relationship was a slow disintegration of two incompatible mates. James Leer was the one hope that kept their friendship alive in the latter stages of the novel, and once Leer was taken away there was no common ground between them.

I am hesitant to say that Tripp has “lost everything”. Through all of this he has gained intuition, a clearer perspective of himself as a person. He realises that drugs have had an adverse affect on his life and realises the need to change his ways. He also gains a new wife at the end of the novel and a child.

Grady and James: Father/Son Relationship?

In my next paper I want to focus on the relationship between Grady Tripp and James Leer.

“. . . I saw that the boy was still sitting there, at the back of the classroom, in the empty circle. I knew I ought to say something to console him—the workshop had been hard on him—and he seemed to want to hear the sound of my voice; but I was in a hurry to get to the airport and irritated with him for being such a spook all the time, and so I only said good-bye to him and started out the door.” (pg 6)

I want to explore the idea that Grady felt like he owed something to James—almost like he wanted to make things better for James and help him out to prove to himself that he could be a good father to his and Sarah’s baby. Grady really did take James Leer under his wing. He stopped him from maybe committing suicide, he took him when he visited his wife’s family for Passover, he helped him escape from his parents’ house, etc.

He made mistakes with James, but he tried hard to rectify them. He really worried about the welfare of his student, and I feel like he grew because James grew.
My paper would outline their escapades and conversations, and would try to prove or argue that Grady saw James as more than the average student who needs help finding himself. Grady put a lot of effort into helping James Leer realize his life was worth something. My paper would also show that their relationship was mutually beneficial. James Leer caused Grady to finally grow-up and to make choices that affected somebody else’s life in a positive way.

I think that his dealings with James helped him take on the role of father for his own kid at the end of the book. He needed to know that he could do it, and that some young person could trust him and admire him. James Leer did this for him.

(maybe I will do something with the fact that Crabtree published James Leer as a replacement for Grady--I feel like there's something in that aspect of the story. I just don't know what yet . . .)

Pre-write

I am interested in the idea behind wealth as a source of happiness. It seems as though Willa Cather has a lot to say about the relationship between the two. I think that, through the relationships she describes, the reader can see the differences between those that have money and those that do not. The readers see the St. Peter’s as wealthy, especially due to Lillian St. Peter’s desires. Godfrey St. Peter does not seem to be affected so much by the wealth and social status that comes about due to capital. In their daughters, Cather describes an extreme difference in that one daughter is very affluent, while the other is not. The wealthy daughter stumbled upon the money, and her and her husband live a very comfortable life. Cather shows the other daughter as being jealous of her sister, but also very happy with her husband. This may speak to the idea that wealth may not necessarily be the root of happiness. In the middle section of the novel, Cather goes into a completely different story, in which two friends and partners find ruins and later reap the rewards from doing so. Tom, one partner, is shown as being in love with the city. In everything he does, he is depicted as being truly enamored by the scenery and general location, as well as by the ruins themselves. However, it comes down to money in the end, when his partner, Roddy Blake, sells many ruins without the knowledge of Tom. This proves to be the end of their long friendship. The miscommunication between the two comes down to how wealth can make happiness. Tom saw happiness through the clean, southwest air, and Blake saw happiness through the wealth of selling the ruins.

Through all of these examples, I am not exactly sure of if Cather wants to show a positive or negative light on wealth and happiness. I feel as if I can research some more and look to my quotes as aid to the argument that I have yet to make. I feel as if looking further into the text and at the overall picture, I will be able to see more clearly the way that Cather feels about affluence, and how it is portrayed in her novel.

In the end of the novel, wealth turns out to be nothing for Mr. St. Peter, as he finds himself drained. The pressure of Lillian and his daughters and his book have all been pulling at him for too long and he is not able to withstand it anymore. I would like to find out more about how wealth contributes to this breakdown.

Freshman.

Tom Outland reminds me of what the typical humanities student is expected to be: endlessly curious about everything around him and dying to know more and discuss it with anyone and everyone he possibly can. He has found what he loves and wants to delve in head first in order to absorb the subject from all angles. It is this pure love for discovering knowledge that makes him so eager to find out everything possible about what he has found at the mesa. In this way, Tom reminds me of what I should be doing at college. Sometimes it is hard to forget that college is not all just about finding a path that will lead you to a career, but also to discover new subjects and hidden passions in areas that you previously barely even knew existed. '

At Carnegie Mellon, HSS is a weird environment among all of the concrete paths of engineering and art that all of my friends have where they are locked into a major for their entire time at the school and consequently a career path. Instead, as an H&SS student, even though I generally know the path I want to head towards, I basically have the chance to take two years to explore anything I want and see what inevitable paths that I stumble upon, like Tom stumbled upon all of the artifacts in the mesa. While sometimes I get a little overwhelmed at the infinite amount of things that I might find interesting, I guess that is one of the reasons that I wanted to come to college, to ultimately find my version of the mesa in finding that one subject that I cannot stop thinking about and I cannot stop obsessing over continuing developing my passion for. But part of Tom's discovery also included the struggle in crossing the water, so I think it's only natural that I will struggle and have a little difficulty before I stumble upon what I am really passionate about. I am just hoping that whatever I ultimately decide that I love, I will not be discouraged by others’ lack of enthusiasm, such as that Tom experienced by everyone he encountered in Washington, DC or Roddy’s inability to see what the artifacts meant to him. Although I hope this will not occur, I feel it is possible, especially since I am leaning towards environmental policy, which many people are apathetic about, so my passion will not be met with full support. I hope to have Tom’s degree of passion for the mesa in whatever I ultimately decide to do.

what about the tuba?

“When I got to the front porch the tuba was there waiting for me. I was almost glad to see it……I looked into the foyer to see if by any chance someone had left behind umbrella, or if there was something I could use to cover my head. There was nothing, I turned, and took a deep breath, and heaved the tuba up my head, to give me a little shelter” (Chabon 361).

This incident in Wonder Boys occurs after Grady has lost most pages of his book Wonder Boys and has been beaten by Walter. The tuba is the only thing that is left with him and this signifies the important role the tuba plays in the novel. The tuba is the one that is in the hospital and it is with the tuba’s help that he can go up to the nursery to observe the new born babies. Chabon almost portrays this tuba to be the only thing that Grady has left to his possession. His wife has left him, and his book remains unfinished. But the tuba remains by his side and it is the last thing he discards. But when he finally decides to finish Wonder Boys, he throws out the tuba and enters his fourth marriage with Sara. I think the tuba symbolizes something that has always been blocking Grady’s success. Grady has not been able to finish his book and he has always fail to keep his marriage alive. But when he finally gets rid of these blocks, such as admitting to Walter his affair with Sara, admitting to the fact that Emily is not coming back to him, and accepting the fact that he will be having a baby, he finally is able to overcome his writer’s block and wins Sara’s hand in marriage. So by showing that the tuba is Grady’s only shelter during Grady’s time of failure reveals that Grady has to overcome or in many ways, let go of this heavy success blocker. Gray does finally decided to put down his heavy tuba and let himself get wet in the rain. This action brings about his inspiration for the ending to Wonder Boys.

The Nature of the Mind

“The boy’s mind had the superabundance of heat which is always present where there is rich germination. To share his thoughts was to see old perspectives transformed by new effects of light.” (234)

This quote seems to highlight the core argument that Willa Cather is making between new and old, and the combination of both elements. Throughout the novel, there is an apparent division between all things new and old, made clear by Cather’s descriptions, characters and dialogue. She compares nature to technology, young to old and tangible to intangible. Cather creates Outland to be the epitome of the “right” combination of the new and the old, and this quote seems to point out exactly why. Cather is arguing that contentment comes from the basic elements of life. She contends that people should take the development that humans naturally strive for, and instead of transforming the natural in to something new altogether; they should apply it in context of the old. The “old perspectives” provide a foundation, and with the development, or “germination”, of the mind, these perspectives are “transformed by new effects of light”. I find the comparison between the key thematic words and the key description words in this quote to be very interesting. The key thematic words are “mind”, “heat”, “thoughts”, “perspective”, “transformed” and “effects”. The key descriptive words are “superabundance”, “rich germination”, “old”, “new”, “light”. Cather seems to be comparing the development of the mind to the development of nature. I am not quite sure specifically what she is comparing the mind to, or in what context, but I think it would be an interesting theme for my paper. I might also like to incorporate a comparison between the Professor and Louie Marsellus. I could use their ages, their professions and their opinions on technology to develop an argument. However, seeing as how the quote I am using applies directly to Tom Outland, I may want to either focus on him or compare him instead to Louie or the Professor. I might also like to tie in the importance of the houses and what each house says about the same comparisons between nature and technology and between the old and the new.

wealth

“This is my chief objection to public magnificence; it seems to show everybody up in the worst possible light (79).”

Godfrey St. Peter seems to be commenting on the negative influences of wealth throughout the novel. Tom Outland was the key to other characters in the novel amassing great wealth, however, with wealth come corrupting influences. Although St. Peter has obtained wealth and recognition from his work on Spanish history, he is resistant to change. He does not want to move out of his old home into the new house that was built with the money from the success of his work. Luxury makes him uneasy and he longs for how simple life used to be for him. Rosamond, Tom’s heir, has become haughty with her new inherited wealth. She wears expensive dresses and furs. She acts like she is superior to the other characters in the book, especially her sister Kathleen and Scott. S he feels that her sister is jealous and thus acts spiteful towards her, like in the instance when she does not agree to Louie’s proposal to give their old furniture to the McGregors, stating that the couple will mock the gift. Although themselves, not wealth, Kathleen and Scott are jealous and resentful of Rosamond’s inherited wealth. They dislike the opulence demonstrated by Rosamond and believe that she does not deserve Tom’s money.

However, Cather also demonstrates that money does not necessarily have to be a corrupting influence. Louie is generous and good-natured throughout the novel. He seems to respect Tom and holds no ill feeling about his previous relationship with Rosamond. Rodney seems to have a low regard for money, his motto seems to be is “easy come, easy, go.” He was willing to work at a low salary job to take care of Tom when he got sick and even financed his trip to Washington from the earning of his poker game. Although he sells the artifacts from Cliff City, he does not want the profits for himself but instead wants to send Tom to school.

Wealth, Change, Tom . . .?

“If Outland were here tonight, he might say with Mark Anthony, My fortunes have corrupted honest men.”

This is the passage I chose that someone could maybe write a paper about. It deals with the recurring idea of wealth and lack of wealth that is important in the novel, The Professor’s House.

The Professor’s old house is the house of a comfortable, but not wealthy, family. The Professor doesn’t seem to adjust to wealth well. He doesn’t want to leave his study in the old house and pays for rent for the whole house for the mere use of its study. Ironically, it’s his wealth that lets him remain in the house of his just-getting-by days. Maybe the professor looks at wealth negatively because it takes away and changes everything he cares about. He throws a mini fit when Augusta tries to take her forms to the new house and he says to her, “Go and buy some new ones for your airy atelier, as many as you wish—I’m said to be rich now, am I not?—Go buy, but you can’t have my women. That’s final.” It’s almost as if he doesn’t like wealth because it buys new things and he is perfectly content with the old, familiar things. He just wants things to be how they were, and wealth doesn’t support that desire.

Plus, he notices a change in his wife and his eldest daughter, Rosamond, that he doesn’t like (“Since Rosamond’s marriage to Marsellus, both she and her mother had changed bewilderingly in some respects—changed and hardened”). I really think that is what it is—the professor has a negative view of wealth because it brings change and he does not like change. He is a “writer of histories” for a reason. But back to his wife and daughter, he sees them hardening towards people and in general. Kitty comes to her father and tells him that Rosamond refuses to help Augusta when she loses money investing in a stock that Rosamond’s husband, Louie, suggested she invest in. He has a really hard time believing that his Rosie could be so cold and unwilling to help someone in need. Also, St Peter seems to be annoyed by the fact that the things that used to be good enough for his wife are no longer good enough for her anymore.

He noticed a negative change in his colleague Doctor Crane who once fought against commercialism in the college with St Peter but now is threatening to fight for a share of Outland’s patent in court. The professor noted that Crane used to be the kind of professor who gets pleasure out of simply helping a student reach their potential and succeed and doesn’t try to take credit for his success. But now Crane is demanding that he be compensated for his work helping a student because of a desire for wealth.

Actually, exploring this idea of the corruption of wealth revealed how much more prominent the professor’s issue with change is. He is a middle-aged man who is having a hard time letting the past go. His wife lectures him about treating his sons-in-law better, but the reason he keeps them at arm’s length is probably because he misses his daughters and misses being the most important man in their lives. He has a new house but wants to stay in the old one. He misses Tom and all Tom represents. When his wife questions his unhappiness and his weird behavior he replies, “It’s the feeling that I’ve got a great deal behind me, where I can’t go back to it again—and I don’t really wish to go back.” If he doesn’t want to go back and he doesn’t want to move forward even though everything is changing around him, what is he going to do? The professor is in crisis, and it has to do with wealth, change, and memories.

“Fellows like Outland don’t carry much luggage, yet one of the things you know them by is their sumptuous generosity—and when they are gone, all you can say of them is that they departed leaving princely gifts.”
(Haha, this is just to bring it back to wealth. This blog post is all over the place. I feel like this quote shows the professor’s fondness for Tom and for people like him who don’t have much but leave gifts that some of the wealthiest people aren’t capable of giving. He admired Tom because he didn’t care about wealth as much as people like Louie did.)

Conflicts

There appears to have many conflicts within this novel. The conflict between the old and the new and the materialistic and the non-materialistic way of life. These conflicts are revealed through the characters and their differences. There are differences in old professor and his wife. There are differences between the professor and his two daughters. There are differences between Rosamond and her husband, Louie Marsellus, and Kathleen and Scott and Tom Outland. The professor is reluctant to give-up his old lifestyle and his former student, Tim Outland. He wants to hold on to his daughters and his old house. He feels discomfort in his new house, and this reveals the professor’s resistance to change and to new lifestyle. He stays in the old study room and argues with Augusta when she asks for the forms. He also holds on tightly to memories of Tom Outland because he does not want to face change. Since he changes his house and he lost Tom Outland, he seems to have no future outlook and presents himself as someone who is waiting to die. His wife on the other hand, mingles with her son-in-laws and is more adaptable and adjustable to the changes. Professor is reluctant to let go of his old life by remembering and feel pain for Tom Outland. Rosamond and Louie on the contrary, does not feel the pain the professor feels. They name their place “Outland” simply to please their father rather than to memorize Tom Outland. They are not troubled by the fact that they are living on Tom’s money. Professor, however, does not accept the money Tom left behind. Rosamond and Louie on the other hand pursue the modern or new or modern way of life. They live on the money that was made by Tom Outland and are portrayed to be materialistic. Rosamond is overly concerned with her appearance and wants the best things she can get. Her relationship with Louie is extremely materialistic. He brought her clothings and gives her everything she wants. To contrast Rosamond and Louie's marriage, the author uses Kathleen and Scott's marriage. Scott is not wealthy and is a writer, but nevertheless, Kathleen seem to live a life with more love. Tom Outland and his adventure in the American Southwest show that he is different from Rosamond and Louie. Tom works in the ranch and loves nature. He is unconcern of neither many material goods nor the money. Tom resembles the professor while Rosamond and Louie, in some ways, resemble Lillian.

Living and Existing

The revelation of Tom Outland's story leads to the Professor's reflection upon his own life. It seems to me that he attributes his "mid-life crisis" to his marriage. He remembers himself as a simple, nature-loving young boy, but because he fell in love with Lilian, he "needed to" get married, get a job, have children. He now realizes that all these happened by chance, and he describes them as "a chain of events," as if he was not in control of them... as if after falling in love his life took on a life of its own and he was just going through the motions.

I think Tom Outland represents the Professor's ideals. His excavation in the Southwest is closely related to nature. Tom discovers many American Indian relics and goes to Washington hoping to get a professional archaeologist to discover the truth about the mesa. He thinks of the relics as things belonging to the American Indians, and he or Roddy should not be using them to gain personal profit. He is not materialistic, and places nature before money. So when Roddy sells the relics to a German for four thousand dollars, he is outraged.

Tom's love for nature and disregard for money are qualities of the Professor in his youth -- "the original, unmodified Godfrey St. Peter." Perhaps, in some subconscious way, the Professor wishes he could still afford to practice these qualities. This could explain why the Professor was so taken to Tom and developed a connection with him that went beyond that of a teacher-student relationship. They went on several summer trips together to the Southwest and to Old Mexico. A third trip, which never materialized, was also centered around nature. It could also be this longing-for-original-self that fuels the Professor's attachment to his old house.

But the Professor also appears to be conflicted in his reflections. Money/Lilian's inheritance enabled him to build a family, and he had the responsibility to earn more money to sustain his family (vicious cycle). While his family is away during the summer, he returns to his "first nature," and he dreads his family's return. It would be entirely reasonable to speculate that he holds a mild sort of resentment towards his family, because they represent the responsibilities and societal pressures in his life. And yet he says he loves them, he "would make any sacrifice for them" -- does this love stem from a sense of duty towards duty? Or is it that although he does not regret his life, he can't help thinking it wasn't what he meant it to be?

There seems to be a parallel between the Professor and Scott with regard to talent/interest and career/money/love. Scott takes on the job of writing good-cheer articles because he needed money to marry Kathleen, but this is not what he truly wants to do and he is unhappy. ...how come money plays such an important role in marriage? Should one sacrifice happiness and satisfaction in the pursuit of money?

This is a longish quote from the novel that strikes me:

"It never struck me, Doctor, that you were a man who would be keeping up two establishments. They'll be coming home pretty soon, and then you'll have to decide where you are going to live."

"I can't leave my study, Scott. That's flat."

"Don't, then! Darn it, you've a right to two houses if you want 'em."

The ending of the novel suggests that the Professor does intend to keep both these houses, which represent different things for him. I do not understand the implications of his decision and how he will proceed in life with regard to family, career, and nature, but (as one who believes in "doing what you love and loving what you do") I applaud him. If I wrote a paper/review about this novel, I would write about the Professor who finally realized the difference between living and existing -- and chose to live.

Letting Go

So far, a good portion of this book focuses on the relationship between St. Peter and his daughters, and his subtle regret on seeing them grow up. He constantly mentions how he misses them being little girls and his constant inability to understand their decisiosn and his fear of seeing them become independent and not fulfill the wishes that he has for them. In St. Peter, I am able to see much of my own dad in this way. My dad, similar to St. Peter, is very passive in his way of showing affection. While my mom is very active in showing her emotions, kind of like Mrs. St. Peter, it is harder to read my father. My mom cries every time I leave to go back to school, and my dad just smiles and kisses me on the cheek before leaving me at the airport door, which always makes me assume that my dad is much more adjusted to seeing me go and grow up than my mom is.

However, as we were talking about in class on Tuesday, we are almost too young to be able to put ourselves in our parents' perspective. While we are letting go of our youth, to some degree, in order to embrace our independence, it is also our parents that have to let go of our youth and our constant dependence in order to let us grow into the people we will become. With that, I am able to see that deep down, my dad might not be as collected as he seems to be. As hard as it initially may be for us as kids to leave the comforts of home and go somewhere completely new and foreign, Cather depicts the burden of children growing up falling more on the parents, as it is hard to accept the fact that after so many years of relying on you, they don't need you anymore. I guess my dad, like St. Peter, will always think of me as daddy's little girl.

New vs. Old

“Habit is such a big part of work.”

Godfrey tells this to Rosamond in the beginning section of the novel, after Rosamond offers to build him a new study at the new house. This quote really stood out to me, because it seems to me that the entire novel is centered on the debate between the merits and drawbacks to the new and the old. Willa Cather makes comparisons between the physical elements incorporated in to the story, as well as technological developments and now even the characters’ ways of life. I noticed that from the beginning of the novel, Cather creates a division between the old and the new and seems to use the characters to build separate arguments for the benefits and downfalls of each. I think that this debate is particularly applicable to college students, particularly those at Carnegie Mellon. College students are in the process of deciding what type of impact they would like to have on the world. Carnegie Mellon especially, encourages the development and modernization of technology, while also supporting liberal arts. Students have the choice of contributing to the world of tomorrow or the choice of studying and analyzing the world of yesterday as it applies to tomorrow. We must also make a decision about what the rest of our lives will be like; will we follow the conventional expectations of our parents? Or will we decide to instead go our own way? It is an interesting debate between which is better to follow. This simple quote also opens up the debate over whether habits are beneficial or detrimental to work. One can just as easily argue that habit can limit work. For example, there is a section in the novel that discusses Godfrey’s relationship with Langtry. They despise each other out of habit, even though there is really no professional reason to hate each other anymore. Godfrey acknowledges this, but because of habit, he does not think to stop it. I think that habit is a big part of some types of work, particularly the work that Godfrey is involved in. I think that this also ties in to the debate between new and old. Habit helps to develop patterns, which seems to be important in studies of the past, while creativity helps to develop completely new things.

Tom

Who is Tom Outland? Initially, the reader is only familiar with Tom through what the other characters in the novel mention. Although he is dead even before the novel begins, it is odd how much the reader feels like he or she already knows about him as a person within the first few pages and even before his “Southwest section” begins.

St. Peter seems to miss and identify with Tom the most. It seems to me that Godfrey thinks of Tom as a son. He repeatedly mentions that Tom was his star pupil and sporadically thinks to Tom during the course of the novel. He seems to be upset that Rosamond and her husband are living off the wealth that was made possible through Tom’s scientific discovery. He does not like how Rosamond flaunts her new-found wealth by buying expensive dresses and furs. He is also noticeable displeased that Rosamond and Louie will name their new house after Outland and how Louie treats Toms as if he was “his affair.” I took this to mean that he acted like the two of them had a personal relationship based on the way he speaks about Tom at the dinner party when instead he had never even seen him.

During the middle passage, the reader learns the most about Tom and his motives. Before, the reader was forced to rely on the opinions of thoughts of the other characters in the novel to obtain a picture of Tom. Through the “Southwest” portion of the novel, Tom is initially portrayed as a Romantic. He worked from a young age and encountered Rodney when he walks him home drunk after he wins at a night of poker. Tom seems to be the more practical of the two, especially when he picks up Rodney’s money that he with such “low regard for its value” dropped. The two begin a close male relationship that takes them to the abandoned Cliff City. The two work to excavate the remains of the village. Rodney sends Toms to Washington, with the money that he had won during that fateful poker game, to attempt to arouse governmental interest in the artifacts. After multiple failed attempts to secure the proper authorities to look at Cliff City, Tom returns defeated. This Washington journey in my opinion made Tom jaded and took away from of his dreamer qualities and made he more of a realist. Upon his return, Tom learns that Rodney sold the artifacts from Cliff City to a German collector at a very cheap price. Tom seems to take his very hard and acts like Rodney had stolen something from him. It was like he had lost a part of himself. After his, Rodney feels that he has betrayed Tom and abandons the friendship. Tom takes this very hard but after a time he journeys north to obtain an education where he encounters the St. Peters.

Tom was an interesting character. He seemed to be a brilliant student and a kindhearted boy. However, he also seemed like he was redeeming himself for pushing Rodney away by going off to fight in the war, which he later died in. It is strange how connected I felt to Tom although I guess technically he was not a main character in the novel.

for the love of money

There seems to be a clear battle between those who favor material things and those who would rather have a greater happiness among the characters in The Professor's House. Material possessions are an issue in the fist part of the book, and are placed in contrast through the very different marriages of the professor's daughters, with the professor and his wife in a kind of middle ground.

Rosamond and Louie have a relationship that is almost wholly based on money. It is kind of suggested that Louie marries Rosamond in order to get at Tom Outland's legacy, and that Rosamond allows this because he can market that legacy and make money off of it. When they talk they talk of nothing but money and what they are planning to do with their money. Often, Louie is the one to make the grand reveals whenever they complete some project, and especially whenever they do something nice. Rosamond seems to be a little more protective of her fortune, and she is less likely to share it, as we see with Augusta and the Cranes. They both appear to be superficially happy, but I don't think that either is really in love with the other.

Kathleen and Scott appear to be in love. Indeed, at one point they even tell each other “I love you,” something that we never see the other couples do. They are also the least well off of the family marriages. Kathleen seems to resent her sister's wealth, and especially the way it was acquired. She doesn't seem to resent the fact that Rosamond is wealthy, but that her wealth has changed her and was gained in a way that seemed to deny Rosamond's true sense of self and her love for Tom. Kathleen doesn't mind that her sister is wealthy, but she doesn't want that money to be held over her head.

Mr. and Mrs St. Peter are a middle ground. They are well-to-do, but not as extravagantly wealthy as Rosamond and Louie. Mrs. St. Peter seems to like the idea of being extravagant and having the best of everything, while Godfrey seems to recognize the utility value of money, but prefers stability to extravagant change, although many aspects of his opinion on money are unclear or undecided. They are a couple that has worn thin with time, but they still have some affection for each other, as is evidenced by the theater scene.

Even Tom Outland is not left untouched by quarrels over whether there are more important things than money. He loses his best friend, Rodney, over the sale of the Indian relics that they found on the mesa. Rodney was the closest thing that Tom ever had to a father or a brother, but when he sold the relics Tom was so mad that he did not stop Roddy from leaving. Tom clearly thought that there were more important things than money to be had in the world, and I don't think that he would have liked the way that Rosamond has turned out since she got the profits from his gas. Because Tom is portrayed as such a heroic character, I think that it is safe to say that this view of money is the one that Cather wants us to come away with, but it will be interesting to see how the rest of the book plays out, and what kind of view the professor ends up with.

The Professor's House: An Ode to Working Parents Everywhere?

In this particular novel, it centers on a professor in his fifties named Godfrey St. Peter, and follows his transitions from a new house to having new son-in-laws, and ultimately to his near death. I think what is so captivating about Godfrey is how completely normal he is. Unlike the other novels we have read in class, Godfrey's character is simple and his dissatisfaction with is life stems from its normalcy and separation of his family members. I feel that Godfrey could be anyone's father, and that the events that occur in his life are things our parents can all relate to.

After Godfrey's daughters marry and he starts his life in a new house, it seems that Godfrey has lost all interest in his life. He re-evaluates his life and sees no more pleasure,which could be because his daughters moved out, in addition to the death of his favorite pupil Outland.

I think that "The Professor's House" is really quite an interesting novel in terms of its ability to relate to modern day middle-age society. It never fails to surprise me that even some ninety years ago, family organization (or disorganization in some cases) has not changed much. I think that these events are all quite typical, and the feelings that Godfrey experiences are certainly not new to adults going through a mid-life crisis. I think that once the "last bird leaves the nest" most parents reevaluate their lives, because it has changed so much. Although Godfrey's reaction might be a little extreme, it is certainly not uncommon.

Ending of Wonder Boys

This book was truly an insight to the entire writing process. Even though it took place over such a short time it showed the creativity and the struggles a writer has to go through while writing a book. It sows how sometimes an idea is completely wrong and just needs to be thrown out or how easily it is to be sidetracked from working on one's piece. Chabon creatively mirrors Tripps work ethic to his life and illustrates through the situations GRady comes across how it effects or illustrates the way he is as an author. From the chaotic experiences and the never ending pathetic yet sadly comical situations he finds himself in throughout the novel shows how he is not able to find an ending to a 2000 page novel and how chaotic that book has become. this truly has been my favorite book we have read in class because of the way it was written and the way Chabon related Grady's life experiences over a weekend to a 2000 page book he has been writing for a while now, and how crazy his weekend was and it still seemed realistic. This novel was truly a pleasure to read and I'm ecstatic Professor Newman put this in the curriculum because it is a must read and I cannot wait to see the movie!!!!!!

Disjoint and disconnection leaves me befuddled

I rarely encounter books such as this where the plotline leaves me baffled, utterly lost for words. I have had to re-read every page more than once to grasp its content, yet still feel disconnected from the characters and plot. The first few pages of the novel initially lead me to believe that the book was literally about the Professor’s House, with its extended descriptions of the house. I was relieved to soon discover this was not the case, slowly absorbing details about this mysterious St. Peter, whose reason for being called a saint I am curious to know, as with other characters who addressed similarly.

So, we know that the Professor leads a busy life juggling family life and lecturing students. He loves teaching the youth, and plans his time carefully around his family. His Spanish Adventures, which he spent 15 years working on, gave him some commercial success. We’ve been introduced to his two daughters and his wife, provided intricate details of their physical appearances. But what does this contribute to the novel? Each chapter introduces new characters, but the linkage between the chapters confuses me, as it seems to be unrelated to the previous chapters. I have yet to discover the purpose of the novel, or what the character or plot developments are.

St. Peter is a most intriguing character. I find him overly critical, pushing the limits of acceptability at times. There is a particular instance in the second chapter where the narrator comments on how he even goes as far as criticizing the physical appearance of his eldest daughter, despite the fact that the rest of the world stares in awe at her beauty. This reoccurs in the seventh chapter when he again comments on the flaws of Rosamund. Should he not be proud of her beauty and be able to see beyond her stooped shoulders and tall frame, like a normal being? He seems a bit too involved in his work, almost robotic in the ways he isolates himself from the world. He is undoubtedly selfless though when it comes to his family, spending his entire earnings from his Oxford prize on buying a house for his family.

The focus of the novel is unclear in my eyes. With all of the separate plotlines revolving around his daughters, his son-in-laws, rivals such as Langtry, random swimming adventures with McGregor and company, I am unsure of who or what to focus on. It seems to be a month-by-month account of snippets of Godfrey’s life. Some scenes seem utterly pointless, such as the one where Kathleen asks Godfrey to help her choose furs. Where is this conversation heading? What is its purpose? The themes of the novel are not so obvious to me either. Marriage and wealth seem to be a prominent issue in the book, especially with the circumstances of his daughters, and Godrey’s reluctance to accept money from others such as Louie. But this does not stand out to me as the primary theme of the novel.

Character Breakdown

I find that this novel is more about the characters than it is the actual story. I am very interested in the development of the characters and how their true colors show through very vividly. Godfrey St. Peter especially intrigues me because he seems to have very distinct sides. Half the time, he seems disconnected from the world and his family. As a creature of habit, he only likes to write in one location, being the attic of his former house. He appreciates his alone time and also enjoys the lake, which, in its stillness, is a comfort to him. He is considered by many to be erudite and even thinks himself much too smart for his student. However, he is portrayed as being a source of comfort for his students, peers, and family. Many have come to him for help and advice and he always tries his best to accommodate their needs. I am interested to see where his story ends up at the conclusion of the novel.

Another character that makes me think is Louie Marsellus. I do not care for him because it seems as though he also tries to boast and put himself higher than everyone else. He is constantly grabbing the attention of Mrs. St. Peter and other people of status. I think that he is simply attempting to climb the social ladder more than he already has. I believe that he does not deserve the wealth he has come into due to Tom’s hard work. I also think that Rosamond, his wife and daughter of the St. Peter’s, is annoying. Her actions make one believe that she has actually convinced herself that she did something to gain the wealth she has because of Tom. I do not think that she deserves the money any more than Louie does and that they should use the money to help those in need, rather than doing with it “what Tom would want” and buying stuff for themselves. They seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that everyone sees them as snoods and unworthy of the fortune. They seem to be too wrapped up in their own affairs to look around at the people that actually need to money. The Marselluses are seen trying to “give back” by sending the St. Peter’s to the opera and to give them a nice life, but when it comes to the important events, they are unreliable. It seems to me that they are more in love with the money than they are with each other.

However, on the other hand, the other St. Peter daughter, Kathleen, and husband Scott to be so in love with each other. They are my favorite couple in the novel and they seem to by truly in love. Even if they are not as affluent as the Marselluses, they have each other and that makes them happy. Although Kathleen can be seen as jealous of Rosamond, I believe that she is truly the happier of the two sisters.

Unappreciative and deceitful individuals and the naivety of young love

A feeling or annoyance has begun to grow over me in response to the character of James Leer. Initially I was fooled into sympathising for him and the tales of his unfortunate family circumstances and upbringing. The revelation of the true nature of his history makes us lose all faith in the credibility of everything he states, and the discovery of his numerous thefts also make us dislike him more. It is obvious that even Grady Tripp is fed up with his lies, declaring saying that he merely wants to know “once and for all what the truth is about the little bastard”. In my opinion, Leer is fortunate to have someone like Tripp care so deeply for him and go to the extents that he does to protect him. Leer seems to show little gratitude for all that Tripp does for him.

I am intrigued by the mystery surrounding the true identity of Leer’s biological parents. I speculate that given Leer’s age and accounts from Tripp it is definitely a possibility that Amanda and Fred Leer are his true parents. I feel as though there is something important that is being kept from us at this stage in the story, something shockingly revealing about Leer and his past. Leer seems to be the pivotal character at this point in the novel, and despite the fact that I am not too favourable of him I feel that he will have a significant role later on in the novel.

There are also interesting developments between Grady and Hannah Green. Sexual tension exists between them, but given the age difference, which spans around two decades, I don’t see any serious relationship will result from this. Green acts flirtatiously around Grady, luring him to dance with her and waiting for him in his office. This leads me to believe that she desires Tripp more than he desires her. Tripp is much more interested in her opinions, on Wonder Boys specifically, than her as a person. Tripp seems to accept her advances but does not push for the relationship to advances. Green’s physical attraction seems to be the primary draw for Grady.

Grady and Green’s relationship is the opposite of the obscure relationship between Leer and Crabtree. Crabtree seems to almost molest Leer at every possible opportunity. I am disturbed by the nature of their relationship. Leer, given his youth, is at the stage of his life where he is sexually confused and Crabtree takes advantage of his confusion. Crabtree cares about Leer, as demonstrated when he immediately followed Grady to save Leer from his so-called parents, but whether or not the feelings for each other are mutual remains to be seen. Their relationship was so unexpected, I was not even aware of Leer’s sexual orientation towards men. I was under the impression that he desired Hannah Green up until the point of their public display of affection. Crabtree seems to have varying tastes when concerning individuals of interest, from young boys to transvestites. I draw a blank on the future of the relationship between Leer and Crabtree.

i dont like the book

I personaly do not like the book. To be honest, regardless of how much basing we did for Admission, I still like the book. Although the book is like a soap opera and predectable, it is interedting in showing the meaning of admission itself. It is also a book I can relate because it is not too long ago that I had to apply for admission. But for Wonder Boys, it gives me a weird feeling. Everytime I read the book, I feel like I get mad at Grady and James. I think James is extremely naïve. When he mentions that rich people are never happy. I just feel like it is such a naïve thing to say. I feel like he sounds like a kid who listen to their parents lecturing about life lessons. His relationship with Grady does not make sense to me. I find it odd that Grady is helping James and even taking him to his inlaw’s house for Passover. I do not know if grady is helping James by protecting him or hurting him. Aside from being naïve, I also found James to be an insecure youth who is lost in the world. The fact that he complains about Pittsburgh and says that he hates it there makes me think of myself. I remember complaining about Pittsburgh and the school. This just reminds me of how insecure I was and still am. I think the purpose of puttig James with Grady and their adventure together is to contrast certain aspect of Grady’s unbdeveloped emotion and self-knowledge. I do not think Grady knows much about what he wants or what he likes. He can easily ask Sara to give up the child, and he can also easily promise Sara to be with her. Yet, he then goes to Emily’s parent’s house for Passover. This shows that he still wants Emily to forgive him for his affair. Grady is stuck between Sara and Emily. He is unsure of whom to chose. I think he only wants something for an instant. Take the incident with Hannah Green for example, he wants to dance with her at the moment, but he is also debating on what to do to get Emily back. He wants Hannah for an instant and then goes back to wanting to save his marriage. He then gets distracted and forget about his problem with Emily. His unstable desire is also shown in his three marriages. So overall, I do not like Grady nor James. I think both are extremely insecure. This book is also confusing. I think there is so much problems that is happening at once and is extremely dramatic. However, I do have to admit that it makes a good movie.

Wonder Boys compared to the other books

I personally believe that this novel is somewhat interesting. On hand, it feels as if nothing productive has been described throughout the entirety of the novel. I feel as though something epic should happen due to its short time span. However, on the other hand, I also feel as if so many pointless events have happened. Yes, the death of a beloved dog is a big deal for those that knew him but I do not believe that it should be a main topic throughout the entire novel. I suppose that I just expected more out of the book due to the short.

I was happy to finally read about a character that was not held down by societal norms. Although I was constantly shocked that he was a college professor, I thought that it was interesting how he did not care about his responsibilities when engaging in illegal activities. He was constantly high, and yet he did not seem to care that his students or peers knew that he was doing such things. I am unsure of which character I can relate to the most. I feel like Amory was too tied down by society and what others thought, which forced him into following the rules. I cannot really relate to many of Portia’s actions, but I feel like I somewhat like Grady’s attitude toward societal rules. Although I am a rule follower like Amory, I like that Grady does what he wants to do, whether it is legal or not. I would never be able to do the things that he does, but I respect him for having the guts to do the things that Amory would only do due to emulation. Grady paves his own way and I think that that is one of his good qualities.

However, this being said, I am very happy that Sara looked past her feelings toward Grady and stuck to her thoughts. She did not immediately base her decisions off of emotion, which is a good quality to have. Many women are caught basing things off of emotion and not thinking about what is best for her, which is why I respect Sara. I personally think that, although she cheated on her husband, she handled the situation better than Portia did. I think that Michael Chabon portrayed her in a positive light, other than cheating on her spouse. The idea that he displayed the woman of the household as having a higher position than her husband speaks to the contemporary aspect of the book. This novel deals with many contemporary issues, such as smoking marijuana, in a way that was more enjoyable than Admission for me.