Response to Becca's Why Does the Narrator Give Us the Heebie Jeebies?

I remember as a kid that my brother and I would play outside and "kill" bad guys.  That being said I could not then nor now describe in great detail the gory scenes we were acting out (nor would I ever find it sexually gratifying).  I wonder how much of this narration is from the child’s point of view?  The great detail that Kochan goes into, could a child really describe that?  I doubt it; I would argue that these vivid scenes of death come from adult Kochan. The narrator is very creepy because his world and thoughts are nothing what a normal adult would think of.  This is one reason why Kochan remains isolated throughout the novel.

In Response to Whiny McWhiner Pants

I would consider Kochan's weakness's his sexual fantasies and his inability to interact with others.  The theory of Darwin certainly applies here and he will take himself out of the gene pool by either suicide or never reproducing.  I do agree with Becca, on the idea that he should not be treated any differently than any other person because he is different.  If we had to treat every different person special, we would all be treated special.  Kochan is never really able to grow up and face his fears/realities. He does seem that he is intelligent enough (intellectually speaking) but he certainly lacks everything else to be a person who can function in a society. 

Response to Sophia Miranda's Crazy Indian dads...

I would agree with you, but the problem is his wife is from the same region, but has embraced Western Culture at the same time has not forgotten were she came from.  Alsana was more concerned with raising her children to the best of her ability and not so concerned with she and her family going to hell or even making deals with God.  Samad is extremely insecure with himself and never realizes it or the damage he ends causing because of his insecurities.  I will give him credit in trying to do the right thing but he ends up taking the worst possible route in any discussion he makes.  Splitting his kid’s ups, the attempted affair, the deals with God, and trying to be a "good" Muslim by being a hypocrite (criticizing secularism but very much being involved and embracing it to a certain extent).  Samad never embraces the future nor the possible opportunities that lay before him but rather stays in the past and continually talks about the good old days.  He is unable to grow as person or chooses not to, either way his family pays for his insecurities.   

In Response to Nikki Freeman's: Woman Objectification and copmarison confusion

There is still a good portion of the world that the sexes are treated very differently.  The Western world (overall) has come to the conclusion that society is better off with the sexes being treated as equally as they can be.  Though, this is not the case in every way, for example Women cannot be drafted, but do not always receive equal pay for equal work that men perform.  In the Middle East, especially in countries that are ruled by theocracies, women are deprived of most of the basic rights women in the West take for granted.  It is still accepted if a women is rapped it is her fault and her own family may perform an honor killing.  Mustafa's women definitely were insecure with themselves, which is the trait that he looked for as they are easy prey for him.  As for the women being sluts, in my experience people who are promiscuous (men and women) tend to be very unsure of themselves and are looking for some sort of acceptance.  As sex is the most intimate activity a couple can have this tends to bring some amount of acceptance/security to the individual for a certain amount of time.  With Mustafa leaving these women would lose that and may fear they would never be able to experience that again or they may have contracted a std and gone insane (syphilis is a possibility).

Confessions of a mask

After reading the first 100 pages and the back of the novel, I find it interesting that the author is gay as well as he is into very weird sexual fetishes. In a culture having the reputation as the Japanese culture does, I personally would never think about a person in this kind of society. Not saying they didn't exist but I didn't not realize that he could be accepted into such a strict society. The strange thing is honorary suicide was still considered acceptable in the recent past so I find it ironical that he lives his life so differently but ends it not in a fashion that’s so outrageous.  At the end of the author’s life in 1970, Japan was no longer a colonizer but rather had been under the control of the United States since September 1945 and society, I would argue, slowly becomes more accepting of outside ideas and anything else that maybe different.   Personally, his guy has some serious issues. Finding grotesque images of men dying and the crucifixion of Christ as sexual turn on is plain disgusting and disturbing. Everyone has their thing but this flirts with that line and will turn into something dangerous.  Of all the fetishes that turn him on the only one I find somewhat normal is the armpit one.  The fact that he lust for blood, even though he fears death, it’s almost fitting that he commits suicide.   

Religion

I find the whole idea of religion very interesting.  I'm not saying there is no god, but rather how people react towards this idea.  A great example of this is how Samad justifies his actions by making excuses and deals with Allah which he turns around and breaks anyways.  His affair with this kid's teacher and how he couldn't stop thinking about her, even though he was married and how he would become upset with her because she was with a married man.  Then when he did call off the affair, he expected her to plead for him to stay but instead she told him where to stick it.  Samad turns around and gives the argument that his children need to be sent back to the old country so they do not fall into temptation.  I think it was because of the guilt he felt for his sins, he just used his sons as an excuse.  He continues onward for some time to try and choose which son should be sent (of course without telling his wife of his plan), but his reasoning is just as flawed as this whole idea.  As he goes back and forth between sons, his justifications are not based on faith nor morality but rather secular reasons.  The son that stays behind is in fact strays far more than the other, but is kept behind because of his potential football skills!  Even though throughout the chapter, Samad keeps informing people that he is Muslim and in fact his wife reminds him that he is the only one in the household that considers himself Muslim.  The rest of the family seems not to care too much about religion, but much rather live their life as to how the wish to live it.       

Marriage

I found it quite interesting that in Jane Eyre, Rochester is hiding Bertha Mason from the world all the while regretting that he ever married her, on the flip side Bertha (Antoinette) was the one who initially had the thought of not going through with the marriage.  At the same time, she confides with him that she was caught sleeping underneath a full moon one night long ago and was scolded as doing this would cause a person to go insane.  Adding the family history of insanity this foreshadows what is about to happen to Antoinette.  I argue that even the hesitation that Antoinette felt towards marrying Rochester is also a prediction that the marriage will not go so well for either party, even though Rochester insists that they should still go through with it (kinda ironic that he is the one to push the marriage, but latter hides his wife from the world).  Now the real question is, since Rochester was married to Bertha Mason at the same time planning a wedding with Jane and England doesn’t believe in polygamy, could the wedding even have taken place?  Okay, the world may or may not know of Rochester and Bertha’s union, but eventually it will come about and what then?  Would the Church even recognize the marriage of Jane and Rochester?  If they had kids would they then be considered illegitimate?  I would argue yes they would.  Though I believe with a little bit of bribery the Church would nullify Rochester and Bertha’s marriage and recognize his marriage to Jane.      

Pet Peeve: Wide Sargasso

I noticed in Wide Sargasso Sea and later on in Midnights Children the term poisonous snakes being used.  As a person who collects and study reptiles as a hobby I fine the use of this term ignorant.  I first call into question if the authors know the difference between poisons and venoms and choose for their characters not to or if they themselves are unaware of the differences.  Since I am unable to attain this information I will assume it is only the characters who do not understand.  First, there is no such thing as a poisonous snake as poison must be ingested or passively enters the body (most poisons can also survive the process of digestion and heat, while venoms cannot).  Venoms are actively injected into the body threw a wound inflicted upon the victim by the assailant.  Venom and poison are both toxics and will attack the body in very much the same way, but venom is always an organic compound, while poison can be both organic and inorganic (that is why they can survive the process of digestion and still cause their intended damage).  So, in essence one could consume snake venom and feel no ill effects (unless they have open sores, or cuts in the upper digestive tract).  An example of a poisonous animal is poison dart frogs and they must be handled directly or indirectly for the poison to be effected.  The frogs do not bite, but rather the toxins enter through the pores or an already opened wound or sore.  The idea of poisonous snakes almost makes seem that they cannot be touch, handled, or consumed.  That instead these creatures are to be killed or left alone completely.  Venomous snakes being described as “poisonous” seem to make them far more dangerous than they really are that they can kill a person by more than just biting them.  In Midnight’s Children, snake poison is used for medicinal purposes, though venom should still be applied regardless as all snake venoms are nothing more than specialized saliva.  As evil creature that they are portrayed, there are cases as used in Midnight’s Children where they can be life savers and not the demons that most people take them for (Wide Sargasso Sea for instance).       

Reality

     

During the first section of Wide Sargasso, Antoinette believes that looks don't matter that one should look at what is underneath, but her stepfather (Mr. Mason) believes quite differently.  It’s quite interesting to note this perception to reality.  Is either one more right than the other?  I would argue it depends on what one is looking for as we all see what we want.  Many years ago I had a boot camp instructor tell me something that has always stuck with me; "It doesn't matter what you do or say, as one's perception is one's reality."  Mr. Mason saw that the former slaves were lazy and would not dare revolt, but eventually was proven wrong.  What if he was right, but his wife always argued with him about them plotting?  Would we argue then that she is paranoid?  I would argue yes because up to the night of the former slaves burning down the house there was no evidence (at least the novel doesn't present any strong evidence) of them revolting except the words of Annette.  She perceived what she wanted too.  She happened to be right as she understood the area better than her husband.  That being said, had Mr. Mason actually investigated what Annette was arguing he might have discovered a plot that was threatening his family, but whether or not he would have taken it seriously is another debate entirely.  In fact one could claim there was no plot to destroy the family, as it could have been a spur of the moment event caused by a bunch of drunks.  Another thing I noticed and was discussed in class was all the dresses that she was adorned with, now adding the extreme events in Antoinette's life its almost like the people in her life (mainly the men) were trying to conceal the traumatic events in her life with clothing.  Having her appeal desirable to a future husband by being all "dolled up" but underneath containing far more baggage than most would want to deal with.  As this is shown in Jane Eyre as she is kept in the attic for several years by Mr. Rochester and she is never known by anyone except a few select individuals at Thornfield.  These dresses were there to change her "reality" or at the very least present a reality (however flawed it maybe) to unsuspecting persons.  Example of this would be; if a person met Antoinette briefly and she was dressed beautifully would one think that she contains such baggage?  Probably not, in fact one may think she is a very beautiful, stable, and desirable woman!  Now on closer inspection that same person would more than likely change this thought, but until that happens their reality is to think highly of her.  Why wouldn't they?  Mr. Rochester is proof of my argument that he did think highly of her or at least to marry her, but upon closer inspection realized her flaws and considered her an embarrassment.