Blog 4

Lee Harvey Oswald's Marxism seems to only go only so deep; we see him portrayed as this man of ambiguity over and over, yet his sentiments towards socialism seem to remain steadfast throughout the novel.

Oswald professes to be a socialist and for most of the novel, he is demonstrates this by trying to escape the capitalist grip of the US. In his journey, he has become (maybe in his view) a true Marxist, a dedicated revolutionary and from the very beginning, during his time in the Marines, he was reading Das Kapital... he certainly has his personal history to back up this conviction of his.

The issue regarding Oswald is that his socialism might just be a mask for his overall disdain and feelings of worthlessness in American society. Was his journey to the USSR pure escapism? What this question complicates may be how we draw conclusions of individuals like Oswald and how American society responds to individuals who feel marginalized by the system.

We know of Oswald's unhappiness—his difficult upbringing and the bullying that he faced as a social outcast: that much is clear. Motivations to a deeper disdain of his society is understandable but does Oswald's potential disingenuous pursuit of his "socialism" complicate how we view his other pursuits and/or more broadly, does an alternative, emotional, and/or superficial motive for studying and pursuing something like, for example, Marxism detract from the intention behind such an action?

Infinitely complex characters like Oswald ultimately require more than a simplification of their motives to an ideology... for somebody like Oswald, can we say that he did everything just because he was a Marxist or because he was purely manipulated by unknown forces or can we pin his desire to be remembered, to be a part of history as the cause of his violence and crimes?

For somebody like Oswald, the layers of desire overlap so much and devolve into a sort of ambiguous brown or grey—while it may feel at times useless to parse all his layers (that he cannot even confirm/deny/respond to!), it might actually be worthwhile in the end. Though we might not get a clean answer (nor would be able to know) of his own motivations, we should be reminded of the complexities that compile over time into a person and that, perhaps, we should detach ourselves from the straightforward, hegemonic answers that we are served.

Blog 3

Rufus' progression, despite our wishes to the opposite, tends to become negative through unsavory manifestations in his personality, etc.—nonetheless, we find this to be only natural as Rufus can only be a product of the conditions of his environment and the systems that he engages.

This is established—we need not prove Rufus' negative development as we encounter such in his encounters with Dana, with others, and his general presentation throughout the story.

Then, a question that arises out of this fact is Dana's dismissiveness and quasi-enabling behaviors towards Rufus: why does she always give Rufus the benefit of the doubt, why is she so...forgiving of his flaws? For somebody from the later 20th century with such modern sensibilities and who embodies the progressive changes that would have been unimaginable in Rufus' era, she sometimes acts with an almost passive and relenting attitude.

For a first thought, might we need to blame Dana? Is this a flaw of hers, one that we should criticize her and use her, rather than Rufus, as a negative example that we should not embody and rather learn from their mistakes? Perhaps we should avoid this conclusion—out of the entire story, Dana, in my opinion, is one of the few that truly seems to have a sort of agency, that she is most relatable. Rufus, Kevin, and others all seem to play their dedicated roles, they need not grapple with any dilemmas and thus, they cannot necessarily be compared to a character like Dana. In Dana's mind, Rufus as a mid-20s year old is not far separated from the much younger version that first made an impression on Dana (this seems very reasonable!). In general, it seems that she grows, develops, as the story continues and changes in a much more personal way, one that is more personal that really and which sets her apart from all others.

We might be able to debate the unreliability of Dana and how her narration might be compromised with her own selfish aims, but the reality might be that there isn't anyone else in the story, that we would compare her with...if we were to compare her to ourselves, could we not also feel similar to how she might?

By virtue of the intrinsic difference that Dana has in relation to all others within Kindred, we can't compare her, if she is to be viewed as one part of this story's whole, to another part. She is a very different character whose job is to not just bring the story and message of Kindred out to us, but to also pull us into her experiences, to make us think what it'd be like to be her.

Blog 2

Mumbo Jumbo, I believe, marks a departure from previous perspectives of race and racial dynamics in America—besides the obvious denunciations of portrayals of the "African American Experience" and their associated issues, Reed creates this worldview, this quasi-religious perspective and that incorporates various cultural, sociological, and historical phenomena into one. As an obligatory mention, this postmodernist motif of blurring the lines between "objectivity" and "subjectivity" appears here—the seemingly incongruent handling of how we treat history (often seen as objective) and sociological phenomena (perhaps thought of as being subjective, the result of social constructions) equally seems to demonstrate this point well.

Now in regards to Reed's 'Mumbo Jumbo Worldview', I take concern with its passive dichromatism despite it's clear and superficial "anti-European" sentiments...
Within this quasi-religious framework, we see the start of Jes Grew and an animating "Afro-American" spirit stemming from ancient Egypt; in the chapters describing the mythological origins of Jes Grew and Atonism, this theme of brothers-turned-enemies sets the stage for a bipolar dynamic. If we then follow the spread of Atonism, we extend into Europe, a predominantly white and Christian continent; for example, "the Atonists in the late 4th century B.C. convinced the Emperor Constantine to co-sign for the Cross" (Reed 168). This thread of the brotherly conflict, in its spread and its embodiment through Hinckle and Safecracker, shows a uniquely white facet of this dichotomy.
However, if we consider the spread of Jes Grew or its present existence, we see a uniquely African American movement—besides other more obvious examples, if we just consider that the Haitian authorities, those from the only country in the world which gained independence through an African slave revolt, we can see how this aspect of the brotherly conflict is characteristically black.

Despite the seeming Afrocentric origin of this brotherly conflict, I still wonder why Ancient Egypt was the primary setting... despite its geographic location within Africa, Egypt and the rest of northern Africa were much more connected to southern Europe—Egypt was once part of the Roman Empire! Further, there seems to be a geographic disconnection even with regards to ethnicity: many of the slaves that were exploited and forcefully brought to America were mostly from western Africa; with some inconsistencies and seemingly carefully curated anthropologic examples, I am concerned about this narrative in the first place. I assert this: under a superficial cover of Afrocentrism, we still see a disconnection and that the story is still ultimately Eurocentric. Given the previously mentioned sentiments that this text seems to espouse (anti-colonialist, anti-Eurocentric), I would think that the underlying narrative would be more complex, unlike the condensed and monolithic representations that are concomitant with books about the 'African American Experience' that fall under the Atonist tradition and perhaps even broadly simplistic and dichromatic 'Black vs White' dynamics...

Blog 1

To me, at least, the scene of Tateh being reintroduced as "Baron Ashkenazy" was bewildering, mind-boggling, top-10-plot-twists-of-all-time, etc., but this new veneer of a dark-haired, high-society individual who was once an overworked and exhausted socialist immigrant worker has been replaced by a new and outwardly persona. In the conscious acquisition of this new appearance (or, the revitalization of one previous), the circumstances of his "superficiality" spawn irony given his past history.

Tateh in the flesh.

More irony can be found with "the stereotypical well-off 20th century" family's interest/connection with Tateh and his daughter. Of course, the family has changed much by the end of the novel but if we take the idea that they represent a part of society at large, there is some irony in their fascination with this surface-level representation of a mystical and exotic European individual despite his "true" background and given the pervasive attitudes found in American society (which they may, to an extent, symbolize) at the time (xenophobia, etc.).

If we think about superficiality as a "layer," we could conceptualize this as Tateh adopting a costume which masks his "true" identity to form a new "basis layer". Another example in which a "basis layer" is formed is Mother's Younger Brother and his "revolutionary" activities.

With MYB's pursuits, his "desire for a meaning" may have led up to him embracing superficiality on several layers during Coalhouse's saga. The first is his appearance: with burnt cork and the similar clothing style, MYB "looks the part"—despite the race difference, he wears a costume to integrate into his immediate surroundings. A second layer is his "infatuation with revolution"; granted, MYB might strongly believe in his radical ideals and they could be deeply held but at least in the context of Coalhouse's fiasco, he seems very much betrayed at Coalhouse's limited demands.

"Coalhouse [...] went out to talk to the young men in the hall. [...] Younger Brother said What you are doing is betraying us. Either we all ought to go free or we all ought to die. You signed your letter pResident of the Provisional American Government. [...] But we meant it! Younger Brother cried. We meant it! There are enough people in the streets to found an army! [...] Younger Brother was shouting now. You can't change your demands! You can't reduce the meaning of your demands! You can't betray us for a car!" (Doctorow, 245-246)

I would speculate that with such an objection, MYB might not understand Coalhouse's own intentions and that he does not have a grasp of any stronger convictions; while he may not consciously recognize it, his "strong" and "revolutionary" ideals might not be any deeper than those which are only reactionary and superficial.

A review of these sequences show a basis layer; in Tateh's case, the irony stems from the circumstances of the superficially new "identity" that Tateh adopts which masks his "true" identity and with MYB, the circumstances of superficiality comes as a solution to his "true" yearn for meaning and purpose. To these, I wonder if the inverse is true - can superficiality stem out of circumstances of irony?

I don't think a good example of this can be found in Ragtime and perhaps its impossibility most clearly separates irony and superficiality. From these two examples, I think the order and purpose of irony and superficiality can be recognized; I would conceptualize superficiality as being like a colored light filter and irony as the resultant perception of the light. If I layer a patterned green filter (superficiality) onto a light source (thus forming a system or "basis layer"), the projected light will be green and sparkly (i.e., these effects are irony). However, this example isn't to say that irony can only stem from superficiality—if a light source projects a warm and uniform light ("basis layer"), this characteristics of the light emitted would be the figurative "irony".

I would argue that irony is predicated on the jest of a "basis layer" (whether it is the superficial layer which masks the "true identity"(e.g., Tateh or MYB) or the true identity itself (e.g., irony stemming from Father's activities, etc.)); the essence of the irony stems not from the intentional manipulation of the character (e.g., causing the character to adopt something or change in some other way like adopting a superficial identity) but of the circumstances that occur (e.g., the series of events that lead up to a situation). For example, the phrase "it is ironic that Tateh adopted a new persona" does not resonate as well as "there is irony in Tateh adopting a new persona"; whether it is because irony comes out of a combination of factors and circumstances and not from a single particular change, this goes to show that irony is an effect that is achieved whereas superficiality can be a character manipulation.

cute little diagram.