I think you have to be careful when writing a piece like In the Combat Zone. The message is clearly about breaking the stigma of female helplessness, and acknowledging the dangers we face. But at the same time, it offers a very strong view point that defends gun use, the one thing that equalizes all. I understand why she puts forth such a strong voice for that kind of self defense, but I don't really agree with it. A gun is just an object outside of our own selves, and one that can be used against us if given the opportunity. Plus instilling the 'ready to kill' instinct in women is, in my opinion, a bad idea. To have to kill one person to save another is a sad thought. It just seems like a depressing way of emphasizing a person's helplessness, that such extremes have to be taken. It also makes everyone seem like a potential threat, and that kind of suspicion can really alienate others. What if she felt threatened by Brent Staples walking down the street? And what if he, feeling angry at his being persecuted, veered towards her for sport? I just think it's important to think about the details, and not just take the 'whatever it takes' kind of attitude regarding self defense and gun use.

I always have mixed feelings whenever I read something like The Black Notebooks. It's not difficult to understand the ways that race affects a person today, and in accordance with our history and everything. On the other hand, I think that when dealing with something as complex as racial bias, sometimes the focus shifts to something that is not really the center of the problem. Take Toi Derricotte. She has trouble forming her identity because her cultural background doesn't complement her physical appearance. She emphasizes her alienation from white society as well, but she insists on living in an all-white community. I guess what I don't understand is why a person would put herself into that kind of situation and then victimize herself for being taken as something she's not. The issue of race lies in appearance only- the greater part of one's cultural identity and such lies with one's ethnicity and upbringing. So maybe you look white- that doesn't make you any less of what you are, even if others see you differently than you see yourself. Many times such incongruance will occur regardless of race. I probably sound insensitive, but I think that her position was one that could have been quite advantageous given the right mindset. Of course I empathize with the plight of racial inequity, but I think it's wrong to gloss all of one's problems into racial issues. The sooner you accept yourself and put yourself forward as simply another hardworking, intelligent individual, the sooner others will do the same.

How to Tame a Wild Tongue

Language is something that is truly important. When I was younger and learning French in middle school, I'd never understood how much language pertains to a culture's individuality. They made us learn French songs, like "Frere Jacques", and I didn't understand why the words didn't rhyme in English if they meant the same thing. Later on I realized that it was because a language like French was formed independently of English; both languages came up with different words to symbolize meaning for the same thing. It wasn't as though one language based their vocabulary off of another's. With that came the understanding that each culture's language is a great part of their way of communicating and expressing. There is no way to substitute the individual meaning and subtlety that accompanies each language. I wish I had been able to pursue more opportunities for language studies at a younger age. There are even complete schools of thought on language development in psychology! It's a big part of life.

In response to Lauren's post about Free Union, I also agree about the surrealism of the piece. I suppose that this is where I part with a certain level of artistic license. Sometimes I feel like pieces like these are so abstract that no one will ever really understand, on their own, the intent of the author. I mean you get the general picture, but at certain points one kind of feels like, "What exactly did I just read?" And I understand that pieces like these are meant to be subjective, but I still think that people presume overmuch when they look at something like this. Like I'm not too fond of William Carlos Williams. I don't really think that much about what he's trying to say by some of his poems. I think I would shoot far beyond the mark if I tried. But I think sometimes it's alright to admit that you don't have to completely understand something in order to appreciate it.

The first draft of our body collage essay is due tomorrow. I am slightly concerned about my essay because I doubt it will be very interesting. I mean, looking back on the essays we've read in class, my own seems a bit weak. The larger the tragedy, the better the story haha. Emotionally crippling stories, why do they go so far? But then, how can I stand up to a story about psoriasis? Well, I doubt that my essay will ever be as effective as one of theirs, but in essence I believe that our struggles were the same. In the end, it's the heart of the writing that matters. Most of the stories are about body parts and their functionality, and what exactly they communicated. That writing in turn communicates the writer's feelings to others. Essentially, that is what this writing is all about. I feel that I've at least done that much.

Edward Hoagland: On Stuttering

I thought this essay was pretty interesting. At the heart of it is a person who has struggled with a physical impediment, but has still managed to lead a pretty normal life. Even something as important as speech can be overcome. And I also thought the allusions he made were interesting. I've never read Billy Budd, but I at least know about Demosthenes, and know the two must have met similar fates. Why he would choose to allude to these cases is strange to me. It seems that the tone of his writing is acceptant of his problems, but still optimistic about his abilities to lead as good a life as anyone else. So why then would he choose stories with endings as sad as these? I was expecting a more uplifting end. But I guess his main point is to just emphasize the reality of the situation.

In response to Dana's post, I also agree that it must have been hard to conceal the true cause of her blindness. For many people, it would have internalized a deep-seated resentment, or even hatred, because of the betrayal that she suffered. However, Alice Walker was able to overcome such an obstacle. Over time, her struggles taught her wisdom and benevolence, and allowed her to become a stronger person. I think it's great that despite such a terrible thing happening to her, especially one that was beyond her control, she was able to move on with her life. I do think it's a shame though, that her brothers never confessed to what they had done. Where is the catharsis, the redemption? For Alice Walker, that day was the end of all she had known herself to be. And yet, the general assertion of her family was that she'd never changed. It's a sad thing, really. I'm glad that at least she was able to make a positive change out of what had happened.