Wednesday, September 3, 2014

A Bird Must Have Strong Wings: The Awakening by Kate Chopin


“The bird that would soar above the level plain of tradition and prejudice must have strong wings. It is a sad spectacle to see the weaklings bruised, exhausted, fluttering back to earth.” 

These are probably the most beautiful lines of Kate Chopin's novel The Awakening.

So I'm going to approach this novel very differently from the first two. I have fewer opinions and less analysis. This is because of a few things:

1. I found Edna's character entirely unengaging.
2. I ardently disagreed with Edna's actions in response to her awakening.
3. Regardless, this novel deserves thought and discussion because the message and experience cannot be ignored.

When The Awakening was first published in 1899 it was not received well. It avoided a direct ban but was heavily censored due to Edna's choices which aggravated the established gender roles in society as well as exposed the very real existence of female sexuality. In short, our little, listless, Laodicean Edna created quite a stir with her emotional, mental, and physical abandonment of her husband, her occasional indifference to her children, her scandalous sexual liaison with Arobin, and her emotional infidelity with Robert Lebrun. The last of which resulted in her suicide. 

So what was the message? That female nonconformity results in unrest, unhappiness, and drowning in the Gulf of Mexico? Well, I suppose that's one take away, but certainly not the one Kate Chopin intended. Instead, this novel is heralded as one of the first truly feminist novels. This means the message lies within Edna's secretively common experience, making her the victim of an existence smothered by societal expectations. 

Before I continue with the alternative format I want to create some quick parallels in the novel's characterizations. So Edna is obviously the main figure, originally an ideal woman, wife, and mother who then awakens with life, passion, longing, and dissatisfaction. Mademoiselle Reisz is a recitalist who deeply touches Edna. Though isolated and often unpleasant, Mademoiselle Reisz is independent, perhaps even a representation of Edna's desire to be so as well. Adele Ratignolle is a doting and devoted wife and mother who gives consistent warning to Edna as well as Robert. She may also represent what women were expected to be: the ideal mother and wife who found fulfillment in others fulfillment. Robert is obviously the catalyst to Edna's awakening, and he also serves as the face to the qualities she sees lacking in her marriage. Whereas Arobin seems to be Edna's form of expression and rebellion.

Okay. I have selected some of my favorite quotes from the novel. (If there is one thing about this book it would have to be its style. It is written beautifully.) I will also offer some questions which will hopefully allow us all to ponder the messages behind Edna's awakening.

“Even as a child, she had lived her own small life within herself. At a very early period, she had apprehended instinctively the dual life - that outward existence which conforms, the inward life which questions.”
  • What necessitated the dual life for Edna? Was it expectation, propriety, class, etc?
  • Does our current society necessitate a dual life?
"He could see plainly that she was not herself. That is, he could not see that she was becoming herself and daily casting aside that fictitious self which we assume like a garment with which to appear before the world."
  • The "he" is Edna's husband. (Just for your information and contextual understanding.)
  • This seems to be the definition of an "awakening." Edna's awakening was definitively sexual and independence-seeking. This isn't necessarily always the case, so was Edna's awakening a result of that which she had been deprived of? Or was it a natural reflection of her personality? Both?
  • If the awakening is a response to a deprivation of the passions of life and personal sense of fulfillment then must an awakening always react like the swing of a pendulum? 
“Edna began to feel like one who awakens gradually out of a dream, a delicious, grotesque, impossible dream, to feel again the realities pressing into her soul.” 
  • Could Edna have confronted her awakening, her desires, and her "dream," while still maintaining a functioning and respectable place in society? 
  • Just as a side note, this quote could function well as Edna's unlabeled understanding of oppression.
"I would give up the unessential; I would give up my money, I would give up my life for my children; but I wouldn't give myself. I can't make it more clear; it's only something I am beginning to comprehend, which is revealing itself to me."
  • Do you agree with Edna's categorization of what is unessential?
  • She leaves the only truly essential thing as herself, her being. Is this selfish? Assertive? Natural? Healthy?
  • What do you think she means when she says, "but I wouldn't give myself"?
  • It seems that she has drawn a difference between giving her life and giving herself. What do you think the difference is?
  • Are the phrases "to give of yourself" and "to give yourself" intrinsically different in meaning?

“But the beginning of things, of a world especially, is necessarily vague, chaotic, and exceedingly disturbing. How few of us ever emerge from such beginning! How many souls perish in its tumult! The voice of the sea is seductive; never ceasing, whispering, clamoring, murmuring, inviting the soul to wander for a spell in abysses of solitude; to lose itself in mazes of inward contemplation. The voice of the sea speaks to the soul. The touch of the sea is sensuous, enfolding the body in its soft, close embrace.”
  • This is right before Edna drowns herself in the Gulf of Mexico. Earlier in the summer, Edna had finally learned to swim and reveled in the self-assurance and power of it. Does Edna's method of suicide a representation of her last act of independence? Or was she simply being morbidly romantic in dying where she was awakened by Robert? Both, or maybe more?
  • Much like the first quote of a bird needing strong wings, do you believe that Edna could have been successful in building a world she could abide in? Was she doomed to "perish in its tumult" from the beginning? 
"But whatever came, she had resolved never again to belong to another than herself."

-Natalie Cherie

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Battle of the Sexes: Love's Labours Lost by William Shakespeare


Hello,
A second week of reading has come and gone! Let's launch right in. So first thoughts . . .

It doesn't end with marriage! o.O What?!?!

How odd . . .

Love's Labours Lost is one of Shakespeare's truly original plays. For a comedy, it seems relatively standard at first. Sexual tension, boys vs. girls wit, courting, misunderstandings, strategies discovered and foiled, the works. But There are a few key points that make Love's Labours Lost quite unique.

The Opening Circumstance

We'll begin with something simple, yet important. The opening circumstance. King Ferdinand and his three companions Biron, Longueville, and Dumaine have all sworn off women (Biron unwillingly) so that they can study in the Greek philosopher fashion for a short (or long, depends on when you ask and how in love they are) years. Even Though this may not seem like a big deal, it puts the men in a spot for certain ridicule as the King must soon welcome the Princess of France. Over the course of three years, (in this case sooner rather than later) a circumstance would have arisen which would force the king to be neglectful because of his slightly misogynistic oath. So, no matter what decision is made, he will either cross his word by breaking his oath or be neglectful and petty in his treatment of women, because of it. Also, most of the play takes place outside, which is traditionally symbolic of freedom, and sexual tension. So take a wild guess with this plays plot.


                                                                                     This is Biron . . .
Class Distinction

Shakespeare writes Love's Labours Lost with an interesting back and forth narrative, which jumps between two parties till they are brought into the same space at the end. The division lies along a class distinction. In one group is the King and his lords who are attempting to court the Princess and her ladies. In the other group are Costard (a crude clown), Armado (a Spanish braggart) and Mote (his page), and Jaquenetta, a "wench" whom Armado has fallen in love with and Costard has probably messed with. Eventually, the lower class/varying class group is joined by the more learned Holofernes and Sir Nathaniel.

This juxtaposition is important because it works to both elevate and lower the higher class. For example, both Armado and Biron employ Costard to deliver their love notes to their respective ladies. But, a mix up occurs and both are equally ridiculed regardless of class. They both use inflated and ridiculous language, making them seem more similar and absurd than is cared for in the higher classes. On a different note though, the beautiful poetry and crisp prose of Biron and his companions is sharply contrasted by the low and crude prose of Costard and his friends. Another interesting difference is Armado's willingness to work for love in contrast to the lord's hesitancy, which leads us into our next topic.

Trust, Constancy, and Bromance


So, funniest scene ever: Biron is in the library having just written a sonnet to Rosaline. Then the King enters and Biron quickly ducks into hiding. The King then incriminates himself by breaking his oath by professing his love for the Princess. Soon Longueville enters and the King quickly hides, and Longueville likewise perjures his oath by professing his love for Maria. And finally, Dumaine enters and once again, with Longueville hiding, Dumaine is found crossed in his oath as he is in love with Catherine. It's really quite hilarious as each ridicules the previous to find out that he himself is found out. Even Biron eventually confesses, and they toss aside their broken word as a "too bad, at least we tried . . . right?"

The women don't take their forsworn nature so easily though. Neither do they accept their "group-attack" strategies. Thus begins the bantering wit and humiliating courtships, where, in fact, the women always top the men by being a step ahead, unwilling to trust that their suitors actually love them or would be willing to leave their bachelor/brotherhood lifestyle for matrimony. It's too bad that the play is spent with love-struck men trying in vain to woo disbelieving women but hey, hence the title Love's Labours Lost. Besides if a bunch of guys who wanted nothing to do with me suddenly became romantically interested with each girl in my party (conveniently not falling for the same girl) then I might be a trifle skeptical too. Even so, it is the back and forth wit, whether the speakers are disguised or not, that brands itself as one of Love's Labours Lost's most famous markers, but it also shows an interesting perspective regarding female confidence, requirements, and independence that we will touch on in the next few sections.

Sexuality and Language

The language of Love's Labours Lost is almost flagrant in its undisguised brilliance. The language and sheer mass of sexual puns not only set apart the play though, but also the women. First off, the Princess and ladies in waiting can mince words with the greats-of-subtle-yet-blunt-meaning. They have no problem battering their young men with sexual insults, jokes, or witticisms. Frankly, these women are super sexually and verbally confident. This confidence does cost a price though. The aristocratic characters will often banter with characters like the low-class Costard, effectively lowering their own station and distance in the act.

The men of both classes also joke about sexuality, mostly among themselves and especially when Costard is speaking (in which circumstance bodily functions, feces, and genitalia is often the topic of discussion). This creates a weird scatological and almost homoerotic sub-theme that also adds to the unlikely nature of the brotherhood and sisterhood disassembling for the sake of a marital possibility that the women are suspicious of anyway. And on top of that, the women are firmly planted in their independence to be so shaken by something so unpromising and ridiculous. Even so, homosexuality is simply not a part of Love's Labours Lost, but the reminder that Shakespeare's sexual sense of humor is expansive enough to include both genders, is everywhere. This brotherhood/bromance tendency leads us into the women's final requirement and unexpected ending.

An Ending without a Marriage

So the ending is really not so unexpected due to the title. But even so, it is incredibly unusual considering Shakespeare's comedic pattern. The comedy = Everyone always gets married! Even if they've known each other for a freaking day. But, this could not have happened in Love's Labours Lost. In a world where love is a game reality simply had to step in. So, death enters the picture in the form of the King of France passing away. With the sudden news, the Princess and her ladies pack up leaving no time left for the King and his lords to convince them of their love. Essentially the ladies were like: "Why should I trust you? You're already forsworn bro!" So, in order for the men to prove their love each lady requires a year's time for mourning and for the respective lover to fulfill whichever occupation the lady assigned (for Biron it is to jest in a hospital). The lords are hesitant as to the length of time but each agrees in turn while Armado expresses his willingness to plough for three years for Jaquenetta's love. An interesting contrast.

Biron calls attention to this unconventional ending by saying, "Our wooing doth not end like an old play. / Jack hath not Jill. These ladies' courtesy / Might well have made our sport a comedy." The King replies: "Come, sir, it wants a twelvemonth an' a day, / And then 'twill end." And in a sort of omen Biron ends with, "That's too long for a play."

Extra Thoughts


So did you notice the occasional comments about Ethiop's and general blackness? Well if you did then you're probably wondering if Rosaline is Black. While multiple adaptations have portrayed both a lord and a lady, sometimes neither being Rosaline, as Black, and other adaptations as only Rosaline being Black, while still others with no Black characters, the question is still up for debate.

This question originates in tensions relating to the foreign setting, and Biron and the lord's comments regarding Rosaline's coloring. For starters, Navarre is in Spain and the ladies are from France. The original occurrence bringing the two parties together was war and debt (making the seriousness of the lord's broken vow make a little more sense, as well as heightening the likelihood that a character, whether Rosaline or not, would be foreign as well as of a different ethnicity). Apart from that, Biron complains of her black eyes at first. And the King teases Biron saying: "By heaven, they love is black as ebony. . . . / Biron: No face is fair that is not full so black. / King: O paradox! Black is the badge of hell. . . . / Biron: And therefore is she born to make black fair."

Though the lines remain ambiguous since Biron at one point calls Rosaline pale, leaving the audience to wonder if she is pale with black hair and eyebrows and eyes, making their exaggeration one of love's antics, or if she is actually Black. But either way, it gives an opening to introduce diversity into the play and into the most central couple at that. Maybe echoing here are the remnants of Shakespeare's "dark lady."

-Natalie Cherie

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Powdered Glass and Madness: The Invisible Man by H.G. Wells

Today's the day! This is the first week of my book review/club blog post series. Enjoy. :)

This post may contain SPOILERS! I don't plan on censoring what I write so if you don't like ruined surprises I suggest you read the book before reading this post. Also, if you have any other ideas, concepts, or analysis up for discussion please feel free to comment at the bottom. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on the novel.

The Invisible Man was published in 1897 by H.G. Wells. Often considered one of the "fathers of science fiction," H.G. Wells created an unmistakable impression upon science fiction and the conflicts that can arise from discovery. Laying the foundation for imaginative possibility and fantastic situations, Wells also gave us insight into humanity by placing people in situations that provided uncommon strain, leading to enlightening reactions. 


So what is so frightening about the possibility of an invisible man? 

Human definition, control, and accountability. These three concepts are the backbone of The Invisible Man. 

Human Definition

So let's begin with a human definition. Human definition is not justly based on the five senses. We can be blind and still be human or we can be blind and the person we cannot see is still human. Same with smell, taste, touch, and sound. But if this were the dilemma in The Invisible Man it would have been solved easily and there would be no novel. It is obvious that this issue is not whether or not Griffin (the invisible man) exists but rather what he is now defined as. The issue becomes that he has literally changed his make up to render himself invisible. This makes it so that no one can see him, whether their eyes are fully functional or not. He begins with removing the pigment from his blood. Already being an albino, Griffin has less difficulty rendering himself pigment-less. Once he has no pigment he uses the serum he has invented to lower refractive index (the number used to describe the way in which light propagates through an object, level of refraction, reflection, absorption, etc.) and lowers his own refractive index to that of air. Thus, he becomes invisible. 

The question now is: Does a visible human body play a functional role in the definition of a human? Some may say, "Of course not. He's still a human whether anyone can see him or not." This would be supported by his remaining need for food, shelter, sleep, clothing. Others may claim, "He changed the actual chemical reaction of oxygenated hemoglobin (which creates the red pigment of blood). He also had to alter the other respiratory pigments haemocyanin, haemerythrin, and chlorocruorin which, when becoming oxygenated, deal with the colors blue, green, red, and violet. Had he not been albino he would have also had to alter his skin pigmentation. This would have tampered with his melanin which would have resulted in genetic alteration." The pigment-less human being: just an abnormality or something new, something not human? 

Interestingly, had Griffin had the capability to control his invisibility by "turning it on and off" we might have thought of him as a super hero or in his case super villain. But because he could not switch back and forth he became a fearful monstrosity, unable to function in society, and frightening to everyone. Interesting that a visible corporeal frame could make such a difference. 

Control

The next question we are forced to consider in The Invisible Man is "how would I react with the control wielded by the invisible man and my lack of control because of his existence?"

Probably not well.
At first, I was inclined to criticize the resident of Iping, who would sit and gossip and then only scream and run away horrified at the truth that they had complained at not having. But as the character and purposes of Griffin were revealed I realized that he had proved to be the exact man whom no one wanted to be in control. At one point Griffin explains his ideas of a "reign of terror" to Dr. Kemp, saying that it would begin with a few inconsequential deaths to establish his power. At another earlier point in the novel, we realize that Griffin has been robbing people since before he became invisible, a habit that has only worsened with his added advantage and inability to provide his own income. Griffin also has an explosive rage which is probably fueled by his occasional use of strychnine as a freaking sleeping aid! Just for those who don't know, strychnine poisoning is one of the most commonly portrayed cinema and literary poisons because of its being one of the most dramatic and painful toxins available or known. Griffin is also tending towards madness. Whether due to his rage, disregard for human life, or his belief in his own impunity, Griffin has created a monster of himself. He deprives others of their most basic ability towards self-preservation: seeing the enemy. He deprives others of their most basic means of survival: money and means. He deprives others of their most basic right: life. 
Needless to say, I wouldn't react very well to the invisible man's existence either. Killing him becomes an issue of ethics. Did the police force have the right to use brutal force, resulting in Griffin's death? Was it a necessity because of Griffin's unjust power and menacing control? Did they even mean to kill him? It is very likely that Griffin's death was unintentional since they didn't know how to contain him otherwise, and frankly couldn't see where they were hitting or what and how much they were damaging him. But the commentary still stands: human fear is almost always rooted in a certain lack of control.

Accountability

This final concept constitutes less of a question and more of a statement. Most people agree that accountability while often avoided through means of dishonesty, is always deserved since our actions necessitate the corresponding consequences. Yet in The Invisible Man, Griffin seems to believe himself outside of the "common conventions of humanity." In his conversation with Dr. Kemp, it is obvious that Griffin thinks the end justifies the means. He is eerily nonchalant as he explains that he can't be blamed for necessity: robbing his father and his father's consequential suicide, robbing and tying up a man who lived alone and never checking if he was found, killing people to establish his "reign of terror," threatening people because "he chose them" for a specific job. It's pretty unnerving to watch Griffin so easily deprive others of their livelihood, freedom, lives, privacy, safety, etc. while still maintaining that he himself should be left alone. To Dr. Kemp he explains that "I've a particular objection to being caught by my fellow-men." My question is, "And...?" It's simple to say one objects to being caught, heck we all do. But if your actions necessitate the chase, then good luck. 
Dr. Kemp agreed. But he went a step further, not only allowing the hunt to begin by betraying Griffin but by depriving Griffin of his own necessity. He cut off his means of shelter, food, and clothes. He set out police dogs. He alerted the trains, grounding Griffin's ability to travel. He even suggested lining the roads with powdered glass. When Col. Adye starts at this idea expressing its unsportsmanlike flavor, Dr. Kemp simply replies, "The man's become inhuman, I tell you. . . . He has cut himself off from his own kind. His blood be upon his own head." Essentially forcing Griffin to receive the consequences that his actions have required.

The Invisible Man

In the end, Griffin is killed by a mob who is trying to stop him from murdering Dr. Kemp. It's interesting because as he dies his body slowly becomes visible again, making the cruelty he suffered just as visible as the cruelty he dealt out. 

Quotes from The Invisible Man
*all sections of quotes in bold was a change I introduced, not included in the original text.

"The more I thought it over, Kemp, the more I realised what a helpless absurdity an Invisible Man was—in a cold and dirty climate and a crowded civilised city. Before I made this mad experiment I had dreamt of a thousand advantages. That afternoon it seemed all disappointment. I went over the heads of the things a man reckons desirable. No doubt invisibility made it possible to get them, but it made it impossible to enjoy them when they are got. Ambition—what is the good of pride of place when you cannot appear there? What is the good of the love of woman when her name must needs be Delilah? I have no taste for politics, for the blackguardisms of fame, for philanthropy, for sport. What was I to do? And for this, I had become a wrapped-up mystery, a swathed and bandaged caricature of a man!"

"It was worse than anything. Mrs. Hall, standing open-mouthed and horror-struck, shrieked at what she saw, and made for the door of the house. Everyone began to move. They were prepared for scars, disfigurements, tangible horrors, but nothing! The bandages and false hair flew across the passage into the bar, making a hobbledehoy jump to avoid them. Everyone tumbled on everyone else down the steps. For the man who stood there shouting some incoherent explanation, was a solid gesticulating figure up to the coat-collar of him, and then—nothingness, no visible thing at all!"

"He has cut himself off from his own kind. His blood be upon his own head."

"A feeling of extraordinary elation took the place of my anger as I sat outside the window and watched these four people...trying to understand the riddle of my behavior....I was invisible, and I was only just beginning to realize the extraordinary advantage my invisibility gave me. My head was already teeming with plans of all the wild and wonderful things I had now impunity to do." 

“And there it was, on a shabby bed in a tawdry, ill-lighted bedroom, surrounded by a crowd of ignorant and excited people, broken and wounded, betrayed and unpitied, that Griffin, the first of all men to make himself invisible, Griffin, the most gifted physicist the world has ever seen, ended in infinite disaster his strange and terrible career.” 

“But-! I say! The common conventions of humanity-Are all very well for common people.” 


-Natalie Cherie

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

A Summer for Reading

This has been a summer of reading. I work at Mail Services on Brigham Young University campus. And I often feel like this.
Okay, so when a person (or rather an English Major) sits at their job, often having 4 or 5 hours of downtime added up by the end of the day, what are they supposed to do? The answer: ding ding ding! read. And that's what I've been doing. So now that I've read 25 works this summer, ranging from plays, novels, and series I thought I'd share my thoughts on them with you. So whether you'd like to treat this experiment as a book review hub or rather a book club of sorts where you can read along with what I've been reading, feel free to join in. I'll be posting a review of a new book once a week. I may occasionally interrupt with an essay to read and then a writing exercise for writing enthusiasts but in general, you can expect a book a week. It will go roughly in this order since the top of the list holds my most recent reads.

The Invisible Man by H.G. Wells
Love's Labours Lost by William Shakespeare
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
Macbeth by William Shakespeare
The Giver by Louis Lowry
The Taming of the Shrew by William Shakespeare
Mansfield Park by Jane Austen
Mockingjay by Suzanne Collins
Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins
Allegiant by Veronica Roth
Insurgent by Veronica Roth
Divergent by Veronica Roth
Much Ado About Nothing by William Shakespeare
The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque
Wyrd Sisters by Terry Pratchett
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
The High King (Chronicles of Prydain #5) by Lloyd Alexander
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Taran Wanderer (Chronicles of Prydain #4) by Lloyd Alexander
The Castle of Llyr (Chronicles of Prydain #3) by Lloyd Alexander
A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith
The Black Cauldron (Chronicles of Prydain #2) by Lloyd Alexander
The Book of Three (Chronicles of Prydain #1) by Lloyd Alexander

-Natalie Cherie

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Our First Anniversary



Hey everyone! So this is one of our more recent photos. I know this is a little late, but Spencer and I had our first anniversary on July 6. It was super relaxed and lovely. Since it was a Sunday (and a fast Sunday at that) we spent most of our day goingto church and fasting. But, to make up for it we had a spectacular dinner. Spencer made Chicken Tikka Masala Curry and I made Cheesecake with milk chocolate and strawberries on top. So I figured I'd give you the recipes in case you wanted to try them out. (Also because they rock.) I also wanted to let you know that life is just swell. Anyway, just for kicks I though I'd show you pictures from a year ago. We don't look tons different except that he and I keep exchanging who wants to shorter hair. But it's been fun, and I think married life (even with its ups and downs) is great!


Cheesecake

Crust:
1 cup graham cracker crumbs
1/4 cup butter, melted
2 tablespoons sugar

1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Butter 9" pie plate.
2. Mix all ingredients well. Press into prepared pie plate.
3. Bake 10 minutes. Set aside.
Alternative: Honestly, I buy a pre-made graham cracker crust and it works great!

Filling:
2 (8 ounce) packages cream cheese
3/4 cup sugar
2 eggs
1 cup sour cream
1 teaspoon vanilla extract or lime juice

1. In glass mixing bowl, soften cream cheese in microwave on defrost setting for 2 minutes, or leave at room temperature for several hours.
2. Add sugar and mix until well blended. A sturdy metal whisk works great.
3. Whisk in eggs, sour cream and vanilla or lime juice.
4. Pour into prepared crust and bake 25 or 30 minutes.
5. Cheesecake will be slightly jiggly. It will set as it cools.
6. Top with favorite fruit topping.

Makes 1 (9") Cheesecake


Curry Stand Chicken Tikka Masala Sauce Recipe

Chicken Tikka Masala Curry
Makes Six Servings
Ingredients:

(We personally add more curry powder, cinnamon, and cayenne pepper.)




Directions

  1. Heat ghee in a large skillet over medium heat and cook and stir onion until translucent, about 5 minutes. Stir in garlic; cook and stir just until fragrant, about 1 minute. Stir cumin, 1 teaspoon salt, ginger, cayenne pepper, cinnamon, and turmeric into the onion mixture; fry until fragrant, about 2 minutes.
  2. Stir tomato sauce into the onion and spice mixture, bring to a boil, and reduce heat to low. Simmer sauce for 10 minutes, then mix in cream, paprika, and 1 tablespoon sugar. Bring sauce back to a simmer and cook, stirring often, until sauce is thickened, 10 to 15 minutes.
  3. Heat vegetable oil in a separate skillet over medium heat. Stir chicken into the hot oil, sprinkle with curry powder, and sear chicken until lightly browned but still pink inside, about 3 minutes; stir often. Transfer chicken and any pan juices into the sauce. Simmer chicken in sauce until no longer pink, about 30 minutes; adjust salt and sugar to taste
  4. http://allrecipes.com/recipe/curry-stand-chicken-tikka-masala-sauce/


-Natalie Cherie

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Living Death: The Personification of Death in Literature



Death is fascinating. To each of us, Death may bear curiosity, fear, fascination, horror, sometimes longing, disgust, sorrow, and respite. Oh, look . . . I just personified death.

Personification is actually quite easy. It's one of the rhetorical devices that we each learn in grade school. One of the rhetorical devices we actually remember. And one that many of us actually use. Many inanimate objects sit comfortably among the halls of those that are personified. For example, the wind cutting through me, snowflakes nipping at my nose, foreboding branches clawing at my face, the dust whispering as my feet stir up its words. But (if personification really did have a hall like the Hall of Fame) it would be Death who sat at the head, ruling as the most common, powerful, and frightening personification, humankind continually reverts to.

Death is everywhere in literature. "Death be not proud," commands the "10th Holy Sonnet" of John Donne. In A Christmas Carol Scrooge cowers before his third ghost. essentially Death, and, trembling at the eventuality of death, asks: "Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of the things that May be only?" (pg. 117). In Milton's Paradise Lost Satan confronts Sin, his mistress, and Death, his son, and Sin explains her fearful offspring saying, "I fled, and cry'd out, DEATH! / Hell trembled at the hideous name, and sigh'd / From all her caves, and back resounded, DEATH!" (Book 2, line 787).

And even though these personifications of Death are masterful, my two of my favorite personifications of death are Terry Pratchett's DEATH in the Discworld Series and Marcus Zusak's Death in The Book Thief. The differences in the characterization, function, and appearance of these two literary Deaths are fascinating. I'll begin with Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

So Terry Pratchett is a British satirist who has spent his entire writing career creating the Discworld. There are dozens of books forming a canon of stories revolving around Discworld. What ties all these books together is the world itself. Many books share the main character, some following a cooky magician named Rincewind, or a trio of witches, or Commander Vimes, or even DEATH. But interestingly, DEATH is the one character who is always present no matter how small his role in the book may be. Mort is the first book in DEATH's series. In the introduction of the book Terry Pratchett describes the world where his DEATH resides: "This is the Death whose particular sphere of operations is, well, not a sphere at all, but the Discworld, which is flat and rides on the back of four giant elephants who stand on the shell of the enormous star turtle Great A'Tuin, and which is bounded by a waterfall that cascades endlessly into space. Scientists have calculated that the chance of anything so patently absurd actually existing is millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten."

So who is Terry Pratchett's DEATH? 

Well for starters, he's fairly typical . . . at least physically. It follows suit that a Terry Pratchett DEATH would not only be in capital letters (we'll come back to that later) but would follow all the conceptions that we have when thinking of death. For example, DEATH carries a scythe, he wears a black cloak, he's frightening and therefore usually ignored out of everyone's perception of reality, and he's a skeleton. Perhaps a little different is that he has in his eye sockets two glowing blue orbs that serve as his eyes. 
On the surface, it seems that this personified death is pretty standard. But, also following Terry Pratchett's style is to take typical thought or belief and flip it on its head. So even though DEATH looks like a grim reaper, he's actually pretty quirky. First, he has no sense of humor. This makes sense. But at one point in Mort he starts to long for the simple pleasures of life, like a normal job, humor, a cat. So he gives his job to his apprentice. Okay, that sentence had a whole list of quirks. DEATH wanting a normal job? Yep. He even goes to a job agency: "I ushered souls into the next world. I was the grave of all hope. I was the ultimate reality. I was the assassin against whom no lock would hold. "Yes, point taken, but do you have any particular skills?” He also likes cats. Odd. "I meant," said Ipslore bitterly, "what is there in this world that truly makes living worthwhile?" Death thought about it. Cats, he said eventually. cats are nice." And finally, DEATH has an apprentice. Hmm, weird. But okay! (Yeah, that was my thought process too.) His apprentice's name is Mort, how fitting. 

So hopefully you've noticed something else as well. I purposefully have been capitalizing DEATH for Terry Pratchett do that we can distinguish between two very different characters (The Book Thief Death, and Terry Pratchett's DEATH). But Terry Pratchett thought of that visual distinction first. Because every time DEATH speaks, his words are in small caps. It's as though his very being infuses the words with an obvious power. His voice has a finality that Terry Pratchett allowed to exist on the page of his books. Pretty cool in my opinion. 

Before we move on, a few more tidbits for you. DEATH knows when a human's time is up by his collection of hourglasses. Everyone has one. DEATH's favorite food is arguably curry. Mort found this our one of his first days as an apprentice: "Death leaned over the saddle and looked down at the kingdoms of the world. I don't know about you, he said, but I could murder a curry." DEATH also realizes that he is a personification. Super witty! (Then again, wit is kind of Terry Pratchett's embodied.) "It is a fact that although the Death of the Discworld is, in his own words, an anthropomorphic personification, he long ago gave up using the traditional skeletal horses, because of the bother of having to stop all the time to wire bits back on." And that's the final quirk I'll mention: DEATH has a horse named Binky. 

The Book Thief has a very different idea of Death.

Set in WWII, The Book Thief follows the story of a young girl whose father was a communist and whose mother has to give her up for adoption because she's running, Liesel's younger brother dies before they reach their new home and she steals her first book at his frozen train-side grave: The Gravedigger's Handbook. Her story amid Hitler's influence in her small German town, and her struggle as her family harbors a Jew is captivating for everyone . . . including Death. 


Unlike DEATH in Discworld, Death does not have a witty undertone or quirky traits. He is also not the main character. Rather, he is the narrator. This is an interesting way to tell Liesel's story because of the unique insight Death has into everyone's lives, especially those who come in contact with Liesel. Death is also not what he seems. 

I was sitting in the movie theater watching a random film everyone said was really great. As the previews ended and the movie began a beautiful, soft, male voice spoke from the screen. It was Death; I have never thought of him the same again. 

So what made such an impression? What is so different about Marcus Zusak's Death? Let's begin with his physical description.


This is a photographic excerpt from the book. If you've never read it, Death will often make comments of truth, his opinions, thoughts, foreshadowing, basically anything important, and they will be placed in this format. So this is Death's description of himself. I've never been quite sure what to make of it. But needless to say, it's a fascinating way to think about Death. 

Death also will describe the world in color.

“***A SMALL THEORY***
People observe the colors of a day only at its beginnings and its ends, but to me it's quite clear that a day merges through a multitude of shades and intonations, with each passing moment. A single hour can consist of thousands of different colors. Waxy yellows, cloud-spat blues. Murky darknesses. In my line of work, I make it a point to notice them. ”

At one point Death describes Rudy's hair as the color of Lemons, at another time he says, "The day was gray, the color of Europe." And when describing humans he simply says, "So many humans. So many colors." Its peculiar to think of Death as one who would notice color. A black-and-white, death-or-life, figure and he thinks in color. And why does he think in color?

Death: "Personally, I like a chocolate-covered sky. Dark, dark chocolate. People say it suits me. I do, however, try to enjoy every color I see - the whole spectrum. A billion or so flavors, none of them quite the same, and a sky to slowly suck on. It takes the edge off the stress. It helps me relax."

So here are some of my final thoughts on The Book Thief's Death. He is kind. He notices color to relax. He tries to avoid humans but remains fascinated by them. His appearance does not follow our stereotypical perception of him. Instead, we must find a mirror to see him. He insists that "even Death has a heart." And as he carries souls he can simultaneously say, "It kills me sometimes, how people die," and "Humans, if nothing else, have the good sense to die." At one point Death expresses the duality of existence: "I wanted to tell the book thief many things, about beauty and brutality. But what could I tell her about those things that she didn't already know? I wanted to explain that I am constantly overestimating and underestimating the human race - that rarely do I ever simply estimate it. I wanted to ask her how the same thing could be so ugly and so glorious, and its words and stories so damning and brilliant." In The Book Thief, Death is the great observer, the one who much watch. But, most of all Death is curious and compassionate, leaving him "haunted by humans."


Death as a corporeal frame haunts our fairy tales, our fantasy novels, our poetry, our plays. The universal antagonist, Death keeps ever present in our minds the fact that we must each live our lives and eventually die. And that knowledge creates a frightening as well as exciting transition we don't understand. This is why Death can live in literature. We continually seek to understand and contain the concept of death, literally leading to a personification: Death as one of us. And I think in the process we've stumbled on some truth. We may end our lives weary, but at least we eventually find rest. I doubt we will ever be as weary as Death who whispers, "My heart is so tired" and he cannot die. Though we may not think of DEATH's loneliness, Mort does. "It struck Mort with sudden, terrible poignancy that Death must be the loneliest creature in the universe." I doubt we will ever be as lonely as DEATH, because at least we have the unity of each facing life together, though we must each face death separately. All I know is I hope Death is something like the personifications in Marcus Zusak's and Terry Pratchett's imaginations, the witty and compassionate Death that lives in literature.

-Natalie Cherie