Reminder: Class will meet in two sessions, 12/17 from 10:15-10:45 or 12/18 from 10:15-10:45. Please attend one unless you have arranged with me otherwise.
Please note the new features on the blog: On the right you will now see a search bar; I'm glad Google added this as you may find it useful in preparing for your final exam. Below that one, the active poll, and my picture, you will see a list of completed homework for each student. This should assure you that I'm not just assigning the questions at random. I should have thought of this earlier. Please provide evidence if I've made a mistake, and I will change your count.
Reading: Yankee pages 5-76
Questions: Caleigh, Esther, Jenny, Tady, Zoe
Answers:
Viola (114). Why do you suppose Twain's novel about medieval England begins with a labor dispute in an industrial factory in the modern United States (page 9)? What does this tell us about the Yankee? What does it tell us about the scope of Twain's satire?
Emma (115). Briefly compare the themes and technique of Connecticut Yankee to those of Importance of Being Earnest.
Iris (116). How do you interpret the Yankee's speech about knowing Merlin "thirteen times" previously (page 34)? Obviously he's trying to manipulate the crowd, but what might be the meaning here for Twain's satire?
Rea (117). Who has power in King Arthur's England? How do they get it? How do they keep it?
Sherry (118). One interesting thing about Connecticut Yankee is that Twain, who is a satirist-humorist-comedian, or whatever you want to call it, comments many times on the theory and practice of humor. Analyze one of these instances and relate it to his broader theory of human nature; I'd suggest page 62 but you may find another that works.
Peggy (119). I have two feelings about Connecticut Yankee. First, I feel that it is maybe the most important novel ever for understanding the complexities of American ideology. Second, I feel that it is maybe not a very good novel. Provide arguments to support both theories.
Like I said, first they show you their cartoons, then they won't ever leave:
I apologize for doing the usual 3 hours today instead of 2, as we scheduled. I completely forgot. This explains to me why Ken asked when the class was going to end as we were leaving the bathroom. It seemed like an odd question, but now I see its point. So... I suppose we must leave the next session (Thursday/Friday) to be 1.5 hours, and then make our final session on Tuesday only 2 hours. Poor Twain! Well he shouldn't feel bad; he will have a starring role on the final exam, and what else could a savage and auntie like him ask for? This gives me an idea however. We should have a party for the third hour on Tuesday, 嗎 ? Don't trust him! He will try to use entertainment to colonize you and do more teaching with his Uncle Sam school! - Jose Marti Hmmm that was weird. Well, moving on... Even his humor is a weapon and a trap! He's like Franklin! He wants you to forget what his goals are. Even right now he is secretly making a thesis about the Connecticut Yankee! Ahem, anyway as I was saying, how about a party for the third hour of Tuesday, after our discussion of Twain is concluded? I will contribute a budget of... how about 1500 NTD? What can we buy for that? Maybe the easiest thing is to talk to the cafe next door and pre-order some drinks and snacks? What would you want? Now he's trying to buy your affection with his capital... careful, comrades!
That cartoon slideshow, if you missed class today: Here. Just use the pause key if it goes too fast for you. However I fear this link may only work on Apple computers.
Speaking of comrades:
First, Marti isn't really a socialist. He's actually rather more of a capitalist liberal. I am just pointing out the broader similarity to later Cuban revolutionary rhetoric. Anyway, following from my mention of Japan's proposal that it would make an anti-racist Pacific empire (a half success at best), we should also remember that both Soviet Russia and PRC under Mao deliberately included anti-racist ideas in their political rhetoric (so too Ho-Chi Minh in Vietnam). In point of fact they were not really anti-racist. But the ideology is important because they were indicating a flaw in Western liberal capitalism, which claims to be non-racist in theory but always seems to be racist somehow in practice. Consequences... there are Soviet propaganda films that propose an alliance with African-Americans! It's quite funny in a way since it was pure ideology and never took place. But you can be sure that racist opponents of Dubois, King, X, etc. accused them of being Communist spies, especially when they began using language with an internationalist and anti-capitalist flavor in the late 1960s. That's what really got King and X assassinated, perhaps. King was assassinated twice, in a sense, because everyone forgot about those ideas and came to see him as a safe radical (if this phrase makes sense) because his demands were "domestic" or "national," and phrased mainly in Jeffersonian and Christian vocabulary. All this ought to remind us of... the threat of the slave rebellion in Haiti! Remember, Thoreau and Emerson and so forth can talk revolution until they're "blue in the face." So long as they're not black in the face!
The ones that got away:
Great class today, I thought. You guys were really involved. Well except for when you were asleep. (This is too be expected at this phase of the term, ha ha.) Here are the missing questions. It appears that #110, about Dubois' views of the exact nature of "race," has now gone unanswered by me and Sherry both. Consider it an unsolved mystery. Sydney's answer to #111 is excellent, and quite sufficient. She says that Dubois uses poetry and music in his epigraphs because they have "higher" intellectual authority, but that this becomes more clever when we see that the music is actually a "lower" form, the black spiritual, and that this technique may then represent a theory of hybridization between intellectual modes, thus a theory of social integration. This analysis would also fit well with Dunbar and Chesnutt. Winnie asked a related question and added, why Byron of all poets? I think the answer is that Byron was known as an emotionally vibrant poet, and also because his politics were revolutionary and anti-imperial; he helped start the Greek revolution against the Ottomans, for instance. Ask Letitia about that; she is apparently doing translations of Ottoman legal history.
Ted explains in his answer to #112 that we shouldn't expect consistency from Teddy Roosevelt; he's a politician! But likewise I might say that American ideology itself is somewhat confused at that point in time; it seems like T.R. himself struggled to answer the question of who could be "Americanized." Here is the short essay I mentioned, in which an Irish-American named Finley Peter Dunne ridicules T.R.'s "Anglo-Saxon" theory; believe it or not they soon became friends. Finally, Teresa asked how American Indians felt about T.R.; clearly they are one of the excluded groups in his concept of the "American," which should make it clear that "His America" is 0% a geographic concept, rather 10% an ideological one and 90% a racial one. I had to look up the answer... apparently T.R. paid closer attention to the Indians' situation than some other Presidents of his time, and was considered as a kind of friend by some tribes, as this very old video shows. On the other hand his update of the "frontier" concept clearly takes the metaphor of "Indian hunting" and extends it to Cuba and the Philippines, etc. And he seemed to push much harder for the "preservation" of U.S. national parkland than the "reservation" of Indians who had previously lived on that land. But in this he's no worse than any other president before 1975, or possibly thereafter.
Extended thoughts on the philosophy of sunflower seeds: I realized that I didn't make a complete presentation of my case today. You see, the technique I was using to chew the seeds in class is not the true American technique. There was the complication of spitting into the bottle, which has a narrow opening. So I could only spit one shell at once; this is so unimpressive that even a dog can do it. Ordinarily, I would keep about 10 seeds (with the shell on) in my left cheek, then one by one use my back right teeth to crack them open and use my tongue to shift the empty shells to the front of my mouth just under my upper lip. Then the back right teeth chew the seed and the tongue sends it down my throat. Meanwhile, you see, the empty shells are accumulating under my upper lift. Once the entire magazine has been emptied, then I would spit ALL of those seeds simultaneously onto the ground in a big spray, and then reload. Also I can reverse the sides entirely; let's see the dog do that.
In addition to this technical point, I must also make an aesthetic one. I fail to see how the method that Zoe showed me, to crack the shell gingerly with your teeth and then take it out of your mouth to separate with your fingers, whereupon then reintroducing the shell-less seed into your mouth to chew (either one by one or several in a row)... I fail to see how this method takes advantage of the modern type of salted or otherwise flavored sunflower seeds. Because the flavor is all on the exterior of the shell. So in your method you are just eating the flavorless seeds, whereas in my method I get both the seeds and whatever zesty accompaniment they have. Indeed I find the flavor of the sunflower seeds at RT Mart (Da Ren Fa) to be outstanding. It has just a hint of sweet taste, and also salty. But not too salty; sometimes American sunflower seeds are much too salty, to the point that it burns your mouth. Also American seeds will sometimes have weird flavors like "barbecue." So in conclusion, I believe the combination of the Taiwanese sunflower seeds and the American style of chewing creates the best possible enjoyment. (This concludes my speech to the United Nations.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is Peggy's answer for question no.119.In this novel, Yankee went back to early medieval Britain at the time of legendary King Arthur. Through the story, the author criticized European’s characteristic a lot such as their dishonest and violence. Yet, Yankee later realized that some knights are basically honest and he saw Galahad, Arthur, and Launcelot especially majestic. I think it can help us understand the complexities of American ideology. First of all, they want do distinguish themselves with Europeans and created an American ideology. On the other hand, they did originate from European. This group of American people which excluded native American originated from European’s emigration. They could not deny their ancestor came from Europe. It seemed that American and European were so related but contradictory. In this novel, I can find the contradiction in American’s ideology that they want to be different from European while they also want to find their own history in Europe. I think it is the reason why Yankee found both goodness and badness in European at the same time.
ReplyDeleteBesides, I think it is not a good novel because there were several racial descriptions. For example, in the end of chapter II, Yankee criticized the Europeans he saw as wildness and he said they were “white Indian,” which implied the savage of Indian people in his mind. I think this kind of description may deteriorate the racial discrimination and stereotype toward Indian people. In this respect, I think Connecticut Yankee is not a good novel.
This is Rea answering question 117.
ReplyDeleteI think this who-got-the-power question can make an analogy to how Hank got his power. In short, he got the power by deceiving. He does know something more, but the extra knowledge has nothing to do with ruling a court. By pretending to cause the eclipse of sun, Hank got the power because no one, in that time, knows practically why the sun disappears. Therefore I think, in King Arthur’s England, the power belonged to people with mind-controlling tools such as arms (kings and knights) and/or knowledge (priest and advisers like Merlin). And they keep their power by preventing or exhibiting others to obtain the advantage they possessed; the reason why Merlin dose not like Hank is the best example.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere is Iris' answer to 116.
ReplyDeleteThe Yankee has time-traveled to the time of legendary King Arthur in sixth century which is thirteen century ago. In each century, people write and read about King Arthur and Merlin’s story, and the Yankee know them through these narratives. So he says that Merlin has died and come alive again “thirteen times”. In addition, if he wants to escape from the stake by pretending himself as an enchanter, he should be more powerful than Merlin. And thirteen is a number related to Satan, he might also imply that Merlin is a evil magician. It makes me think of that Americans mold the image of British King as an autocratic and unreasonable leader who didn’t care about American’s benefit in the American Revolution.
This is Natalie, although I do not have to answer question this week, I would like to response to your philosophy of sunflower seed. XD First of all, I think the dog is amazing!!!(What a skillful tongue!!!) I have to say sorry to you because I thought you were just chewing the sunflower seed and shell without consuming the 'seed'......(after watching the video, I realize that you did eat the seed instead of merely tasting its flavor...) Secondly, I think the reason for we do not chew the whole sunflower seed is because Taiwanese consider the shell of the sunflower seed is not clean. In other words, we are not sure about whether there is anything 'unclean stuff' has been attached to the sunflower seed during its making-process. Well, on the contrary, after your explanation, I find out that it is all my stereotype toward sunflower seed. I mean, if the concern of 'unclean' is the reason which makes us staying away from the shell of sunflower seed, how come there are sooooo many kinds of flavor of sunflower on the market?! Therefore, my conclusion is that the shell of sunflower seed is edible. I have to thank you for enlightening us~~~
ReplyDeleteHi, this is Caleigh posting a question.
ReplyDeleteAlthough we're only at the start of the novel, I noticed that Twain is very strong at describing the scenes.
The colors in people and about the view the narrator saw impressed me, because it didn't occur to me that the 6th century world would be that colorful. Also, the scene about the dogfight wowed me because of how alive the actions seem.
Nevertheless, though the author is pretty good at depicting the scenes, it seems to me that the coherence isn't quite good, or I don't know if it is because that I didn't read close enough.
On page 11 it seems to me that the American was about to read the journal that the man gave him, however, in the next chapter it looks like the American talking again. And I didn't quite understand how he became a criminal and got to King Arthur's Court.
It appears to me that Twain put lots of emphasis on the scenes that he depicts instead of showing the coherence in the plot or whether things make sense or not, for the things that happened or are going to happen are meant to be ironic to the circumstances in the 19th century America. I'm not quite getting the whole picture yet, but I guess I will if I just continue to read, ha ha.
This is Jenny.
ReplyDeleteI want to ask a strange question:
Would an American would take King Author as a hero or just a hero charcater in the British tale?
(Would American simply take the story of King Author as one of other regions' tale? (and feel nothing special?))
This is Esther who posts a question here.
ReplyDeleteThe overall impression toward this book is that it seems Twain tries to convince us that even people who are very very superstitious and ignorant still can be "tamed" and educated. Does he try to inform readers that "we should use our wisdom to train Black people to be our use instead of only scoff and look down upon them?" And since this book is a satire, do the characters in the book refer to any specific person in Twain's era or people who once existed in American history?
Above is my question, and the following I want to share a little comments about the movie Avatar :D (Don't worry, I will not reveal any content). First is that everyone should go to see it because its speechless scenes as well as the much more than excellent 3D animated technique! But that's not the point. I find it interesting that the leading male character has the same name with John Smith (he named Jack)! Of course he is also more heroic and hero-liked than Smith, but since the script was wrote down more than ten years ago, which was almost the same time period as Pocahontas; maybe it is true that the director really has taken it as reference :p Although the story develops in a simple way, many scenes still touch the audience, make the audience laugh, and even astonish the audience. This movie proves us again that human beings' mind are easy to be purchased XD. But for the sake of its wonder, everyone should be purchased at least once in their life for this time!
This is Viola answering 114:
ReplyDeleteTwain may be sarcastic about American industrialized society.
After going all along to page 76, it’s obvious that medieval England is controllable of its stupid people, and it doesn’t take an intelligent to govern but anyone who has a functioning brain. So the showing up of the narrator or the existence of Merlin don’t represent much benefit from knowledge, they merely prove how human mind can be managed by ordinary power and this power is always replaceable.
In industrial society Twain could mean that all American’s dependence on mechanism is vulnerable because mechanism’s power is plain and can always be replaced. And the useless of knowledge is emphasized as modern American society citizens deeply believe in such power, which is nothing to be so proud of by the whole America nation. The page 9 dispute is no more different than the hilarious dispute between the narrator and Merlin going all along the book, and the meaning of it is continuously strengthened as the story goes on.
And I think by putting the narrator into a man enjoys his stupid situation in medieval England, the Yankee’s satisfactory mind is delicately portrayed.
The Yankees are aware of intense circumstances but are too lazy to use their intelligence when not among people more innocent than them. See on page 52 how happy the narrator is (as a Yankee ambassador)! If the Yankee has any supreme development in knowledge it is not for noble reason but for there is power to take over with following it, such as the development of mechanism.
Twain’s satire is covered with double consciousness! One represents the educated, wealth modern human life and the other the underdeveloped, primitive life.
The big connection of the two that makes the satire vivid is that both lives are shallow.
It might be a reversible satire if we examine every medieval England’s detail into modern American society and find each perfectly fits.
This is Zoe to post a question.
ReplyDeleteWhat does "Yankee" really mean? Where did this phrase come from? Does it mean "young" American? Because I think if the Yankee in this novel is an old man, thing may well be different.
And Zoe has another minor question: Why does Yankee never question how in the hell he has transformed way back in time??
ReplyDelete