Great Works of Literature Fall 2014

The heroine in the story is a rural woman, Aigu. Compared with most female characters in Lu Xun’s other works, such as Xianglin’s wife, Aigu is very special because she is full of struggling spirit. After her husband “jumped into bed with that young widow”, she went back to her maiden home to show her strong dissatisfaction, instead of enduring calmly as most traditional Chinese women did. She asked her father and six brothers to flatten her husband family’s stove to revenge his affair. And she calls her husband and father-in-law “pigs” when chatting with other villagers and even when arguing face to face with them in Mr. Wei’s house. All her actions are contrary to feudal code of ethics which requires women to submit themselves to the rule of their husbands. Aigu is violent-tempered and stubborn, and dares to struggle against feudal ethics.

But finally, Aigu’s struggles do not succeed and become hopeless. The reason is the limitation of her struggling spirit. Her confidence in challenging against her poor marriage is the trust in Mr. Qi. She believes that Mr. Qi is “an educated man” and always emphasizes that “educated people are always on the side of justice.” However, Mr. Qi himself is a representative for feudal system. He is a squire, which is a kind of special class in Chinese feudal society. Squires usually comprise local landlords, retired small governors, clan elders and other influential and prestigious figures in the countryside. The final result proves that Mr. Qi does not “speak out for the underdog” as Aigu imagined before. He just says “Peace brings prosperity. You’ve me to thank for your extra ten dollars – this is already over and above. If his parents are telling you to go, you don’t have much choice”, and persuades Aigu to accept ninety dollars and stop to cause trouble. He still takes sides in Aigu’s husband and maintains the absolute authority of the feudal morals.

Aigu hopes a representative of feudal system to support her challenges again feudal ethics. This idea itself is ironic and this is a significant limitation of her struggling spirit. Her struggle is destined to fail because of her blind and false belief in Mr. Qi.

Questions:

1. The author describes what Aigu saws when she entered the guest hall in details, including Mr. Qi’s appearance and his plaything “anus-stopper”. What does the author imply by doing so?
2. Why does Aigu become afraid and think “all was lost as if she had fallen into an abyss through her own clumsy footing” when a colossal imperative, “En… ter!”, erupted from Mr. Qi’s scantily bearded mouth?

In Lu Xun’s story My Old Home, Lu Xun showed us the cruel suffering of the lower-class people under the Confucianism. This story was written in 1921, which is ten years after the Revolution of 1911. At that time, the lower-class people are very poor and hard to survive. They were controlled by upper class people and go through strictly to the Confucianism. Runtu is one of the examples of the lower-class people at that time.

In the first time Lu Xun recalled Runtu is “… golden moon…midnight blue sky… a silver chain around his neck and a pitchfork in his hand”. All of these words should use Runtu was a very outgoing and kindness boy. He told Lu Xun how to get birds, how to collect shells and how to guard melons to not be eaten by zha. At that time, Lu Xun stayed at home every day and read books. He could not image the beautiful and freedom life which Runtu has. However, later in the story, Lu Xun and Runtu met again in the same place. However, in this time, everything changed. Runtu’s “round, sun-burnt face” changed to “sallow grey”. His eye was puffy and red-rimmed. Also, when Lu Xun called “Runtu” with a very excited voice, Runtu stood there straightly and said “Sir”. This showed us that people follow the Feudalism and Confucianism strictly. People are not equal. The strict hierarchy rules controlled every people at that time. Lu Xun showed us that the Feudalism “eat” people mentally, especially people stay in lower-class.

Through Lu Xun’s experience after he went back home, Lu Xun used his own story showed readers the weakness of the Feudalism and the Confucianism. Lu Xun wanted to tell people to change and quit the strict hierarchy rule in China. Then he mentioned in the end of the story:” a path that exists only where others have already passed.”

Question:

1. What do you think the last sentence:” a path that exists only where others have already passed” means in the real life?

2. When Lu Xun wrote about Runtu and him met, Lu Xun also talked about his nephew Hong’er and Runtu’s fifth son Shuisheng. Why Lu Xun write them in the same time? What may happens if Hong’er and Shuisheng’s met thirty years after?

Please come to class ON TIME, WITH YOUR BOOK, and with the following assignment in hand to receive a perfect quiz score:

Identify 3 Motifs, that include an adjective/adverb and noun. (Not just “crowds,” but “angry crowds;” not just “birds” but “flying birds;” not just “deteriorating” but “quickly deteriorating.” And so on.)

For each of the 3 motifs, list 3 different passages from 3 different stories where you see these motifs. INCLUDE PAGE NUMBERS. Use at least 6 different stories from Outcry to complete this assignment (there are 15 stories total). Please don’t use “Diary of a Madman.”

Choose one of your motifs and write 1-2 sentences (no more is necessary!) about how it plays out across the three stories you identified it in: what the motif “means” (interpret it a little).

Make sure your name is on your work. I will be collecting these assignments at the door of the classroom and checking you have your book and you’ll get a 100 (15) on the quiz for the day!

Tagore’s “Punishment” talks about the role of men and women in India at the time. In the story, a man, Dukhiram Rui kills his wife after his wife snaps back at him when he asks where his food is. Chidam, Dukhiram’s brother, plans to let his wife take the blame for the murder because to him, a wife can be easily replaced, whereas a brother cannot.

When Ramlochan went over to the Rui household and noticed something wrong at their house, the first thought that came to Chidam’s head was to lie to Ramlochan and blame his wife on the murder. When Chidam asked his wife Chandara to take the blame, I think Chandara realizes that she does not mean anything to Chidam and agrees to take the blame for Dukhiram.  I think this part showed the power that men had over women and how women were treated like a piece of property in India at the time. However, after Chidam told his wife, Chandara, what to say to the police, Chandara confessed to the murder but didn’t say the rest of the story. She instead said that there was no ill-will between them and was willing to accept all the blame. Chandara sticked to her own story and said nothing else. I think this showed how death to her would have been better than staying married to Chidam for the rest of her life.

After doing a bit of research on Tagore and what it was like in India at the time, I found that Tagore’s father was in a social reform group called the Brahmo Samaj who wanted to blend Western ideas with the Indian culture. I think this had a huge effect on Tagore’s writings and can be seen in this story. Right before Chandara was going to be hung, a doctor told her that her husband wants to see her and she says “To hell with him”. I think this showed the idea of women being freed from men.

Questions:

1. The title of the story is “Punishment” Who do you think is being punished in this story?

2. Do you think Chandara had power over Chidam when he broked down and swore that his wife was innocent and then blamed the murder on himself?

“Carriage, autumn sun, noon wind, village path and weary beggar-woman”. At the  beginning of the poem, beautiful scenery was displayed through these specific terms, but suggested a solemn and sad atmosphere. Everything was still, the wife packed for the husband and held back her tears; the husband pretended to be calm and softly said goodbye to his dear wife. It was a so common scene about leaving; the sun blazed, the trees were silent and the people were sorrowful.But suddenly, a soft but firmly voice broke the peace and shocked everyone. “I won’t let you go.” The little girl of the man simply replied this claim solemnly, neither cries nor be noisy.

It’s really incredible for a 4-year-old girl to express her desire with such a strong tone. Commonly, adults are shy and timid, when we have to face those whom we love dearly gonna leave, we may just say such as “I do not wish to let you go” or “I don’t feel like letting you go”  But the child’s love claim for her father is so intense and direct. I’m really interested in this little girl because her reaction for her father’s leave is so mature and calm, which just not like a 4-year-old girl behavior! Pay attention to the words described from line 55 to 60, she “quietly sits with no attempts to close the door or either hold her father’s arm”.  Not like other kids cry to beg  father to stay, she just sadly says some simple words, which is more powerful than physical behaviors.I don’t know whether she knows how to use  the power of words to express her emotion. Maybe she is just unintentional say such words; or maybe she has experienced some things which deeply affect her, so that she can clearly  express her thoughts by saying “I won’t let you go” with no hesitates. What has happened on this girl and on this family? How her weird personality is formed? Why her father firstly is shocked by her claim and then recalls this claim over and over again when he thinks about sky and earth? There are too many questions to be thought and explored, and the sources of a series of questions are the little girl and her unique claim. “I won’t let you go” is more than a claim for love.

Questions:

1. The statement of “I won’t let you go” is the core sentence in this poem and is repeated through the whole poem, so why it be used as the title for this poem?

2. Tagore spend a fair amount of ink to describe different scenery in this poem  , how does this setting works? And also, are the season and weather helpful for convey the feelings of characters?

In this essay, Richard Pevear argues that translation “takes place between two languages” and “allows for an enrichment of the translator’s own language, rather than the imposition of his language on the foreign original.” More specifically, he suggests  that for a translator to enrich the piece with his own language, he is making it more easily understandable. He also agrees with philosopher Paul Ricouer’s stance on what translation is, which Richard translates into English for us from a French newspaper. He claims that translation is the mediation between the plurality of cultures and the unity of humanity. He adds that translation is astonishing because it transfers the meaning of one language to another language, thus making them an equivalent. I believe that he is more closely suggesting that translations are able to act as equivalents in meaning because most cultures can relate to one another.

I agree with his argument that translating involves reaching across historical moments and cultures in order to accurately translate the meaning of what was meant to be evoked by the author. But, I would add that too much is lost in translations because in some cases it is very difficult to perfectly translate the meaning of a piece in the exact words that would evoke the same meaning in the new translation. Unless the reader themselves can read the language of the original production, then they are ultimately relying on the translator’s goodwill. That is that they are accurately illustrating the meaning of what is being said. I am not saying that I do not believe in a translator’s ability to translate thoroughly, but rather I am stating that one person’s translation is not enough to give the reader a chance to relate to what is being said. By reading multiple translation’s of the same piece it would be much easier for the reader to piece together circumstantial meaning of what it written during the historical time that it was written in and relate it their present culture.

With this said, I would like to pose two questions:

1) Do you believe that every, or close to every, piece of literature is able to  be accurately translated?

2) Do translations unify humanity or can it divide humanity as well?

Alexander Pushkin’s “The Tale of the Preacher and His Man Bumpkin” teaches the reader some important life lessons. In the poem, the preacher is self-righteous man who is looking for cheap labor. He wants to find someone to do all the housework, but wants to pay him little money.

After the preacher strikes a deal to have bumpkin work for him, he realizes how capable and hard working bumpkin is. The preacher is afraid bumpkin will flick him, so he develops a plan to make bumpkin lose the deal. The preacher’s wife tells him “Give Bumpkin an impossible task, and make him do just what you ask. He fails, you send him packing, and spare your head a smacking.” By this point in the poem, it is apparent that the preacher is only worried about himself and he is willing to stoop to any level to save his honor.

The bumpkin represents a witty and strong figure that shows the preacher just how conniving the preacher is. He uses his intelligence to undermine the preacher’s excessive pride. When trying to earn rent from the devils, the bumpkin has a hare race with the devil’s grandson and uses a horse to defeat him in a weight-carrying contest. Bumpkin proves to the preacher that he can complete even the most challenging tasks. By doing all the things the preacher asks, the bumpkin teaches the preacher not to underestimate his abilities and the abilities of all others who are of lower status. Additionally, those who do work for the preacher should be paid fairly for the hard work that they do. The preacher should not try to save his pocket when employing others. The preacher’s actions also teaches us that self-arrogance gets one no where; he believed he could easily win the deal and he ended up losing his dignity.

The most significant scene in the poem is at the end when the bumpkin finally flicks the preacher’s brow, crushing the preacher’s pride. The animation at the end of the poem is especially humorous as it shows just how angry and defeated the old preacher is. Pushkin writes this poem using rhyming couplets. He creates a comical poem using this rhyme scheme and the animations, but still manages to portray a principal idea within the poem.

Two questions for the class:

1. Do you think bumpkin used incorrect methods to win the money from the devil?
2. Do you feel sympathy for the preacher by the end of the poem?

In volume III we were taken through this dark emotional journey with Victor Frankenstein. He goes on this journey traveling to different parts of the world with his friend whom he tells his father is to relieve his mind and find tranquility so that when he gets back he can fulfill his father’s wish and get married to Elizabeth. Under any other circumstance he would have enjoyed this trip but the actual purpose for this trip was not for self-fulfillment but to get the creature away from his loved ones while he completes his promise to the creature by creating his female partner. While he was doing his research and putting the finishing touches to his creation, Frankenstein started thinking about what the consequences would be if he completed this task. The possibility of more murder and mayhem upon the earth because of Frankenstein’s creation did not sit well with him. After realizing all of this he destroyed his creation all the while not noticing that the monster was watching him.

After the monster confronts him of what he has done Victor Frankenstein finally stands up to his enemy and tells him he is not going to make him a female partner. The creature does not understand why Victor would want to see him suffer his whole life without having a love partner. The monster leaves Victor with the promise of coming back on his wedding day. When the creature made this promise Victor interpreted it as the monster was going to kill him that day but little did he know he was planning to kill his soon to be wife.

As promised the monster did show up at his wedding and killed Elizabeth. Shortly after finding out the news about Elizabeth Victor’s father passes away. The guilt Victor feels is overcome by hatred and the want for revenge. Victor’s creation destroyed his life by killing all of the people he cared about.

In Volume III we get to see another side of Victor that is selfless. In Volume I he was more worried about himself and feeling very isolated. In Volume III he was worried about the safety of his loved ones. He was on the verge of creating another monster due to his fear of the monster which can be seen as a very selfish act because he will be putting plenty of people in danger. Afterwards, he acknowledges this and corrects it by destroying his work and standing up to the creature. I believe that he felt he would be the one that dies at the end so that brought him a sense of tranquility because he felt the creature was not going to harm his loved ones.

Questions:

1. If you were in Victor’s position would you destroy the creature?
2. Do you feel that Victor went through so much that he was actually looking forward to the monster killing him on his wedding day?