There are few things in this world that are constant. Among the foremost of those remains to be your family. Friends, lovers, jobs, material possessions - it can all fade away in an instant. You cannot refute blood and though it's possible, it's rare that those so close to you would ever turn their backs on you. When it does happen, even in the slightest of terms, it is a devastating experience. Divorce doesn't necessarily mean abandonment or that love goes missing; it just means that the love is redistributed or re-homed. Regardless, that change is a huge one. In Separating, each individual character attempts to deal with this readjusted love in their distinct ways, demonstrating the very separate internal struggle that each has to overcome. Classically, one child simply can't deal and begins to act everything but himself (John). Judith, the eldest, attempts to ignore, or at least pretend that she is ignoring the horrible circumstance. Dickie, though outwardly strong, definitely shows his emotional turmoil when he finally breaks down and asks the question: Why?
The sad truth is that Richard, the father, after putting his kids through the beginnings of this awful situation, does not know why, or at least he has forgotten. We have all experienced situations where we thought we were doing what we wanted to do, but the consequences proved to be worse than the joy we got from the decision. It's regret. His conflict is understandable, but that's not always the case with divorce. Personally, I had to go through my parents' divorce during my senior year of high school. It was supposed to be an exciting, busy time, but for the first semester, it certainly felt like one of the worst things that could ever happen. No matter what I was doing, I just couldn't find joy knowing that life was going to be so different at home. I was already going to be going through so much change with the ending of colorguard, drama club, band, high school, friendships - how could my parents put me through this change at home too? But it turns out it was for the best. My parents are individually much happier, more productive people, and they have remained friends. I know that's not a typical divorce, but I feel like it has been one of the most ideal ones. That doesn't change that it was a rough experience to go through nor the fact that divorce is, and should be, taken very seriously. You cannot expect to have a good divorce and you can't marry someone with the mindset that if it doesn't work out, you can just go off and get a divorce.
However, as the year go on, people seem to be taking it much like that. Divorce has become like modern society: easy. We have evolved almost everything we make to be disposable and the media and industries are teaching us that we have to constantly be tossing out our stuff and getting something better. I find this to be completely disturbing, but the facts are definitely there. According to divorcerate.org, in the year 2012, following were the top 10 countries with the highest divorce rates:
- Russia: 5
- Belarus: 3.8
- Ukraine: 3.6
- Moldova: 3.5
- Cayman Islands: 3.4
- United States 3.4
- Bermuda: 3.3
- Cuba: 3.2
- Lithuania: 3.1
- Czech Republic: 3.0
The divorce rates mentioned are as per 1,000 population.
It isn't as astonishing as it should be. It's not just an overwhelming number, but it is large. It's something to be aware about; it's a lesson. Don't get into marriage with the knowledge that you can just quit if it gets bad. Don't be a statistic. You may end up in a situation like Richard Maple, unable to explain why you threw it away instead of fixing it.
Defender of the Faith - Philip Roth
In another story about struggle and hardships, Sgt. Marx is having to decide which of three internal conflicts he is going to tackle. Nathan Marx is recovering from the duty he'd done for his country - that is, fighting in the war. He was a great soldier, but now he is serving as a First Sergeant for boys who are acclimating to their first battles. Unstable with his internal struggles, he immediately becomes an easy target for a big external one: Sheldon Grossbart. The boy manipulates him and tests not only his temper, but also his values and responsibilities. It is after he realizes that he is getting played by this soldier that Marx knows he must decide what he is defending: his humanity, his sergeant duties, or his piety. Sheldon Grossbart, in many different ways, tests each of these thoroughly. That's not an easy thing to decide. How do you choose what is most important when the contestants are being a good person, your job, or your religion?
Among this hard decision that Sgt. Nathan Marx has to make, the beginning argument of the short story is somewhat dropped. We are first presented with a conflicted Marx, a man who is reeling from war. As he meets this kid who gives him present troubles, that stress he was feeling seems to be dropped along the way. In no way do I think this was purposeless from the view of Roth - I think it was a nod to the psychological trauma the man was really going through. It is no surprise that soldiers, after they come home, are changed forever. Their mindsets are totally changed after experiencing things that we, as humans, aren't preconditioned to to see or go through. Mutilation, mass murder, and the gruesome deaths that those men and women must face everyday is not normal and it will change a person forever. Marx says he had been "fortunate enough to develop an infantryman's heart which, like his feet, at first aches and swells, but finally grows horny enough for him to travel the weirdest paths without feeling a thing." Research supports that statement, saying that PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, often associated with people who have experienced war) is developed by exposure to prolonged trauma that alters the brain chemistry. The numbness that Marx is feeling is definitely not a normal way of thinking, evidencing that he could possibly be suffering from this disease of the mind.
Here is more evidence to the situation of Marx from the above linked website.
The estimated risk for developing PTSD for people who have experienced the following traumatic events is:
- 16.8% serious accident or injury
- 15.4% shooting or stabbing
- 14.3% sudden, unexpected death of someone close
- 7.3% witness to killing or serious injury
- PTSD may develop following exposure to extreme trauma.
- Extreme trauma is a terrifying event or ordeal that a person has experienced, witnessed or learned about, especially one that is life-threatening or causes physical harm. It can be a single event or repeated experience.
- The experience causes that person to feel intense fear, horror or a sense of helplessness.
It is evident that Marx's original conflict could be classified as PTSD. He writes letters to old girlfriends looking for solace; he has become less motivated to rely on his religion as a safe place; he has eventually become so numb, he does not even "mind the trembling of the old people, the crying of the very young, the uncertain fear in the eyes of the once arrogant." I think that this says a lot about Sgt. Marx in this story because he so easily gives into Grossbart's manipulation. Before the war, would he have been stronger in these things - his humanity, his religion, and his values? Would that have changed the way he dealt with Grossbart throughout the story? Statistics point to the affirmative.
How to Tame a Wild Tongue - Gloria Anzaldua
The author of this story is in a struggle much different than those from the previous stories. She is not in a war and she is not experiencing a familial separation. She has lived with her struggle since the beginning of her life: she is the owner of a hybrid identity. She is a mix of more than one ethnicity and culture, speaks many languages, and may be confused even as far as race. The speaker says, rather correctly, that those are the things deeply rooted in us - they are the beginnings of who we are. The entire story is about the accommodations she must make in her daily life when faced even with simple encounters with other people. I can say that I definitely sympathize. It would be extremely hard not to know who you are, truly, at the very base of yourself.
While reading the story, I thought to myself: "Why is this such a bad thing? Why is she so down about this?" I figured it was definitely something to question and maybe be down about during pivotal times in life, but it seems like it would be something to just overcome and accept. After all, we make ourselves to some extent - we are not solely who we are born for the rest of our lives. There is the element of nurture, not just nature, to take into account. I even went as far as to make an example:
I understand she is going through somewhat of an identity crisis. BUT, if you took a man from Ireland, a man from Great Britain, and a man from the United States, who could all potentially have the same hair and eye color and do have the same skin color, wouldn't they all three look very similar? Would it be offensive to them for someone to think they were of the same ethnicity or culture or race? I didn't think so, and if they did, they would probably just correct the onlooker and move on.
Then I thought about how the speaker's main argument had to do with the languages spoken. She spent a lot of time correcting and explaining the Chicana's way of speaking and where it was derived from. Assuming that she lived in America (because of various evidence that is not my central point), I was forced to think about the languages we speak here that we claim are "native." We spoke in class that we are all immigrants to this country - is English the official language? I honestly can say that I don't understand why there is such hatred about the various languages being brought to America, especially if they can speak multiple ones like the speaker in Wild Tongue; but after thinking about that, I can definitely see her struggle with her many languages and the appropriate times to speak which, especially with English. English is, in my opinion, the hardest language in the WORLD to learn. It isn't necessarily derived from anything and the logic behind the language... well, there isn't much, which is very different from Spanish, where conjugations make everything pretty easy to understand and very fluent. To make my point, I just think that at first, I didn't enjoy the story and didn't understand her frustration. After examining the language of my own, I can derive how hard it is for those who have tried to learn our language and become an accepted part would have a hard time deciphering how and when to use it. To demonstrate and end this post, I will paste part of a poem below:
I understand she is going through somewhat of an identity crisis. BUT, if you took a man from Ireland, a man from Great Britain, and a man from the United States, who could all potentially have the same hair and eye color and do have the same skin color, wouldn't they all three look very similar? Would it be offensive to them for someone to think they were of the same ethnicity or culture or race? I didn't think so, and if they did, they would probably just correct the onlooker and move on.
Then I thought about how the speaker's main argument had to do with the languages spoken. She spent a lot of time correcting and explaining the Chicana's way of speaking and where it was derived from. Assuming that she lived in America (because of various evidence that is not my central point), I was forced to think about the languages we speak here that we claim are "native." We spoke in class that we are all immigrants to this country - is English the official language? I honestly can say that I don't understand why there is such hatred about the various languages being brought to America, especially if they can speak multiple ones like the speaker in Wild Tongue; but after thinking about that, I can definitely see her struggle with her many languages and the appropriate times to speak which, especially with English. English is, in my opinion, the hardest language in the WORLD to learn. It isn't necessarily derived from anything and the logic behind the language... well, there isn't much, which is very different from Spanish, where conjugations make everything pretty easy to understand and very fluent. To make my point, I just think that at first, I didn't enjoy the story and didn't understand her frustration. After examining the language of my own, I can derive how hard it is for those who have tried to learn our language and become an accepted part would have a hard time deciphering how and when to use it. To demonstrate and end this post, I will paste part of a poem below:
We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.
If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
If I speak of my foot and show you my feet,
And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?
Then one may be that, and three would be those,
Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,
And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.
Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim!
Let's face it - English is a crazy language.
There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger;
neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
English muffins weren't invented in England.
We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes, we find
that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square, and a guinea
pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig...
But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.
If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
If I speak of my foot and show you my feet,
And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?
Then one may be that, and three would be those,
Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,
And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.
Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim!
Let's face it - English is a crazy language.
There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger;
neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
English muffins weren't invented in England.
We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes, we find
that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square, and a guinea
pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig...
No comments:
Post a Comment