"...I blundered into it full force... and went sprawling. If i just hadn't- (lemme start again.) If i just hadn't bumped my damn head into his shoes" pg 177-78.
I wanted to comment about some of the artwork in this story considering that it is the only book we have read that contains illustrations. Earlier we talked about how the illustrations and the narration are two equal parts of the same whole. I found that this particular scene truly embodies this relationship. When read without the drawings, this scene would be confusing and almost completely ambiguous. Cruse dosent explicitly explain that sammy has been lynched and is now hanging from a tree in the backyard and the illustrations don't show any images of sammy's body in full detail. In one frame all we see is sammy's leg, disguised as a tree trunk and even when we are shown the whole of sammy's body, his face is strategically covered by a concerned Riley. All of the images and language seem to be delicatley hiding the more graphic truth about the scene. I was brought back to the first class session when we talked about the softness contained within Cruse's art work. It seems that this soft, roundedness is what makes the very real and frighteneing subject matter more surprising and emotionally striking. I cant help but wonder why Cruse chose to hide one of his more striking moments behind so much static.
Questions: Why did Cruse choose to hide some of the more gripping parts of this scene? and Does anyone else think it is creepy that sammy was hung from a tree house?
Showing posts with label Cruse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cruse. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
Be Like Them
"I'm a coward in some ways... but in other ways, I'm brave. Nobody's brave all the time. But for goodness sake Toland, don't act so deprived! If you want me to sing for you, I'll sing for you. Just come over here to the house now an' again when you've got time to kill. We'll come out here on the stoop an' you can watch me sing for the birds in the yard! They don't review me for the newspapers! They don't cluster in chairs to stare at me! An' they don't expect me to be anybody besides who I naturally am! Be like them honey, an' I'll sing for you whenever you like" (205).
Although taken out of context, Anna's impassioned advice to Toland may seem just a little corny or hackneyed, this moment stands as one of the most powerful and cathartic moments in Stuck Rubber Baby. Toland wrestles with the weighty issues of Sammy's death and his implicit belief that he played a part in it, his child, and coming to terms with his sexuality. All of these factors become the focal point through which his world and the decisions made within it become all the more confounding and difficult. It is for this reason that Anna's down-to-earth wisdom comes as a refreshingly simple breath of air. Amidst the immense struggles that Toland has faced throughout the novel, this brief, although powerful, piece of advice alleviates some of the intense drama that both he and the reader have endured through the story and almost miraculously, sets the story up for a happy ending. Even amidst the nearly unimaginable suffering and unbearable guilt Toland reckons with, a happy and even exciting ending can be reached, perhaps signaling that the Civil Rights Movement that the story is framed around, like Toland's own story, can have a satisfying outcome as well.
Question: Is the connection between Toland's struggles and the struggles of the emerging Civil Rights Movement compatible and was it Cruse's intention to offer a ray of hope for both battles at the end of his story?
"It could've been me" (196)
The ending of the book harkens back to the beginning section mentioning the Till case. As Toland is remembering the scene of Sammy's death, we see the same depiction of a face exploding that we saw when he was describing Emmet Till's head wounds (pg 2). Toland is hit in the skull while Sammy is murdered, the same part of the body where he draws such pain from Emmet's murder. Also, Toland's grief over having physically touched Sammy's body runs in the same vien of the haunting received from Emmet Till's skull, and the crooked cops who care about Sammy's justice about as much as did the cops for Emmett's.
It's clear the author thickens the strings tying the two cases together. Sammy's murder was Toland's Till case; it propelled him forward through the pain of loss. But the question I'm left wondering is how far the similarities go.
Q: Would Toland have come out publicly had Sammy not been murdered? Was his death a necessary evil for the spark of bravery?
Q: Would Toland have come out publicly had Sammy not been murdered? Was his death a necessary evil for the spark of bravery?
-Hunter
It was ME that murdered Sammy Noone
"Toland... it was me that murdered Sammy Noone."
"Looking at it in retrospect, it's plain that I wasn't giving the bastard any quarter because what he'd said to me had hit way too close to home. Y'see I'd known for years that I was really the one who'd murdered Sammy Noone."
I guess I should of foreseen something terrible happening like the lynching of Sammy Noone, but unfortunately I did not. When I started to read the scene where Sammy is killed my pulse began to race, my palms began to sweat, and I started muttering warnings at the pages as if the characters could hear me and react. I was completely engulfed in the story and like every other character my emotions were at a high. I was terribly sad at the incident, which soon turned to anger. This anger searched for someone to blame, but it did not point a finger at either Orley or Toland.
So, I thought it was interesting that both of these characters felt responsible for Sammy's death instead of blaming the people truly responsible for putting the noose around Sammy's neck. Guilt and misplaced anger seem run rampant through this book and while Toland feels them frequently, it seems that almost every character feels these emotions as well.
With this in mind I cannot help but wonder if these emotions are also apparent in the South during this time. Within this book the reader witness acts of violence and hate, and the victims described feel these emotions, but what about the abusers? Are they committing these acts because they are part of that old generation and are resisting the changing ways? Or are they attempting to fill the south model that perceives African Americans below Caucasians? Could they possibly feel any guilt for their actions?
My Question: Who do you think is responsible for Sammy Noone's death? And what is the purpose for all of this guilt, does it tie any way to the southern ideologies or methods of the time?
"Looking at it in retrospect, it's plain that I wasn't giving the bastard any quarter because what he'd said to me had hit way too close to home. Y'see I'd known for years that I was really the one who'd murdered Sammy Noone."
I guess I should of foreseen something terrible happening like the lynching of Sammy Noone, but unfortunately I did not. When I started to read the scene where Sammy is killed my pulse began to race, my palms began to sweat, and I started muttering warnings at the pages as if the characters could hear me and react. I was completely engulfed in the story and like every other character my emotions were at a high. I was terribly sad at the incident, which soon turned to anger. This anger searched for someone to blame, but it did not point a finger at either Orley or Toland.
So, I thought it was interesting that both of these characters felt responsible for Sammy's death instead of blaming the people truly responsible for putting the noose around Sammy's neck. Guilt and misplaced anger seem run rampant through this book and while Toland feels them frequently, it seems that almost every character feels these emotions as well.
With this in mind I cannot help but wonder if these emotions are also apparent in the South during this time. Within this book the reader witness acts of violence and hate, and the victims described feel these emotions, but what about the abusers? Are they committing these acts because they are part of that old generation and are resisting the changing ways? Or are they attempting to fill the south model that perceives African Americans below Caucasians? Could they possibly feel any guilt for their actions?
My Question: Who do you think is responsible for Sammy Noone's death? And what is the purpose for all of this guilt, does it tie any way to the southern ideologies or methods of the time?
Galaxies Away And Never Closer
"And I'll be damned if I can recall what any of them were in particular - except for these four: It could've been me." (193)
When Toland speaks before the crowd at the Alleysax, and confesses his similarities and regrets for the fallen soldier Sammy, our stuck rubber baby seems to pry himself from the cold recesses of confused and silent homosexuality in the South, and come out to the community he believes he has hurt. He finally understands what may happen when one is not completely true to oneself. What I mean to say, is that it was not enough for him to frequent the Rhombus or be nice to his newfound group of Subterraneans, his heart really needed to be able identify, in order for his position as a gay white man in the South to allow himself to sympathize with the more race related plight of those around him and find the acceptance from himself, alongside the acceptance from his group of friends; Shiloh becomes an expression of this movement, and from one foot in and out of the closet to crying before those that he really cares for, the cold hard microphone takes the cold hard feelings from Toland and his heart becomes humbled before the death and pain that the Dixie Patriot seems to have impressed upon those different of skin and sexuality.
What does it mean for the future of the South and for the future of Toland, that he could finally become unstuck, and be able to show a great deal of humanity in the face of such horrible tragedies? AND why is it important that here in the story (192) he imagines himself as Sammy, galaxies away from his own unconscious body on the night he was murdered?
Thursday, March 29, 2012
CRACKERS!
“ In my opinion this humble uneducated colored woman has
more brains in her head than a thousand of these sign-waving, folksong-singing
Harvard dropouts who keep showing up on our doorsteps to tell us how to lead
our lives.” (99)
I believe this moment is a perfect example of how many white
southerners were completely brainwashed at this time, while others disapproved
of the environment the lived in, but couldn’t get around it. Orley continually
attempts to show how a newspaper article they are reading is accurate, by
saying that the majority of blacks in the south really do disapprove of being told to
protest the way they are treated by whites. He represents the uneducated
southern community that has been taught to accept that there is nothing wrong
with the southern way of life that has been around forever. However, we are
also given Riley’s point of view, one that sees that the newspaper is doing
nothing more than presenting the people with the South’s form of yellow
journalism. When they have a white man interview his black maid to express how
she feels about the protest marches, it is clear that she wasn’t going to say
how she truly felt. Riley says that the woman is trapped. Trapped by crackers
on the left and right of her. Crackers write the news and crackers read the
news. But nobody can get away from this news, because as he eloquently puts it,
“All of us are stuck in a goddam cracker box!” They were all raised to think
and be like “crackers” and there was no possible way to escape it.
Discussion Question: Does identifying as a southerner at
this time force you to embrace the “emblem of the Confederacy” that Orley seems
to love so much? Was there any way to avoid this “cracker” way of thinking?
How to change stuff?
"You're going to have to go, Sammy. You can't live or work here at the church anymore. When my phone starts ringing this morning I need to be able to say you're already packing."
"Today? You want me out today?"
"It's a delicate political situation. Please understand"(122-123).
In retrospect, the civil rights movement may seem to have been morally black and white: you were either in support of or against racial equality. However, when Father Morris, who had up until this point been portrayed as a staunch advocate of gay and black rights, is faced with the difficulty of dissociating with Sammy after a slew of negative publicity, we are reminded that things were far more complex. In the days of ruthless lynching and mob violence, even associating with the wrong person was a life or death matter.
It could be argued that Sammy made himself a dangerous target with his "outrageous" behavior, but his behavior was only a reaction to the recent acts of violence committed against civil rights protesters. The whole movement seems to have been tempered by a tension between peaceful protest and the oftentimes necessary use of force and violence against vicious racists and gay bashers, which often excited even more violence in return. We see this tension earlier on, when Reverend Pepper, who emphasizes the nonviolent nature of the "crusade," tells Toland that he thinks Mabel ought to be disincluded from further demonstrations because of a rumor circulating about her having hit a police dog with a brick in her purse. Toland comes to her defense, "But to tell the truth, I don't see much wrong with hittin' a dog when it's snappin' its teeth at you" (110). Reverend Pepper explains that, while he understands Toland's logic, he feels that the pitfall of civil rights protesters is "tak[ing] their bait," "their" referring to "the opposition." He feels that responding to violence with violence, even when seemingly necessary, is holding the whole movement back and potentially subjecting them to more violence; what protesters ought to be doing is wielding "psychological leverage" against their oppressors by remaining peaceful no matter what.
Let's talk about the (in?)effectiveness of the "Occupy" movement! I know it's nothing near the civil rights movement, but it's worth talking for reasons discussed above. Should they be more extreme or forceful to get their point across? Is violence sometimes a necessary evil? Is anyone taking their peaceful occupation seriously? How best to go about catalyzing social change? Is it necessary to "speak the language" of those to whom you're trying to appeal? Do Toland and co. make any efforts to speak the language of their oppressors?
Lauren Gore
"Today? You want me out today?"
"It's a delicate political situation. Please understand"(122-123).
In retrospect, the civil rights movement may seem to have been morally black and white: you were either in support of or against racial equality. However, when Father Morris, who had up until this point been portrayed as a staunch advocate of gay and black rights, is faced with the difficulty of dissociating with Sammy after a slew of negative publicity, we are reminded that things were far more complex. In the days of ruthless lynching and mob violence, even associating with the wrong person was a life or death matter.
It could be argued that Sammy made himself a dangerous target with his "outrageous" behavior, but his behavior was only a reaction to the recent acts of violence committed against civil rights protesters. The whole movement seems to have been tempered by a tension between peaceful protest and the oftentimes necessary use of force and violence against vicious racists and gay bashers, which often excited even more violence in return. We see this tension earlier on, when Reverend Pepper, who emphasizes the nonviolent nature of the "crusade," tells Toland that he thinks Mabel ought to be disincluded from further demonstrations because of a rumor circulating about her having hit a police dog with a brick in her purse. Toland comes to her defense, "But to tell the truth, I don't see much wrong with hittin' a dog when it's snappin' its teeth at you" (110). Reverend Pepper explains that, while he understands Toland's logic, he feels that the pitfall of civil rights protesters is "tak[ing] their bait," "their" referring to "the opposition." He feels that responding to violence with violence, even when seemingly necessary, is holding the whole movement back and potentially subjecting them to more violence; what protesters ought to be doing is wielding "psychological leverage" against their oppressors by remaining peaceful no matter what.
Let's talk about the (in?)effectiveness of the "Occupy" movement! I know it's nothing near the civil rights movement, but it's worth talking for reasons discussed above. Should they be more extreme or forceful to get their point across? Is violence sometimes a necessary evil? Is anyone taking their peaceful occupation seriously? How best to go about catalyzing social change? Is it necessary to "speak the language" of those to whom you're trying to appeal? Do Toland and co. make any efforts to speak the language of their oppressors?
Lauren Gore
"Scrub yourself good. Then you can play with Ben some more. It was confusing(141)."
This part of the novel reminded me of the rising conflicting thoughts many of the characters we've read about have experienced. Whether they were colored or white, many of the characters had ideas with which they weren't completely content with. Toland's mom is an example of this. She is completely appalled by the game her son and Ben have engaged in, but she still gets upset when Toland's sister calls them "nigger clothes". She also sends Toland in to change and bathe, but he can play with Ben again once he's done. It seems like her reaction to the situation is directly influenced by her upbringing, but there is also a glimpse of progression in her views. This has been an ongoing trend in the majority of the pieces we've been reading: the embodiment of the Old South, but also its shift into a more modern era.
Question: Why did Toland's mom react this way and what might have influenced her views?
"But to tell the truth, I don't see much wrong with hittin' a dog when it's snapping its teeth at you" (110)
This quote by Toland is a perfect parallel to the situation that he is going through. The snapping dog represents the bigoted/racist whites, who consistently undermine the rights of the blacks. I thought this was a pretty big step for Toland, who has never been comfortable with openly siding with any group. This is a conscious decision he has made about his sympathies and one that allows him to question his own actions and whether they are adequate. This quote highlights the fact that an oppressed group of people will only take so much before they lash out against the people snapping at them. It is also interesting to see the underlying futility in all this - for all their sit-ins and demonstrations, everything ends up being talked through but nothing much ends up being done. It makes me wonder what stance the book is going to take on race relations.
Question: based on what we've read so far, do you think (racially), the book will have a (relatively) happy ending? What direction do you think the book is going in?
This quote by Toland is a perfect parallel to the situation that he is going through. The snapping dog represents the bigoted/racist whites, who consistently undermine the rights of the blacks. I thought this was a pretty big step for Toland, who has never been comfortable with openly siding with any group. This is a conscious decision he has made about his sympathies and one that allows him to question his own actions and whether they are adequate. This quote highlights the fact that an oppressed group of people will only take so much before they lash out against the people snapping at them. It is also interesting to see the underlying futility in all this - for all their sit-ins and demonstrations, everything ends up being talked through but nothing much ends up being done. It makes me wonder what stance the book is going to take on race relations.
Question: based on what we've read so far, do you think (racially), the book will have a (relatively) happy ending? What direction do you think the book is going in?
Monday, March 26, 2012
Illusions and Twisted Logic
"Later I'd look back nostalgically at the way my dad always took time to explain stuff to me in his fucked-up way (3)."
I literally laughed out loud when I came across this line (and I was at Flightpath, so I got some dirty looks) because it stated exactly what I was thinking. Even though Toland's dad assures him that their gardener, Stetson, is to be respected, he still makes a point to mention that white people's brains are more developed than black people's brains ("It's been scientifically proven!"). I see a recurring theme of irony in the library that Toland's parents keep but never use, the Rhombus that everyone knows is a gay bar but that the police ignore as long as everyone pretends to be straight, the fact that Toland continues to hide his sexuality despite that his friends probably won't care if he is gay, and the Chopper's excuse for closing down the park ("renovation and beautification") when in reality he is just trying to stop protesters from gathering. It seems that most of the "upstanding" citizens of the South in the novel (Toland included) like to pretend that everything is perfect and pretty and "Godly" in their world as long as African-Americans aren't allowed civil rights, despite the fact that everyone knows that the world is more complicated than that. I think that the above quote from Toland's father exemplifies this idealistic but twisted mentality because his father, like many southerners at the time and some today, acts as if the world is in perfect order with African-Americans that are smart enough to be respected but not developed enough to be equal with white people, when the truth is that his logic is, as Toland so eloquently puts it, "fucked-up."
Discussion Question: How do the illusions that the characters uphold (the library, the Rhombus, the park, etc.) reflect an image of the South as a whole? Why would southerners feel the need to project an image that even they know is unrealistic?
I literally laughed out loud when I came across this line (and I was at Flightpath, so I got some dirty looks) because it stated exactly what I was thinking. Even though Toland's dad assures him that their gardener, Stetson, is to be respected, he still makes a point to mention that white people's brains are more developed than black people's brains ("It's been scientifically proven!"). I see a recurring theme of irony in the library that Toland's parents keep but never use, the Rhombus that everyone knows is a gay bar but that the police ignore as long as everyone pretends to be straight, the fact that Toland continues to hide his sexuality despite that his friends probably won't care if he is gay, and the Chopper's excuse for closing down the park ("renovation and beautification") when in reality he is just trying to stop protesters from gathering. It seems that most of the "upstanding" citizens of the South in the novel (Toland included) like to pretend that everything is perfect and pretty and "Godly" in their world as long as African-Americans aren't allowed civil rights, despite the fact that everyone knows that the world is more complicated than that. I think that the above quote from Toland's father exemplifies this idealistic but twisted mentality because his father, like many southerners at the time and some today, acts as if the world is in perfect order with African-Americans that are smart enough to be respected but not developed enough to be equal with white people, when the truth is that his logic is, as Toland so eloquently puts it, "fucked-up."
Discussion Question: How do the illusions that the characters uphold (the library, the Rhombus, the park, etc.) reflect an image of the South as a whole? Why would southerners feel the need to project an image that even they know is unrealistic?
"I went through a period of looking back and wondering if all that wrestling with Ben was what made me a homo!" (5)
I left my book out on the living room counter over the weekend, and someone got a conversation started by commenting: "Are you really reading a comic book for your class?". I assured them It was for my southern literature class and that this wasn't too weird for an English class to do. They then picked it up and randomly flipped it open to a scene in the middle of the book. It had naked men in bed together. Everyone then concluded I was lying, being further confused when I told them it was really all about the civil rights movement of the 60's, and the parallels of being pro-civil rights and being homosexual during that time. I can't really blame them for the confusion.
This novel is in a unique genre of literature, and this uniqueness is what makes it do what it does so well. It pokes and prods at our social norms, while poking and prodding at social norms of the southern 60's. We are thrown into one of the most controversial groups of people you could probably hang out with in that time, in a genre that is not widely read and, given the substance of this one, controversial. The surprise I got when I first found out Toland was gay (above quote), that same surprise, runs throughout the book. It was a pretty shocking first section to a pretty shockingly ignorant and hateful time period towards both gays and blacks. It is fit for its task.
Q: So, does this being a comic book then make it more accessible?
-Hunter
Friday, March 23, 2012
Reconciliation
"Behind y-?! What's he--?? I don't...You just stood there while he got in a few more KICKS!...An' Don't you go spreadin' LIES about me either FAGGOT!"
We have read through Nordan's prose journey to reconcile his own southern, racial, and class identity in the midsts of a time of turmoil. He works through this by highlighting different characters in his fictional town that are partially autobiographical, and partially "magical" (although we have contemplated the nature of this word and the role it plays in Wolf Whistle, I think much can be read into his application of this technique)
Cruse, on the other hand, uses not only dialogue heavy prose, but illustrations to work through his own sexual identity coupled with race and southernism during the same time. He even references Emmitt Till in the novel as being a large part of the main character's thoughts and dreams as well as his fixation on "the skull" during his childhood. Toland is in the midst of many different battles: those within himself and those social issues on the brink of explosion.
We also see in this excerpt the inability of a police officer to reconcile his own sexual identity, and the violence that ensues due to the social pressures placed upon him.
Question: How much of southern identity is reconciliation? Does identifying as a "southerner" require you to accept evils as well as the beauty that sparks within these evils that we have seen highlighted in many of our readings? Furthermore, is this simply a condition of humanity, and not something special to southerners at all?
We have read through Nordan's prose journey to reconcile his own southern, racial, and class identity in the midsts of a time of turmoil. He works through this by highlighting different characters in his fictional town that are partially autobiographical, and partially "magical" (although we have contemplated the nature of this word and the role it plays in Wolf Whistle, I think much can be read into his application of this technique)
Cruse, on the other hand, uses not only dialogue heavy prose, but illustrations to work through his own sexual identity coupled with race and southernism during the same time. He even references Emmitt Till in the novel as being a large part of the main character's thoughts and dreams as well as his fixation on "the skull" during his childhood. Toland is in the midst of many different battles: those within himself and those social issues on the brink of explosion.
We also see in this excerpt the inability of a police officer to reconcile his own sexual identity, and the violence that ensues due to the social pressures placed upon him.
Question: How much of southern identity is reconciliation? Does identifying as a "southerner" require you to accept evils as well as the beauty that sparks within these evils that we have seen highlighted in many of our readings? Furthermore, is this simply a condition of humanity, and not something special to southerners at all?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)