Is there a reason for reason?

When approaching this blog entry, I had the goal, or ambition, to look deeper into the subject of why Dana went back in time in Kindred. However, they led to me sitting on my bed for 15 minutes, unable to reach an answer as to why Dana had her time travels. Maybe it was to save Rufus, however after thorough conversation in class about that idea, it doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe she went back to save herself. Maybe it was just down right crappy luck. All the thoughts and possibilities running through my head left me stressed out over the meaning on the entire book, when I finally came to the thought, that maybe there was no answer.
Octavia Butler must have known she was going to leave her readers questioning. It lead me to the thought that maybe even Butler didn't know why Dana went back in time. Maybe thats the beauty behind this book, even this class. There may not always be a deeper meaning to a story. Questions, thoughts, and frustrations have all hit readers hard with any fictional novel. I believe Butler used her storytelling through science fiction to show that sometimes, literature is meant to spark questions, thoughts, and frustrations with no exact outlet. Does there always have to be an answer or easy solution?
I could sit on my bed for the rest of the night and try to figure out why the hell Dana went back in time and never find the right answer, which is probably exactly what Octavia Butler wanted.

"The sky is neither high nor low. It's over us and under us at the same time" (105).

I have always loved writers who have a distinctly unique style. Ones that make you think outside the box and make you feel absorbed into the story. Carlos Fuentes is definitely one of those authors. Although I have never read any of his other stories, I get the innate feeling that he has a knack for pushing the limits of reality.

In Aura, we, as the reader, are forcibly placed into the position of Felipe Montero, we go through everything he goes through, putting us right in the story line. There is no safe buffer zone between the reader and what is happening. There is no room to pull yourself away from the madness of this story. From the very beginning Fuentes pulls you in by saying, "You're reading the advertisement: an offer like this isn't made everyday. You read it and reread it" (3). I love that there is no place to hide in this story. Just like Felipe Montero is trapped within the Consuela's house, the reader is trapped within the story.

When I first finished reading the story, I sat there thinking over what it is that I had just read. I went back over some of the passages from the book trying to make sense of it all in my head. When I finally came to the conclusion that Aura and Consuela were one in the same and that Felipe Montero had some kind of connection with General Llorente it all came full circle for me. Then, I began to think that maybe the reason Fuentes puts the reader right in the story is more than just his style of writing. Maybe in fact, the reader is a part of this crazy world that Felipe has been caught up in as well. I began to think that maybe in order for the entire story to survive it needs the to reader to be an active part of it. Like Consuela created Aura to survive, so has Fuentes created the reader and Felipe to keep this entire cycle in place. At the very end of the story, Aura changes back into the old woman, but Felipe stays the same. This tells me that unlike Aura who is physically connected with Consuela, Felipe is his own entity, playing a role that needs to be filled in order for this story to survive. But just like Felipe, the reader is always their own separate entity, yet they are still playing just as intricate a role in helping these characters survive within the story.

Reading His Aura

Aura would probably be my favorite book that we have read so far. I like the places it has taken us and the way it took us there. I enjoyed watching him become a puppet of love (sick as that may sound) because whether it's not so obvious, that happens in real life. We become other people's puppets sometimes and we don't notice it. Of course, our girlfriends/boyfriends don't turn into old women/men within a couple of weeks, but nevertheless... it happens. I really liked the relationship between Consuelo and Aura as well as General Llorente and Felipe Montero, and the way Felipe just eased in to becomming a part of the house, just like furniture. Even when he argued about leaving with Consuelo, as soon as he saw Aura, he told her "yes, I'll be staying with you." He was gone to the world now, but he didn't care because he had his "true love". I think this is easy for anyone to relate to because once we find something or someone we care about a lot, we become a part of it and forget about what was there before it: sometimes temporarily, but sometimes forever.

Burning Kitties? No big deal.

*Note: due to technical difficulties, I have posted this for Jill. Enjoy.


When reading, I always look for a moral. If a book or story has no tale of morality, peace, or just a happy ending I am disappointed. However, Aura was different. Aura is a confusingly fantastic novel. With Aura, instead of searching of for morals I searched for answers. When Aura ended, I did not judge it based on its moral themes or a happy ending, but rather on its capacity to make me want to know.

I could not put Aura down because I wanted to understand the relation between Aura and Consuelo, Consuelo and Felipe, and Felipe and Aura. My desire to find morality and justice was overpowered by my desire to understand.

While reading this book things that usually affect me didn’t bother me. For example, while reading The Things They Carried I skipped the chapter about the baby buffalo, because I could not handle reading about its torture. Page 59 of Aura says, “Cats… all twined together, all writhing in flames and giving off a dense smoke that reeks of burnt fur.” If this description was written in The Things They Carried I would have cried, but I wasn’t bothered by the description in Aura. Aura makes immorality seem ok. My curiosity overwhelmed my capacity to feel.

Aura made me think differently while reading because it was created not to make the reader feel for the characters, but rather to make the reader feel creeped out. It leaves no clear answers, blurring reality and imagination - removing the need for morality.

Kindred State of Mind

One of our discussion questions had to do with the race of the characters in Kindred, and I was wondering how the novel would have been different if Dana were white and Kevin were black.  Obviously there would have been differences with the lineage, but barring that, it is an interesting question.  I automatically thought of the issue of her character. Would Dana have stood up for Kevin if Rufus called him a nigger? Does Dana really love Kevin?  She was unwilling to be his scribe for his upcoming literary work. She is unwilling to give an explanation for his injury and lets him be accused of abuse.  It is almost like Kevin is actually Dana's slave in the story, in that she does not treat him well, and does not see him as equal. Perhaps I read into this way to much or completely the wrong way, but that was how I felt. Furthermore, would Dana have protected Kevin like he did for her when they went back in time? We she have put her life on the line by saying Kevin was her slave? I really think that Alice and Dana's loves were similar, sincere yet reserved. Both were in situations were they HAD to put on a facade for their lover. How then is love different when we are cornered into it? Can it end up being the same, or will we always have these unfair reservations?

I say hey, What's going on?

Was anyone else so confused by Aura?  At first I was so confuzzled by the fact the the author kept saying 'you,' and I was thinking, "wait, me?" When he first reads the advertisement, he is intrigued and pictures himself fulfilling the duties. Then the author says 'your name' is missing, in which case i started to get lost. But i would be lying if I knew what was going on after the second chapter. I was under the impression that the niece was turning into a rabbit and then turning into a cat... I realized we talked about this in class and tried to explain it at an iron rectangle, but I'm still so confused. Aura is obviously the catalyst of the story, as all of the characters revolve around her. But when you relate him to Consuelo's late husband, things get iffy.  I did not really understand much of the book at all, therefore do I have much to offer in this blog? Well, I feel as if I do.  I think the fact that many would agree with me in their confusion of this book. HOWEVER, the book offered content that easily ties into the course. First off, we must decipher this idea of the rabbit, mush like we must decipher what is real in books like "Man in the High Castle."  But I feel as if we are past the point of deciding what is real or not, and to the point where we should decided what is important or not. The rabbit, then, would be almost irrelevant as it is in the mind of "YOU."  The fact that the Author uses the word "you" makes it so the reader feels encompassed in the story even though he or she may not know what is going on.  

Kevin's Trials

In the novel Kindred, Dana’s husband Kevin must play the part of a white slave owner, even though he is a forward, modern-thinking man from 1976. Not only does he play this part well, but as Dana is taken from him and he is abandoned in the past, he starts to become a man of the 19th century. When he first arrives, he defends Dana from Rufus, and is disgusted when Rufus tells him that no one would believe Dana is his wife. When he gets back to the present, he has a slight accent, like Rufus and Tom Weylin. He has trouble remembering how modern-day appliances work, and how to drive. He tells Dana how he saw a woman die in childbirth once, and how he helped slaves to escape and was almost caught for it. He’s angry because he can’t understand his own time, and it feels so unreal to him. When Dana comes home again, they talk about the possibility of Carrie being sold along with her children, and he refers to it as breeding. He’s still her husband, still the man Dana married. He doesn’t think of her or any other black person as inferior to him. But he’s used to being obeyed by them, after his five-year stint in pre-Civil War America. He’s different, and it’s unclear whether or not he can reconcile himself to his old life.

Goosebumps in Literature

Aura, the creepy Gothic tale told in Carlos Fuentes’s novel, challenges the modern reader to think outside the box in several ways.
Aura is told in second-person singular, which most of us haven’t seen since the days of Goosebumps-like horror novels. However, lost in the English translation is the imperative clause—i.e. not just “You do,” but “you must do”—further integrating you into the character, Felipe Montero. The fact that Fuentes tells us very little else about Montero besides his profession and his current lack of funds makes it even easier for the reader to become Montero. Then, as Montero later becomes the General, the reader deeply feels his sudden identity crisis.
The story itself falls within the genre of magical realism, which is unfamiliar in itself. The reader goes from this story that begins normally enough, to something very odd, very surreal, and very disturbing. From the General writing about how he finds the Senora torturing and killing a cat erotic and sexually stimulating, to Aura being created from poisonous herbs, this novel requires that the reader suspend their disbelief in such things in order for the telling of the story to happen.

I was once told I had a green aura...

Hopefully, the woman in Jackson's Square who told me that has never read Carlos Fuentes's novella.

I think the best thing about this story is that there is no clear answeras to what happened. The characters know because they occupy a space within the story that the reader can only guess at.Aura is the alter-ego, the self projection of youth from Senora Consuelo and Felipe is the reincarnation of General Llorente.

Consuelo felt as if she had missed out in life because she hadn't been able to have a child--Aura gives her a second chance to experience what she missed. Aura also a way for Consuelo to hold on to her youth and beauty. As her late husband wrote (in French I had to translate on Google) "you're so proud of your beauty, that would not you not to stay forever young" (Fuentes 87).

She sought out and hired Felipe because he gives her the second chance to live with her husband. He finds himself in the photographs of Consuelo and Llorente, which makes it logical that he has a relation to the couple's past.

The ending of the novella confuses me. When Consuelo says "We'll bring her back together" (Fuentes 145), it leads me to think that she is thinking about physically giving birth to Aura and not simply projecting her, but Consuelo is well past child bearing ago. There must be another meaning to this, but I cannot discern it. Perhaps, Felipe will give Consuelo the inspiration and motivation to maintain the projection of Aura.

“What you need to know about the past is that no matter what has happened, it has all worked together to bring you to this very moment"

Being inspired by the two blogs I have just commented on, I have come to the conclusion that the aspect of time travel in the novel Kindred just becomes sort of useless, and may even take away from the novel. I understand that in order to create this story, the author had to come up with some method to get the main character from one point in time to a later point in history in order to save Rufus and insure her exsistence, but thats my problem. SHE ALREADY EXSIST. I used the quote as my title because it shows how the past has obviously already worked out to Dana's favor.

I am not saying time travel is all together a useless aspect, but to the logical reader like myself, things don't add up in Kindred. She is born with two, but leads the past with one? Wouldn't you say somethings missing?

If you change the past it will change the future

In both novels Kindred and Aura as a reader we see that people are placed into the story to save other people. In Kindred Dana goes back in time to save Rufus's life, or as she tells us to save his life. The old lady in Aura uses Felipe to bring back her husband and seems to bring a child to her. For them to not have this opportunity to go back and fix their past then the story cannot go on. We as the reader bring Aura to life.
In Butler's novel Dana needs to go back in time and make sure what is suppose to happen occurs. If this does not happen then she is not born. The movie we are watching is very similar to this novel. The actions that happen effect what is going on in the future or present life. just like in every or many situtations in life what you do in your past will effect your future.
I feel these novels are showing somewhat of a lesson to the reader in that we should see how our actions effect everyday life. In the end of the novel of Aura Conseulo says, "She'll come back, Felipe. We'll bring her back together." To bring back Aura together is for Felipe to stay with the old woman. This is an action that the characters have to choose what they want to do. This will effect their lives til someone changes what occurs.
People in everyday life need to make the choices that will effect their future or events that will lead up to what happens for the rest of their lives. Just like the characters in the novels if they don't do what is suppose to happen it can mean they aren't born or that someone doesn't exsit.

The Complexities of Time Travel

I really really really really really really really really hate it when books and movies use time travel. 

The whole idea of it irritates me so much, that I can’t enjoy a book or movie knowing that time travel is a big part of the plot. Especially when it’s used to secure someone’s existence. I couldn’t even stand it in Harry Potter, and that’s saying something, because I love Harry Potter. 

The core part of the plot that she has to go back in time to keep her existence in check makes so little sense. Obviously if she exists she doesn’t need to go back in time. Time doesn’t keep happening over and over, so she doesn’t need to fix it. If it happens once, you can’t change it. And if she wasn’t born the first time around to save her ancestors then, then there is no way she could have existed in the first place to go back in time and save herself now. 

I understand that in science fiction novels, you have to have some sort of suspended disbelief. Unfortunately, to me at least, sometimes this plot device causes so much confusion that it takes away from the story. 

TRies (true lies)

First, I want to say that I absolutely hate technology because I just wrote a really long blog and there was some stupid error when I tried to publish it and now it's gone.

On page 40, Dana says that "truth and lie had merged." She is referring to her answer to Alice's mom's statement-question, "And now you're going back," referring to going back to her husband. Alice's mom means to New York, but when Dana says "yes," she means to 1976.

I think the US government did something right for once when they decided to request "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Because it is possible to tell the truth but still not say something the way it should be said to "truthfully" answer a question or make a statement. For example, I saw a shirt the other say that said, "Loyola football: undefeated since 1939." It is true that Loyola has never been beaten in football. That is because Loyola has never had a football team. It is a true but misleading statement.

We have spent this class talking about the black and white of truth and lies, but now we see there is a grey area. A very big grey area depending on how clever or decieving you can be. I know I've definitely used this device before.

Back to the Future!

After reading Octavia Butler’s ‘Kindred’ I could not help but be reminded of the classic film trilogy ‘Back to the Future’ which also deals with familial lineage and time travel.

In the first film Marty McFly travels back to 1955 from 1985 and accidently has his teenaged mother fall in love with him. This, in my mind, paralleled the relationship between Rufus and Dana. Throughout the rest of the movie, Marty tries desperately to unite his father and his mother, so that he may secure his fate. Somewhat similar to the task set for Dana as well.

Towards the end of the first film, Marty finds himself sitting in a car with his mother Lorraine. Marty is surprised to see that she drinks, smokes, and actively pursues boys. This is similar to the way that Dana wants to see Rufus as a good human being, even though he repeatedly shows that he isn’t.

When Marty finally returns homes to 1985, at first he feels a sense of displacement and surprise. Everyone in his family has changed, although they have changed for the better. To them he was never gone, yet Marty was a full week older, much like Dana and Kevin’s travels, though less exaggerated.

Much like Dana, Marty too faces hardships through his travels, however not nearly as extreme as antebellum South slavery. Whereas, the extent of Marty’s hardships were facing Biff Tannen and his kin.

I think by the end of the book and the end of the trilogy the main characters took away the same messages. They learned not to take the past for granted, that history holds valuable lessons for everyone, and that it might not always have been the way you heard it. The other lesson, for all intensive purposes was said best by Doctor Emmet Brown: “you’re future hasn’t been written yet. No one’s has. Your future is whatever you make it. So make it a good one.”

Auras youth

I found Aura to be a pretty twisted novel. It really fit into the class theme of finding the truth in literature. Felipe Montero falls in love with Aura, the caretaker, but when it turns out she's just a projection of the old widow, you are really confused. I didn't completely understand the story, but from what I figured, I think Aura was Consuelo when she was younger, and she is obsessed with getting her youth back. This is why she hires Montero to work for her, so that he can take the place of her dead husband. This book really is about people fighting aging I think, especially with the infertility that struck Consuelo, she seemed to want another chance at life. At the end of the book when Aura is hugging Montero, and then it turns into the widow who whispers that the two of them can bring her back, it makes you think she wants another chance at having a child. Overall this book was pretty creepy.

Rufus and Kevin: two typical boys.

In Butler's novel Kindred, the main character travels back in time to live with her ancestors. An idea that was brought up in class caught my mind: why exactly did Dana time travel? At first I thought the answer was obvious; she went back to save Rufus' life. However, as we discussed it further, I began to explore the possibility that she went back in order to save herself. If you think about it, Dana's act of saving Rufus ensures her birth, and therefore "saves herself" from any other fate. Although this can clearly be seen as the reasoning for Dana's time travel, I discovered another possible reason later on in the novel. When Dana kills Rufus, she is giving all of the others who have been hurt by him a chance to live different lives. Personally, I think this is the reason for Dana's "adventures". Without Dana's act of murder, Rufus would have lived a very long, cruel life; he was turning into his father, even though Dana tried her hardest to prevent it.

Something else that surprised me in the novel is the fact that Kevin begins to change his mindset as he spends time at the Weylin house. When Dana and Kevin first visit the past, they are both taken aback by the conditions in which slaves were treated. It seemed that Kevin would not stand for it, considering his beliefs reflected his life in the 1970s. As the novel progresses however, it is obvious that he is being affected by living in the time of slavery. It is a true test of their love that their relationship lasts after their time travel. The disdain that Kevin begins to push towards Dana reminds me of Rufus' treatment of the slaves.

Rufus and Kevin both treat Dana like she is nothing to them; like most boys, they don't see how their actions can affect the lives of others.

Sparking controversy

So, on the first day of talking about Kindred in this class Pr. Schwartz was intrigued about teaching this book for the first time in the south. I’m sorry, but when this was first said I took a real offense to it, because it felt like a stab at the south. Yes, I was born and raised in Louisiana, but just because I am a southern girl does not mean that I look at racism or slavery in any different way that someone from another state. I took the question as an ignorant stereotypical attack on the southern states. (not saying that it WAS, just saying how i FELT)

(Okay, now that my venting is out of the way, let me delve a little more before I have everyone in class attacking me with gosh knows what.)

Even though I didn’t necessarily agree with the question, when retrospectively looking at the text I can (almost) understand the necessity to ask the question. In a section of the novel, Dana tells Rufus that it doesn’t matter if something about history offends you or not, because it happened. Being offensive won’t change the past. And it was that quote that made me realize that even though Pr. Schwartz’s question truly offended me, it needed to be brought up so people (like me) can get hit with the realization that slavery did in fact happen, and left harsh consequences on the areas inflicted.

But it isn’t just this realization that Butler wants her readers to grasp through this novel. Going deeper, she wants us to realize that the social racism that came with slavery, be it in small or large amounts, still exists today. You can take the fact of Dana’s arm staying in the antebellum south as evidence for this – even though she is from 1976, her missing arm shows her ties forever to the slavery endured by African Americans over a century ago.

But I must end with this:

Even though I do see the truth in the statement that slavery/racism/etc. still exists in some forms today, it DEFINITELY isn’t just in the south. And just because African Americans take jobs that might seem degrading (or whatever you want to call it), does NOT mean that their boss is a racist or slave driver. After all, they did have a choice in taking said jobs…

Aura x 9

There is a point in the book when Fuentes says that "Aura is living in this house: to perpetuate the illusion of youth and beauty in that poor, crazed old lady." Thinking about this theory made me more and more convinced that that was the reason (or at least a major part) why Consuelo created Aura. She made her so when she became old and sick she would have some youth around her. To prove this statement more, I thought about how the cats fit into this story. Cats have 9 lives, something Consuelo could be jealous of. And that jealousy was being portrayed in the way she treated the cats when she was young (a.k.a. strangleing them). She is passed a 100 years old and very sick; the only thing keeping her going to finding a "general" for Aura.

A Nonlinear Life

A hot topic in class while reading Kindred was whether or not Dana would still be born if she had not gone back in time and saved Rufus. I think that without Dana, Rufus would have died and without Rufus, Dana would have died (or would have never been born).

Dana was always a part of Rufus' life even though she was living in her time and going back in time to his time. In the book Rufus' life is in the past, but in his present time as a character, Dana is real. In order for Rufus to live the life he was meant to live, Dana had to be there- and in order for Dana to be there, she had to be born. Neither Dana nor Rufus could survive without the other.

Some people in class believe that Dana would have still been born even if she hadn't gone into the past to save Rufus, but this doesn't make any sense. If Rufus would have died then he and Alice would have never had their children and Dana would have never been born. Dana had to go back in time and save Rufus in order to be born.

Just as Dana had to rely on Rufus to be alive, Rufus has to rely on Dana to also be alive. They both need each other in order to survive and they both rely on Dana's ability to go back in time to survive.

Deadly Love

Dana experiences much abuse and discrimination at Rufus’s hands, yet despite this, she retains the capacity to love him. However, this love proves detrimental not only to the people on the plantation but especially to Rufus himself.
At first, Dana’s love appears beneficial to Rufus, whose mother’s and father’s opposite styles of parenting fail to provide a stable upbringing. Dana hopes to instill morals in Rufus so that he will not grow into the rigid slaveholder reflected in his father. But this is a naïve and hopeless attempt. While Rufus needs stable and consistent love, he also requires a firm authority figure, one who can administer consequences aside from whipping. As she poses as a slave, Dana cannot hold this power. The only punishments Dana can use against him are guilt and abandonment, both passive techniques that cannot teach a headstrong child like Rufus. Therefore, Dana’s motherly actions are only half attempts lacking a fundamental task of parenting much like Rufus’s real mother.
While her authority is weak, the tender side of Dana’s love is neither smothering nor absent. Thus, Rufus clings to her love because it is the most nurturing love available to him. He comes to depend on it, and as he grows, feels he has a right to own it just as he “owns” Dana. This notion grows from Dana’s limitless love for him and the absence of an ethical law dictating how he should treat her. He believes that, no matter how vile his actions, Dana will always forgive him and feels confident in this thinking because Dana is legally subservient to him. Without an enforcement system, he grows up without respect for Dana and harbors instead the psyche of a master.
However, Dana fails to see this dangerous consciousness forming in Rufus. Alice warns her, “The more you give him, the more he wants,” but Dana ignores the caution. She continues giving Rufus her love, which he covets. Without the central authority, this outpouring translates to permission for Rufus to continue hurting slaves such as Sam. Thus, her love feeds his already supreme power, failing to achieve its original purpose: to teach Rufus kindness and compassion towards slaves. Rufus then steps beyond what little passive control she had over him as a child, believing he holds immunity to punishment. However, when he attempts to rape Dana, he finds his mistake too late. Dana, though she had saved and nurtured him his entire life, is forced to kill him in self-defense. Rufus had become dependent on her love because she offered it freely, and when he tries to take it, the attempt ends in his death. Thus, Dana’s love destroys Rufus, just as Rufus’s love nearly destroys Dana.

Kindre(a)d: This is a reader's guide

1. What is the purpose of Dana's time travels?

2. "I could recall feeling relief at seeing the Weylin house, feeling that I had come home." (109) Why does Dana find a sense a comfort at returning to the Weylin house when she travels back in time?

3. What is the significance of Dana arriving back in time wearing "mens clothing"--i.e. pants and a blouse

4. What were the reasons for Alice's suicide? Do you think Alice would have done the same thing had Dana been there?

5. Why did Dana have to endure physical pain and destroy her own body so much to ensure she would be born? would she have been born if she did not go through with it?

6. how does Dana's naivete and ability to love affect the story? Are these traits beneficial or detrimental to Rufus, Alice, and the others of the plantation?

7. did the first person narrative have a stronger effect on the reader? how would the story have come across differently if not from the perspective of Dana?

8. although this story deals with a real history, it presents this history to the reader through the science fiction of time travel in a very unrealistic way, what effect does this have on the novel as a whole? how does this hinder the readers experience or enhance it.

9. How does Dana's going into the 1800's with a 1970's mind set affect her persona?

10. "how do you think Dana and Kevin's views of racism in their own time (1970's) have been affected by their experiences in the 1800's?

11. Should the environment or context that kindred is read in alter the reaction that readers have towards the text? For example does reading Kindred in 1979 publication date be different than when reading it today?moreover what might the novel say about todays society?

12. Race and time are critical forces within kindred. these are issues faced by each character.

A. Inferring from the text how would Dana and Kevin's experiences be different in the 1800's had their race been switched with Dana as a white woman and Kevin as a black man?

B. Referring to "The Things They Carried" by Tim O'Brien, what does Dana "carry" through time?

Colorrrs

Time travel is something that I've always personally considered impossible, complete fiction. Yet I found the book Kindred to be incredibly realistic, and so at first I wondered why the author would fictionalize the story more by including this Sci-Fi element. This topic sort of got brought up in class however. Kindred brings up one of the most awkward issues to deal with, and that is the one of race. I think that through the book, the author shows that even though we as a society think that we are no longer anyway similar to back in the slave days, most of us still see in color, even though we can't help it. When Dana goes back in time, she is at first disgusted with society, and the way she is treated. She longs to go back home, and be in a society where there is no race issues. Yet after a closer observation we see this is not true. There are similarities between Rufus and Kevin. Both ask her to write for them. It says that Kevin, her husband "asked me to do some typing for him three times. I'd done it the first time, grudgingly, not telling him how much I hated typing...The second time he asked , thoughh, I told him and I refused. he was annoyed. the third time when I refuesed again he was angry. " He seemed to think it was her place to type for him, and got angry when she refused. He automatically assumed that Dana would willingly type all his work, which mirrors Rufus's attitude about Dana.

On another note, there are some interesting things that I found in the reading. One was the fact that when Dana goes back, she is wearing pants. I think this was no accident on the authors part; Dana is dressed in masculine clothing because she is different from all the other women in the novel. She wears men's clothing because she is a leader, and doesn't adapt to normal conventions. It's very symbolic because Dana is the most respected black woman in the book. Yeah maybe you find something else to add about this, but I found that pretty important.

"she didn't want to meet you wouldn't have you in her house- or me either if I married you. "

Not to totally kill my discussion questions but....

I am still amazed at how real Kindred is. Butler doesn't pull any punches and keeps Dana as real as it gets, Kevin too.

I know, its sci-fi, how is it even remotely real? Hold your laughing for a moment and let me explain.

In Kindred Dana becomes a slave. She doesn't buck the system and she doesn't do what most "conventional" authors would have her do. Yes, she is horrified by the lives of the slaves, yes, she hates Tom Weylin and, in the end, Rufus too. But she becomes an obedient slave. Kevin becomes an abolitionist, true, but he also recognizes the slave-master dynamic and accepts it as part of the time he is living in.

Everyone of us would like to think that if we got drawn back into some undesirable time period that we would rebel against the time, stick to our modern roots of equality and what not. But in all honesty there are few people strong enough not to be changed by the dominant culture. We'd all like to think that if we were drawn back to the ante-bellum south that we would help free slaves and burn down plantations and become vocal abolitionists. Or if we had the unlucky circumstance to become a slave that we would be disobedient and would run away at our earliest convenience.

Butler knows better. She knows that the easiest path is that of least resistance and that most people flow that way. Butler doesn't presume to create a superhuman character who doesn't fear for her life or for her flesh. This understanding creates Dana, who is about as average a human as you can get. Above average intelligence, but average mortal fear.

I'd like to sit here and think that I'd rather get horse whipped than submit to a master, a person who is operating under the assumption that they OWN me. But in the back of my head I know that I love my own skin too much and am no glutton for pain. Butler writes in Dana a woman that is like most women, like most of the human race, a self-preservationist.

This is probably one of the most realistic texts yet.

Eureka!

Note: This post has nothing to do with the book that we are reading in class. It deals with an experience outside of the class.

I had no idea that I could use the knowledge of truth and lies of English Literature in the real world. I was so excited when I did! LUCAP does hunger relief every Sunday, providing sandwiches, fruit, and snacks for the homeless people at a particular homeless shelter. So, I went last Sunday and after about an hour, watching the men playing dominoes, cracking jokes, and laughing. I started to look around and see other homeless people behaving in a similar fashion then it suddenly hit me, these people know their life is depressing, but they enjoy the little things they have friends, having clothes on their back, and having some sort roof over their head. To a civilized society seeing that they're living their life like slum-dogs is the actual truth in the real world. These strangers that suffering in the depths of poverty become family to one another by sticking together being like a family unit, and having a sense of togetherness doesn't make their life seem so bad. The joy they have in their miserable life is their truth. This joy they have with the company of each other is the force that keeps them going. The miserable life that we, civilized young adults, see through our eyes is a lie to them.

There is another truth and lie that exists in the realm of the poor and civilized. We are really overprotected by our civilized society, our families or other people that influence our lives. They have always drilled the fact that homeless people are disgusting savages, and we should avoid them at all costs because we are superior to them. To me that is a lie.

This is only my second trip in three months that I have gone to the hunger relief activity. What surprised me the most during my recent trip to the homeless shelter was that they did not treat us, students, with the same cold shoulder we usually treat them out on the streets. It's like they are forcing us to see we are not savages, we are just like you, our life just...sucks! It's like I don't know, you meet them and they treat you like you have always been in their family. This protective superior society makes the judgment call based on what they see on the outside, the way they are dressed, their smell, and their etiquette's. I wish there wasn't such a misconception of these people. At least by interacting with them I can see the truth for myself and not carry such a misconception on my shoulders. That is the actual truth in my eyes.

Although, this whole trip was out of my comfort zone, who knew that this class would make me see things in life like this. Kudos to you Dr. Schwartz, keep up the great work!