Thesis for final paper

First, I'd like to store some of my sources so I don't lose them. 
Zines: A Personal History by Elizabeth O'Brien
Zines, Half-lives, and After-lives: On the Temporalities of Social and Political Change by Janice Radway
The Bustin' and Bitchin' Ethe of Third Wave Zines by Brenda M Helbrecht
Auto/Assemblage: Reading the Zine by Anna Poletti
I've been searching for some work on the issue of transsexual men, but frankly it's been very hard to find a commentary on something relevant to what the author of my primary source has experienced.

Previously I had discussed Short and Queer by Kelly and possible research questions.  After re-reading some of the publications, and going through some sources, I should focus on how the openess of the zine, especially in regards to Kelly, contributes to the discussion of sensitive issues where some voices are less heard.  That said, my thesis as of now is:
Unlike the speculative nature of a scholarly article, the intimate details and unrestricted level of free speech in Kelly's zine, Short and Queer, provide a small yet valuable insight into the experiences of a transsexual man.
I have concerns about how concise, or lack thereof, this is, since it has to be a much longer discussion than the previous papers, but of course I don't want my argument to lose strength.  That said, I'm planning on first discussing the some of the ways zines offer a close discussion between people of similar interest while still retaining the privacy of those involved, thus opening the door for unhindered conversation.  Next I plan to go over Short and Queer and how her zine is very much like the others in terms of having a close relationship between the author and audience.  Then, I thought I might talk about how scholars have understood transgender people in the past briefly, and contrasting it with how Kelly discusses it.  This is all I have so far, but I think it's a start.

Final writing assignment: zine and questions

As much as I LOVE writing essays with all my heart, I am posting to announce the topic of my final and hopefully greatest paper for Queer Writing Practices.  This paper will focus on a zine, or series of zines in my case.  I know what you might be thinking: ..the hell is a zine, Steve?  Good question.  A zine is essentially a cheaply made and self published booklet which allows for open discussion of topics by the author, much like a blog.  Zines also allow for communication between the author and the interested audience, as most zines give contact information.  They are very paper based, as they incorporate a wide array of shapes and artistry.  The zine I would like to talk about is "Kelly's Short and Queer" collection.  Kelly is a young individual who was born female and came out as a man, though still attracted to other man, but his writing does not focus exclusively on that aspect of his life.  In fact, part of what I find intriguing about this zine is the random nature of topics, as well as the variety of ways Kelly chooses to discuss them.

As for my research question, I really wanna figure out how people reacted to this work.  How big was his audience?  Was he well received/?  How much feedback did he normally get?  Furthermore, I'd like to know why he started and also stopped (actually not sure if or when this happened, but seeing the number of zines and the date of the first one leads me to believe Kelly no longer writes).  

Sidenote: if for one reason or another this falls through, like there is very little to write about (which I doubt) or there is little to no relevant secondary material, I would like to change to "Positron 3" by Sean Capote.  This is a much less lighthearted zine involving queer politics and the straight edge movement, but unfortunately it's unclear if it will be available to me.

IGNORE LAST POST new secondary source

Sorry for the mix up but I found a source I like even better than the last one.  It's called "Alien Bodies and a Queer Future: Sexual Revision in Octavia Butler’s “Bloodchild” and James Tiptree, Jr.’s “With Delicate Mad Hands” by Amanda Thibodeau.  This is a really great source for me personally because it first elaborates on the idea of sci-fi as having parallels to queer theory and illustrating new Dystopian or Utopian societies that provoke questions on sexual norms. Many of these ideas are almost identical to one of our earlier readings, "Queer Universes," which is no surprise since said article is referenced numerous times by Thibodeah.  Then, the article moves to Bloodchild, first claiming that it challenges "the idea that the future (and thus utopia) relies on heteroproductivity; rather, utopia can demonstrate a rejection of present constructions for a future vision."  It later moves onto the issues of gender roles, power, and social pressures, all of which are very crucial to my argument.  Thibodeau goes over the multiple ways in which Gan and T'Gatoi's relationship is a reversal of sexes and how Bloodchild as a whole undermines heteronormativity in more than just the gender swap.  The article continues to dissect the different themes and claims of significance present in the story, mainly in the portrayal of the Tlics and the scene in which Gan threatens to kill himself in front of T'Gatoi, most of which are all related to my thesis fortunately.  The one variation between my thesis and this article is that Thibodeau focuses on what Bloochild says about heteronormativity, which is similar to what I'm discussing, but it does suggest that Butler is necessarily critiquing society in her story.  That said, I think one could interpret this article in that way, which is good because that helps me a lot.

Secondary Source

My main secondary source as of now seems to be "The Afterlife of Slavery and the Problem of Reproductive Freedom"  While I plan on reading and hopefully incorporating "Conversations with Octavia Butler," "Alien Construction: Science Fiction and Feminist Thought," and "Strange matings : science fiction, feminism, African American voices, and Octavia E. Butler," and maybe others, Weinbaum's article is very pertinent to my argument.  It first makes the claim that although others suggest there is a growing need to reevaluate cultural norms due to changing situations, Octavia Butler's works bring about serious discussion on contemporary reproductive issues and ideas.  Furthermore, Weinbaums states,

"Through contextualization of Butler’s fiction within a discussion of reproductive politics, it becomes possible to recognize in Butler’s work not only a prescient assessment of the reproductive landscape that was beginning to emerge as Butler wrote in the 1970s and 1980s, but also, and as importantly, a proleptic critique of what has now become a well- established cultural dominant in the new millennium. For Butler’s fiction addresses our time as much as its own"

This is very much a crucial aspect of my entire thesis as well as a key idea in studying science fiction: while these dystopian societies are purely imagination and bear no outward resemblance to today's world, they can stay raise questions about what we take to be fact.
Also, this article takes the same stance as I do regarding the view of the method Tlic reproduction as surrogacy and slavery, despite both the supposed "symbiotic" nature of the relationship between the Tlics and the Terrans and Butler's own claim that Bloodchild is a love story, not about slavery.  The source says that slavery is simply harder to decipher as the lines become blurred since now there is no race or group but the entire human race.  Surrogacy is the norm.  Another very important aspect to my own thesis surfaces when Weibaum says, "The upshot is that even though Tlic ideology prevents humans from recognizing themselves as racialized and feminized slaves, readers readily perceive the human surrogates’ real  relationship to the imaginary conditions under which they labor."  This is big time because I'm arguing that Butler forces the reader to see another society where man has been made into simply a machine, a means to creating more Tlics, and thus she raises questions about whether or not certain groups in today's time are similarly valued.
Overall, this article is very good in terms of showing how the relationship between the Tlics and Terrans is not symbiotic and thus questions how symbiotic relationships in our own society, namely between man and woman, but from what I can see it does not say much on today's time period but rather compares the world of Bloodchild to surrogacy and slavery in general, which is, as the article does make clear, a more historical issue, not a present one.  Still, it is very helpful to my argument.

Thesis for 2nd Paper

For my next paper, I will be writing about Bloodchild.  My thesis will be:

In this science-fictitious world, the presence of the Glicks as a dominant species and the societal pressures faced by Gan illustrate Octavia Butler's critique on accepted present day gender roles.

I have no set number of body paragraphs, but my argument will go as follows.  First, I'll make comparisons to the stable but unbalanced relationship between the terrans and their alien oppressors and today's relationship between man and woman.  This will have two parts: one, that the Glicks do not have to deal with any setbacks from being with the terrans, while the terrans face extreme pain and even death, and two, that the Glicks are far stronger and have control of the entire household,  Next, I'll show how even though Gan is not coerced into taking T'Gatoi's young, he essentially has to because of pressure from society, much like the way women feel pressure to bear young as well.  The last part I'm not totally sure on, but I think the "love story" between Gan and T'Gatoi could be a factor in my argument.  This is all very liable to change, and in fact, I'm ready to scrap this entirely, so in case this fails.  I'd write about identity in Angels in America and how Kushner demonstrates the poetically disastrous results of denying identity.

Angels in America: first thoughts

Hey everyone, I'm just gonna get right into it here: this book is HEAD AND SHOULDERS above The Price of Salt.  There is no contest.  Open and shut case.  I understand one's a play and one's pulp fiction and everything so it's hard to compare but come on!  The characterization!  The depth and dimensions! The language!  Night and day compared to Price of Salt.  Every character has so much going on here.  They're so pronounced yet at the same time so multifaceted.  I'm excited.  This is big time.

Getting into the text, we have a lot that's been given to us in a short amount of time.  There's Joe and Harper, Louis and Prior, and my favorite Roy Cohn.  Joe is a mild mannered Morman nice guy in the law world with a valium addicted wife Harper.  We learn soon that the reason for Harper's drug addiction and mental health problems comes from the complete lack of sexual interaction and intimacy in their marriage, which we also discover stems from the fact that Joe, unknowingly, is a homosexual.  Louis and Prior are passionate gay lovers but Prior is revealed to have a terminal disease, soon to be known as the AIDS virus.  Roy is very much his own person, having no long term, monogamous relationship and instead a hugely successful career.  He is confident and thriving in his cut-throat job.  However, he has found out that he, too, has contracted AIDS.

Now we have an interesting setup.  What will come from Joe and Harper's marriage?  All Joe wants is to be normal, to fight what he feels is an disgusting flaw in his soul.  Harper is just falling apart at the seams, so nothing good can come out of this; furthermore, there may be an interesting future for Joe and Louis.  Next, other than a seemingly inevitable death, what will happen to Prior and his relationship with Louis?  No answers there, but something is bound to change soon.  Lastly, what about Roy?  The business man big shot, living the dream.  Yet now, he has a disease known to the public as "gay cancer."  I really liked his speech to the doctor.  It was so characterizing, so visceral.  It has Roy Cohn written all over.  The man's got "clout" dammit!  But besides how much I like that scene, it really speaks to a very modern day concept of labeling and grouping.  Roy will not accept being labeled as a homosexual.  Why?  Because at this time, homosexuals are weak.  Unimportant.  Soft.  Bottom of the society's barrel.  And what is Roy?  The epitome of strength, connections, crude, and top of the top.  He may have sex with men, but he sure as hell isn't in that group.

Overall, very interested.  I want to pay special attention to Joe and Roy because I think they say the most and have the most significant implications of the characters in this book in regards to homosexuality.

Bloodchild and Aye, and Gomorrah

Sorry for the late post everyone, but I thought I should share some of my thoughts on the last two readings.

To start, wow.  Just like holy crap.  I have never read anything like these two stories here, especially not Bloodchild.  But moving on, I want to look at the implications of these works starting with Aye, and Gomorroah.  The premise here is that in this society, set in Houston, Texas, certain children determined to be permanently retarded sexually are set aside and neutered to avoid the harmful effects of radiation in order to work as "spacers."  Another group that develops are the "frelks" who are sexually attracted to the spacers.  This gives way to a very interesting dynamic to the sexual class system.  There are varying levels of acceptance in the different groups in this society, as clearly it is very common for spacers to prostitute themselves to frelks, but it is somewhat frowned upon, at least by other spacers.  Furthermore, one of the spacers, Bo, tells a story how he saw a man and a woman pretending to be spacers to pick up frelks, so he and his friends beat the crap out of them.  The spacers are overall very well received by the rest of society, as the frelks are intensely drawn to them out of both sexual desire and almost a form of awe and the other heterosexual individuals generally just admire them or feel indifference.  The frelks are considered to be perverted, and even the frelks themselves feel that way, but they are apparently so common it is accepted in the society.  That doesn't stop the spacers from taking advantage of whom they see as bizarre and deviant.

I can't help but wonder whether this story is making a statement regarding prostitution, homosexuality, neither, or both.  In some ways, the frelks are like our time's homosexuals.  They're deviations from the norm, and tend to be seen as deviants, even sometimes by themselves, but also common enough to be accepted as a group in its own right.  But what is this story saying by making this parallel in a futuristic society?  I can't really find an answer, partly because I don't really see them as much like our homosexuals.  Their sexual desire is much more complicated than simple attraction to a particular sex; it is rooted in the inexplicable want for something that doesn't reciprocate, and never will.  The frelks do not want the spacers or anyone else to be sexually attracted to them.  Maybe this is due to an attraction by the frelks to what they see as pure or untainted, but to be honest I can't explain it.  

The next story is Bloodchild where things only get a whole lot weirder.  Here, in addition to the normal humans, there is another species that has taken the people of Earth essentially as slaves, although they live together fairly peacefully.  This new species requires a human host for the maturation of fertilized eggs until they reach an age where they can live on their own; in case you missed it, THEY LIVE IN YOUR SKIN UNTIL THEY GET BIG ENOUGH TO EAT THEIR WAY OUT.  However, the new species, for both the sake of their hosts and the benefit of the people, have devised a system to save the lives of the hosts where the larva/wormy baby things are taken out right as they would begin to eat the host from the inside and placed into a dead animal of some kind.  But when I say taken out, I mean the person is cut open, without anesthesia, and they are forcefully removed.  Clearly, this is less than pleasant, and the new species do not grow to be as strong, but ultimately, the people of Earth are safe and the species can continue to reproduce.  The tricky part comes in the fact that the host is normally a male child, meaning one well under what we would consider the age of consent.  The only reason the male agrees to this is pretty much under the pressure of society.  It's unclear what would happen if a person did refuse, but considering that humans are no longer allowed to drive cars, it can't be good.  Furthermore, these new species don't all care about their hosts the way T'Gatoi cares for Gan.  By far their bigger concern is the survival of their young, and sometimes they kill their host during the removal of grubs without much thought.  Even T'Gatoi is shown as less than compassionate with Lomas.

So, what the hell is going on here?  For one thing, I'm suddenly very uncomfortable.  But more importantly, what is this saying about love in regards to the relationship between T'Gatoi and Gan?  Is this truly a love story?  I can see it by the caring and affectionate way Gan describes T'Gatoi throughout the story, and although he initially agrees to carry the young for the sake of Hoa, I think the final scene shows he has some more connection to T'Gatoi than just concern for his sister.  Overall, truly bizarre but a cool glimpse into sci-fi.  Makes me intrigued but also nervous as to what will come next.  Peace out

body paragraph(s)

Ok so I was writing my first paragraph, still unsure about the state of my thesis, when I realized it was simply too long to only be one paragraph in a 3 page paper, so I decided to split it into two.  I don't like it quite as much since I feel like they're less developed no that they're so short, so that's why I'm going to post both so that we can combine them later if possible.

                While Therese shows her capacity for affection and friendliness with Carol, her inability to connect or socialize amiably with the other people in her life demonstrates a lack of maturity stemming from her lesbianism.  Even during short interactions with less important characters, such as Mrs. Robichek, she shows little compassion; once Therese sees “the terrible, shocking ugliness of the short, heavy body with the bulging abdomen…she could not make herself listen” to anything this hospitable woman says (20).  Her disgust with Mrs. Robichek shows a shallowness and lack of understanding that becomes very much a part of her character.  For instance, as soon as Therese falls in love, she becomes more and more distant from Richard, and eventually she starts to detest him with little reason.  Though she never has felt anything more than a platonic friendship for him, she does say, “I like his attitude-more than most men’s.  He does treat me like a person instead of a just a girl he can go so far with or what not” (81).  In the year she has known him, he has treated her very well, but that does nothing to stop her from very quickly changing the way she treats him.  When Therese spends time with Richard after seeing Carol, she first suggests that Richard “cancel the reservation [to Europe] in case she can’t go,” (54) and then denies his offer to see his family on a Sunday because she’d rather “work.”  When Richard points out the oddity in her reasoning, she again brings up the idea of cancelling the trip to Europe.  In this scene, Therese knows she no longer wants to date Richard, and in her defense, she does make clear she still cannot love him, but instead of seeing him as a friend who’s loved her for a year now, she views and treats Richard as a nuisance. 

In addition to the attempts to avoid future encounters with him, Therese’s love for Carol further impacts her friendship with Richard negatively as she starts to become enraged over nonsensical issues.  In a later scene, Richard presented Therese with a kite as a thoughtful gesture, much to her enjoyment, and ironically this causes her to immediately think of Carol.  She begins flying the kite successfully, but once it runs out of line, Richard excitedly suggested he cut it.  Since she clearly equates the state of bliss she feels flying the kite with the bubbly sensation she gets from her new love, Therese experiences so much anger that she “couldn’t believe she had heard it” (99).  In a frenzy, “Therese jerked the stick sideways, out of his reach, speechless with anger and amazement. There was an instant of fear, when she felt Richard might really have lost his mind” (99).  She then proceeds to scream in more fury than she releases throughout the rest of the novel combined, which proves her irrationality since Richard literally just cut the kite that he himself made.  From this point, their relationship only deteriorates as Therese brushes off Richard more and more, until finally he realizes she no longer wishes to see him because of her feelings for another woman.  In the argument which proceeds, Therese lets her all her inhibitions go and attacks Richard in every aspect of his life, saying, “You’ll drop painting some day and me with it.  Just as you’ve dropped everything else you ever started” (156).  She continues with, “You’re like a little boy playing truant as long as you can” (156).  Therese, before having undergone her transformation, never would have belittled Richard’s aspirations, and furthermore her comments have little to do with their fight.

This is what I have so far. A lot of work to be done, but I'll know more on where to go once I finish my thesis.

Thesis and Project Narrative

So far, the one thing I've written most frequently about, the one thing I've felt most strongly about, is my beef with Therese.  I talked a lot about Richard, but mainly I wrote about Therese; I always tend to focus on character flaws in the main character, since sometimes they can harder to pick up on, so it's no surprise that's what interested me.  That said, I should probably focus my thesis on the subject of Therese's character and the significance of such. Therefore, I have come up with

The immaturity displayed by Therese both in her relationship with Carol and her interactions with other people illustrates Patricia Highsmith's view of lesbianism as frequently a childish mentality.

I phrased it in this way because I don't think Patricia Highsmith actually thinks lesbianism in general is childish, but I think she may be arguing that girls sometimes pursue queer lifestyles mainly because they aren't mature enough to know where they are emotionally and psychologically.  She also may just be showing the way in which society at the time saw lesbianism, as young girls who become overwhelmed and proceed to act irrationally and selfishly.  Either way, Therese ends up changing a lot in the last chapter or so, and still remains in love with Carol, so clearly Highsmith has no real qualm with lesbianism in general.  I intend to include some of this dialogue in a brief intro/conclusion

 In order to make this argument, I'm going to first show all the flaws in Therese's persona once she becomes enamored with Carol in regards to Richard as well as some other minor characters like Mrs. Robchiek.  In the next paragraph, I would talk mainly about the problems with her relationship with Carol, and believe me, they're there.  In both of these paragraphs I'd try to show after all of my evidence how these things depict lesbianism in a childish light.  In my conclusion (in as much space as I have left) I'll be most likely pointing out that although these things suggest Highsmith sees lesbianism as childish, she certainly doesn't believe it's always that way or can't change into something more grown up, using the final pages as evidence.

I'm definitely very open to suggestions on this since to me it's very hard to pinpoint Highsmith's motive in making Therese the way she is.  I know there is a significance and I have a lot of evidence for it, but I can't be sure that my interpretation is 100% correct.  Therefore, I'm looking for any kind of constructive criticism, mainly towards that aspect of my thesis.  Thanks in advance, see you next time.

Developments and such

Last Sunday, I gave my overall view of each of the three biggest characters as well as the heads-up that much of what I said would become outdated as the book progressed.  Since I have a lot to say I'm just going to jump right into it; time's a-wastin' here.

At the end of Chapter 12, Richard finally gets fed up getting his plans denied by Therese, and as I said in my last blog, rightfully so.  The guy is totally in the right asking her to go to the concert with him, but she can no longer bear spending long periods of time with him.  The book makes pretty clear that once Carol comes into her life, Therese wants nothing to do with Richard.  So finally it boils over and Richard loses it; he approaches her aggressively on the matter.  Therese responds with the classic "You don't understand" (154), which she repeats later in the argument but also acknowledges is total bull.  Richard understands fine.  However, my dude did surprise me with how he saw Therese as being in a "trance" or "daze," and that Carol "knew what she was doing," and "shouldn't play you like this" (154).  This fits in exactly with how society unfortunately saw homosexuality at this time, as a mental perversion or sickness, and to me this is rather disappointing.  I thought Richard would be above that and a little ahead of his time, as I feel his character previous to this suggested.  He keeps insisting that she will change her mind and return to sanity, which, again, would have been very typical of how many people felt about such things in this era.  Now, I'm going to make a leap here.  I know this isn't going to be well received, but here goes: I think this is a weak attempt by Patricia Highsmith to both antagonize Richard as the mean, simple-minded old boyfriend and also incorporate current cultural issues in her novel.  Hold on, let me say why I feel this way.  There is no doubt that she, meaning Highsmith, would have been dead on to make this kind of claim about society.  The other novels in Lesbian Pulp Fiction and other queer genres prove this so overwhelmingly it's almost comical.  I also feel she did a good thing by depicting this ignorant and archaic mindset, but I just don't think it works with Richard.  The Richard I read earlier in the novel wouldn't have reacted in this way, but then again, I'm biased.  I'm living in a much different time; when I meet a nice and intelligent person, I can safely assume that they won't have ignorant beliefs such as the ones portrayed through Richard.  I guess even amiable people with their head on straight in the 1950's just could not look at certain things the way we do now, so I am willing to concede my former statement, but not entirely.  Moving back to the argument now, I also couldn't help but dislike Therese even more.  In addition to continually using this curt, emotionless, and somewhat condescending tone, she also really goes for the jugular on Richard.  I mean, it was just revealed that she has been avoiding him, the guy she's dated for years, because she has a crush on a women she met a couple weeks ago, so I don't know why she pretends to be surprised by his reaction.  Then, she changes the subject from their relationship to taking a real stab at Richard's profession.  Jeez, lady, this guy was your friend!

A week later, the argument continues, and Richard finally makes a good point when he says, "What really makes me sore is you act like I'm not worth anything, that I'm completely ineffectual" (157).  Then Therese responds in typical fashion with, "I don't have any quarrel with you.  It's you who chose to quarrel over Carol.  She hasn't taken anything from you, because you didn't have it in the first place" (157).  This is real garbage right here.  Of course you don't have any quarrel!  You fell in love with a stranger!  And how can she be surprised he wants to quarrel over the woman who has ten years on Therese and has been spending every moment she can with her?  Essentially, I have a big problem with how self-centered Therese can be.  She couldn't stand Mrs. Robichek because of her ugliness, and now she can't stand Richard because he takes away time from seeing Carol, the only person she actually cares about.  I also found it interesting how when she's talking with Carol later she says Richard's love for her, "doesn't feel like love," and that she thinks it's all just for show.  This is kind of hilarious to me, because the way Richard is acting and has been acting all this time has love written all over it.  Therese on the other hand seems to think seeing a really hot woman and hanging out with her for a little bit is the basis for love like no other.

Well, as far as Richard and Therese are concerned, it pretty much ends there.  Carol invites Therese to go on a trip, so Richard writes for a bit but Therese of course never responds and Richard finally wises up and officially ends it via letter.  To sum up what happens pretty quickly, Carol and Therese reveal their love for each other and have a great time on their trip; unfortunately, Harge, Carol's wife, has a detective follow them to prove that Carol is a lesbian to get full custody of Rindy.  Carol has to choose between Rindy and Therese, and chooses Rindy.  Therese is clearly distraught, but through work and the simple effects of time she recovers, a more mature, independent woman.  For a moment there's this possibility of Danny, a relatively unimportant character, swooping in and really changing the outcome of the novel, but it fades pretty quickly.  Therese's feelings were clearly not part of some "trance" as Richard would have put it, as there is some obvious significance in her interaction with the actress Genevieve Cranell.  

I know what a lot of you are probably thinking.  First of all, my views on everything, namely Therese, Richard, and Patricia Highsmith, are stupid and unsubstantiated.  Fair.  I get it.  A lot of this is my opinion so you are probably right.  Secondly, what about Carol?? What about their relationship???  Well, here's the thing.  Carol is a pretty static character.  I actually like her.  She's very real, and she's not afraid to give actually very accurate advice and remarks to Therese.  Their relationship is also pretty static; I really don't have much to say about it.  Carol loved Therese.  Therese loved Carol, to a ridiculous degree.  One thing really stood out to me during their final moments together.  Therese, after much internal conflict, refuses to return to Carol because, "You would betray me again" (279).  If that isn't the most selfish thing I've ever heard, I don't know what is.  Carol had to choose between Therese, a teenage girl she knew for about a month or so, and her child.  Her child. The person she birthed.  How could Therese ever consider that betrayal?  This only makes me more and more skeptical of both Therese's character and also her understanding of love.

EDIT:  So I missed a big thing.  Therese DOES return to Carol in the last sentence.  This doesn't change much of what I said, but I do want to make that clear.

Meet the Characters

Hello, faithful readers of my blog!  I'm sure you all have been desperately awaiting my next post after last week's brilliant performance, so fear not!  I have returned, and I have a LOT to say.

So now I'm going to solely focus on our book The Price of Salt, and I'm going to try to keep my thoughts as organized as possible.  Furthermore, I'd like to add that sometimes I might not be able to provide a lot of evidence to back up my personal reactions; while I'll try to avoid doing this as much as possible, sometimes I'm just using a little speculation and imagination to fill in the blanks in certain scenes.  I know that's not universally accepted in the writing world, but hey, it's my blog.

Eventually I'd like to talk about some of writing styles and techniques of Patricia Highsmith, what I like and don't like, but for now it's all about characters. This book is very much about the relationships between the main people, so let me begin with my initial view of the big three, Richard, Carol, and Therese, and I say "initial" because it all changes big time.

Richard makes me feel bad.  He really does.  He seems like he has a big heart, but he's got issues.  I want him to succeed but his job as a painter is pretty stagnant and his relationship is DOOMED.  It was doomed even before Therese met Carol.  But something about him makes me like him; he appears to be aggreeable and confident, as Therese says, "I like his attitude-more than most men's," (81) and he definitely treats Therese with respect as he is unquestionably in love with her.  Therese frequently suspects that he only likes her because she has sympathy for his dream, but I don't see it at all.  For one reason or another, he loves her, and Therese admits, "He does treat me like a person instead of just a girl he can go so far with or not" (81).  I know some people think he's manipulative when he wanted to stay with Therese even after she said she didn't love him, but come on!  They are "together"!  (I think?  It gets really unclear but they certainly have been seeing each other for a long time).  It wasn't smooth or well timed, but you can't fault a guy for wanting to sleep with the girl he's loved and dated for years!  And I think he was genuinely embarrassed/sorry afterwards.  I can't really back that up, but so far there is little to suggest Richard is in any way abusive towards Therese.  Moreover, I feel as though he's the most dimensional character in the novel so far.  While Therese and Carol are always kind of the same person, Richard can range from being happy and confident and laughing to moody and downright furious.  I know having a temper isn't really a positive trait, but in a story full of flat characters, Richard feels the most human; he also has a purpose to his life other than love, namely his painting career, which is hard to say about Therese.  So I have to sympathize with the guy, so he makes me sad.

Then there's Carol.  It's hard to say a lot about Carol, because she's so goddamn mysterious.  That's sadly the best way to describe her.  So far we know she's a babe, she is getting divorced from a nice but an emotionally detached man, she has a child who she loves, and for whatever reason she likes Therese.  We don't even know why.  Therese is head over heels in love; we know that because she says it in her mind all the time, but we get no such luck with Carol.  Frankly, I'm a little mixed about Carol.  She can sometimes be very cool and relaxed, which is fine, but sometimes I get a very aloof sense from her.  I think she does like Therese sincerely, but I have little idea what her plans are. 

Finally, we have Therese.  Honestly, I don't even feel bad, and I reaaaaally don't like her. Here's why: as this super timid, visibly emotionless, and practically silent female, Therese is the direct opposite of myself, so it's very difficult to relate, but I'll try to put that to the side.  That said, I don't like the way she treats my man Richard.  I know she told him she doesn't love him, but they've been at the very least good friends for a long time, so constantly saying you can't hang out with your best friend for dumb reason after dumb reason is not cool at all, especially if you're dating!  She just keeps blowing him off and being really curt with him.  Furthermore, she goes crazy in the whole kite scene.  I get it; the kite=Carol, but in the end, it's a kite.  Richard made it, he can decide if he cuts it.  So she treats Richard like garbage and she bases her whole life around Carol.  She fell in love with Carol when she met her.  Why do I feel this is important?  Because I don't care what anyone says, I've felt that feeling when I see a beautiful girl.  It feels great.  You want to just take her on a nice dinner date and walk around holding hands and get ice cream and kiss her good night.  But in my brutally honest opinion, it doesn't matter if you're not thinking directly about sex, it's still lust.  Plain and simple.  Love is what you feel when you realize that if the person you're in love with got into a horrible accident and lost their beauty, you still couldn't live without her.  Sure sexual attraction is a large part of being in love, but it's a part, not a whole!  For the most part, Therese is feeling a form of LUST.  So I don't like the way she treats Richard or her idea of love, and I know this is superficial, but to me she's just such a bummer.  She shows almost no emotion, other than her bubbly excitement when with Carol.  She's not funny or nice.  I don't know why Richard likes this girl.  People make stupid decisions when they're in love or whatever.

So what I'm going to do now is end on a bit of a cliffhanger.  I would love to spew everything on my mind right now but then frankly I wouldn't have much else to write about in future blogs.  So all I'm going to say is although Carol stays pretty much the same, we get a very different look at both Richard and Therese right around chapter thirteen.  Very different.  In fact, it's almost hard to believe the words coming out of their mouths at certain points, and some of the things I just said kind of fall apart.  So before you leave seething responses about how I'm reading the wrong book and what not, be aware that these are INITIAL opinions and inferences.  I'll talk next about how their characters change or become more apparent.  So tune in next time for more high quality book reading! 

Helllllooo everyone! My name is Steve Mazzari and I'm in the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke, and this will be my RIVETING blog for Writing 101's "Queer Writing Practices."  Here I hope to discuss the vast and sensitive issues of sexuality, LGBT culture, the evolution of the "queer" population and its relationship with society, etc. through literature.  But before all that, I guess I should go into further detail on myself to give a better understanding of where my opinions and thoughts are coming from.

On January 5 1995, the second and final child (SPOILER: it's me) was born to Steven James and Lauren Mazzari in a cozy suburb of Montclair, New Jersey.  Being raised in an Irish-Italian household, I went to the small Catholic school in my town where my mother worked as an English teacher, and later principal, up until 8th grade and then proceeded to Regis High School, an all dudes, all free, Catholic school in the big apple.  That's right; I lived in New Jersey, but went to high school in the city.  Strange, I know, but that's what happened.  There I ran cross country and track for four long but happy years and finally ended up someway, somehow on this campus.  Other random facts about myself include sweet guitar skills, life-guarding, and a crippling addiction to the show "Supernatural" (Hey, what can I say, it's a good show!)

I have always had a religious presence in my life, and although I'm not a particularly spiritual kind of person, I keep my Catholic upbringing and lifestyle to this day; however, don't assume that my faith will have anything to do with much if any of my blog.  I guess I don't have "traditional Catholic beliefs" on certain matters but then again I would argue that's a very debatable statement.  I overall don't have very strong opinions on a lot of stuff, but sometimes I can get pretty into an argument so we'll see if I can avoid sticking my foot in my mouth on the internet.  I don't have anything of value to really add to the readings we've already done, but I have to say The Price of Salt has yet to truly grab me; that said, very curious as to how it will pan out.

That's it for now. Tune in again soon!