Answer one of the questions:
1) From your understanding of B. Mukherjee's short essay "Immigrant Writing" (anthology, p. 108-111), do you see Carlos Bulosan's short story "Silence" (anthology, p. 8-10) as maximalist, minimalist, or neither? Why?
2) Choose a small excerpt (up to 5 lines) of Carlos Bulosan's short story "Silence" (anthology, p. 10-11) and analyse what (and everything) you can about it.
Don’t want to be the spoiler, but it seems that the man in Silent fell in love with his own imagination. Some might say that at least he had some color in his life and was happy for a short while until his silence came back. Maybe it was there all along and he was just too busy to hear it. The human mind is capable of self-protection and can create a false perception of love to obtain a certain level of comfort. It makes the silence less noisy. But what happens if we lose the capacity to imagine? Then we also lose the capacity to dream. The man in the story excessively used his imagination to elaborately create a daydream regarding a stranger. He built a relationship with a beautiful girl whom he had no intention of getting to know personally. So, it was like falling in love with a ghost, which seemed to me kind of creepy if you don’t mind me saying.
ReplyDeleteAccording to B. Mukherjee's short essay "Immigrant Writing" I think the main character is a minimalist, because not only did he create a false image of love but at the same time he eluded himself from what was real. It was a shame not to have seen him act as a maximalist and shout out to the girl before spring had gone! The story could have had so much color in it if he had let go of his fears and taken a step forward into the real world. Well, I guess that’s the main point of reading the story in this course. For when you stay in your own box and decide to live in it you are sure to lose the good things in life.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the text “Silence” I chose to do a more-in-depth examination of the third paragraph “But now he had been alone…”. Since the main character is speaking with inanimate objects "he had conversed with practically everything in his room" we, as readers, are encouraged to consider how lonely this character is. The use of verb tenses in the past can contribute to increasing this feeling of loneliness and emptiness "he had been alone". The descriptions are made through the eyes of a heterodiegetic narrator.
In terms of linguistic elements, the initial word “But” can be recognized as a contrasting linguistic element, in this case a conjunction to establish a certain contrast with the preceding paragraph. Immediately after there is a temporal deictic “Now” that accentuates this paragraph transition. Speaking of rhetorical devices, it is important to emphasize some, such as: the anaphora through the repetition of the personal pronoun “He”: “He had spoken”; “He had conversed”; “He was excited”; “He was surprised”; “He moved” which shows that there is nothing else besides him; enumeration “He moved to the window and parted the curtains and looked on the college lawn…” double adjective “solicitude and pleadings”; personification “... walls until they had become deaf…” “...it had stood mute with pity for him”. However, with the second “But” there is a turning point which is evident through the use of adjectives with more positive connotations, such as “excited”. Besides, it is also interesting to look at the rhyme between “every day to run away” which makes us think about a daily routine and a moment to break it... To conclude, it seems that this paragraph almost splits into two different moments: before the second “But” and after it.
1. I agree with a previous comment suggesting that "Silence," a short story by Carlos Bulosan, tends towards minimalism. Furthermore, I agree with this argument in the context of traditional literature as well as how it is portrayed in Bharati Mukherjee's essay titled "Immigrant Writing."
ReplyDeleteIn a nutshell, literary minimalism is defined by simple, clearly conveyed stories. In contrast, Bharati's assessment of minimalism and maximalism through the lens of literary works created by immigrants seems to have a predominantly cultural connotation.
On the one hand, Bharati is opposed to minimalism, which commonly features stereotyped portrayals and prefers to infer certain characteristics of the story through the absence of description or explanation. On the other hand, she argues that maximalism develops characters whose identities transcend societal boundaries and tends to thoroughly explain everything.
In my opinion, the short story is minimalist because it focuses on one aspect of daily life and examines it closely, and the character develops throughout the story rather than the plot itself. It follows a mostly silent and initially undeveloped protagonist, even if purposefully so. Furthermore, this character lacks a sense of belonging, as he is not tied to a specific cultural heritage and is not assimilating a new one.
Nonetheless, the protagonist attempts to confront silence, a possible stand-in for minimalism, and begins to move toward maximalism, which is most likely represented in the outside space, such as the park with "young men and women of many races" (p. 1, para. 1, ll. 2-3), and the protagonist's new room decor, i.e., "the riot of color in his room" (p. 2, para. 2, l. 8).
In fact, if not for the finale, the protagonist's efforts could have better fit a third type introduced by the immigration experience: attempting to retain two cultural identities while establishing a hybrid area referred to as a "borderland" in the essay. This allows the writer to pick which old cultural qualities to retain and which new ones to adopt, all while ensuring continuous character growth, which might reflect on the author's identity.
Unfortunately, the protagonist's isolation grows, which is exacerbated by the addition of locks to his door. Hence, any progress toward maximalism, like the curtains, begins to fade.
2. Although the whole short story was an incredibly enjoyable read, the part that stood out the most to me was the third paragraph of the second page, especially from "But when she appeared again...". After not seeing the girl for a couple of weeks due to Christmas, the main character feels this deep happiness when she comes back to her usual spot where he can watch her from afar. We can obviously argue that everything in the story is just his imagination and pretty illusory, as he never gets to know the girl, but this alienation is what makes the story so interesting. I see it as a very comfortable, simple story, despite its deeper and more difficult topics and characteristics, where we have a lot to dive into. The plot is very reachable and the overall setting really easy to keep up with.
ReplyDeleteIn the section I chose, I'd like to mention the "familiar sweaters" expression. Bulosan adds an adjective that refers to acquaintedness, proximity and closeness, relating to a piece of clothing that belongs to someone he never even approached. Nevertheless, you can say he was indeed familiar with her sweaters, with all her image and the idea of her presence. He did in fact feel safe and comfortable watching her (a daily occurence) which gave him an undeniable sense of familiarity, even if a distant one. We also read that "he became human again" but we know that "human" is a constant state that didnt technically change. In this context, humanity is something that he lacks, a sense that he only knows in her presence. The adverb "again" takes us back to the time when he first saw her, when he experienced that feeling for the first time. She is now once again the reason behind everything he does. Lastly, i'd like to mention how "the silence was quieted" and how "there would be no silence" as long as he kept her in his thoughts. Silence is a noun, a state, defined as the complete absence of sound. This is the kind of emptiness that features the man's entire life before her, a "defeaning silence" if you want to. Solitude, loneliness and lack of emotions or extreme feelings. It cant get any quiter than that. Nonetheless, the idea he has of her, the part of his routine that includes her, breaks with that cycle of meaninglessness, "quieting the silence". Making it more bearable and exciting to live.
111) I feel as if I cannot answer this question the best way, but I will try.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Bharati Mukherjee's essay, I am not sure on its message completely. In my understanding, Mukherjee's stance is this: the new generation of Americans -- whose backgrounds are intrinsically non-European -- should ditch the minimalistic stories about "family memory and brief visits to ancestral villages" (p. 112), and opt for the writing of a great epic; one which entails the story of the New American. She evokes great 19th century authors such as Charles Dickens, whose books are famously thick and detailed, and later mentions the dual identity of "us" and "them" when talking about Europe-centric retellings of history (p. 112). However, I do reckon the composed identity Mukherjee is more focused on is the junction of various minority identities into a giant (American) group, rather than the opposition of minorities and majorities (Us vs. Them). This is, from my understanding, what I gathered from the fourth paragraph counting from the bottom of page 112. "(...) Our ethnic- and gender- fractured world of contemporary American fiction, allows me without difficulty to 'enter' lives, fictionally, that are not my own. Chameleon-skinned, I discover my material over and across the country, and up and down the social ladder," means, as I understood it, that every story emerging from any new American diaspora composes a much larger narrative. Thus why Mukherjee criticizes the 'exotic' stories about past generations by the new American generation that, as Mukherjee explains, fails to recognize the potential they can obtain as a group. This is what Mukherjee's Maximalism comprises to me. However, I do realize my interpretation can be severely distorted and altogether false. But if I am correct, then wouldn't "Silence" by Carlos Bulosan insert itself in this type of definition? Think: this is a story that, although short in length, is able to capture a feeling ANY individual belonging to diaspora can relate to. It does not restrict itself to a country or an ethnicity but instead to a feeling: Solitude. Being denied entry to a world of possibilities -- a world of sound. The silence is a plague that can haunt any New American who does not belong to 'the mainstream'. Moreover, the absence of the main character's name assists this type of interpretation. The main character in "Silence" is a vessel for anybody who feels unaccepted and forlorn in a new society. Someone who wonders and settles into new places but nevertheless fails to connect with anyone he crosses. Isn't THAT the main storyline of any expat/migrant?
I conclude by stating "Silence" by Carlos Bulosan is, following my interpretation of Mukherjee's essay, maximalist in spirit. However, due to its length and limited amount of details, perhaps this would not be the best categorization.
After reading the text Silence, for me the part that I found most interesting is the last paragraph. I say this because it is the moment when all of his "temporary happiness" comes to an end as the girl disappears forever. This event causes the silence to once again haunt and follow him, even though, as said in the text, he waits for "her" for years to come back but to no avail. In the last line ("Then one night he leaned far out the window and wept bitterly, hearing the silence coming from everywhere around him.") we can see loneliness and sadness that wraps around the main character once again, just like it did at the beginning of the text where he was basically a stranger in his town. This change in reality for him is also seen in the changing of the seasons as the days grew hot, the leaves matured, the fruits ripened and the wind blew warmer all signs that lead to the disappearing of the woman. After all that was said before, the main theme not only in this last paragraph but on the whole story would be remoteness, solitude and grief.
ReplyDeleteIn my understanding of Mukherjee’s article, her notion of Maximalism has more to do with the concept of relatability, rather than the definition one might find on a dictionary. Minimalism is a dead, unappealing style because it no longer speaks to the majority of the increasingly diverse American public. It’s a way of writing and of thinking that is intimately connected to a set of lived experiences, of fears and anguishes that are very particular to a specific fraction of the readers. It speaks to the a part of the population, that although in no way is losing its relevancy or prevalence in American society, are becoming a part of a complex and diverse whole, where voices from all walks of life, from all philosophies, religions, languages and cultures are finding a way to express their concerns and their hopes. Literature that only caters to some is doomed to be irrelevant, as it forces a huge percentage of potential readers to find their voice somewhere ese. “It speaks in whispers to the initiated” as Mukherjee puts it; It calls on the WASP’s ability to recognize and name its themes and its images, to interpret and read its signs quietly and comfortably from an established position in a society that was built by and for them. The stories are not necessarily bad, but they’re excusive to a singular way of living – they either drive the rest of the world away or force it into a box of formulas and common places that fit in their single-sided perspective.
ReplyDeleteA Maximalist writer is the antagonist of the Minimalist story. Their stories contain a multitude of lives and experiences, they’ve crossed the barriers of distance and language and now write to make it known, to put it all out in a provocative response to a word that tells them they should keep their head low and be quiet, try to blend in, or fit in the made up version of themselves, constructed by those who have no interest in hearing their voice.
In this sense I believe Bulosan’s short story Silence is a maximalist story. It’s about the loss of language that happens when one finds themselves stuck between two paces without ever belonging to one of them. And it’s also about crushing, oppressing loneliness. And it’s also about finding symbols and codes in the word around you, something that might give you hope. About a dialogue with someone who will understand what you say and why you say it. And an obsession with keeping things in a certain and particular order, to make a chaotic word slightly more organized. And a reader might find any of these meanings or they might find just one or create a new one. It’s a story that tries to open up to the word and share something with it, look for points of connection and separation with its readers – not one with cryptic meanings, one that requires a previous knowledge or life to understand. It’s Maximalist because it tries to make the reader part of a life and itself part of the life of the reader. (Miguel Ferreira)