Return to Roster

 

Name: Breanna Buterakos

Major: English (writing concentration)

Minor: History (Cause we have the best history teachers EVER!)

What I hope to do in this class: get a general idea/appreciation of the themes and characteristics (and authors) of American literature. 

 

 

Personal Online Presentation Material: Final Paper Course Work

 

 

Personal Online Presentation Material:

Group Number: 1

Term: Feminism

 

Presentation:

 

 

Final Paper

The American Perspective of Royalty

 

The Princess Bride

William Goldman, 1973

 

"A Boxing Match or Another Bloody Nose for John Bull" by William Charles

Lithograph, New York, 1813

 

FASHION SECONDARY SOURCE: http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/i/introduction-to-19th-century-fashion/ 

 

American Hero:

The American hero is a swashbuckling rogue, one who would take on the unjust to protect what he loves. The American hero defies those in authority. The American hero is a trailblazer.

 

Close Reading:

"The four ships were never sent," Buttercup said, when they were alone. "Don't bother lying to me any more."

"Whatever was done was done for your own good, sweet pudding."

"Somehow, I do not think so."

"You're nervous, I'm nervous; we're getting married tomorrow, we've got a right to be."

"You couldn't be more wrong, you know; I'm very calm." And in truth she did seem that way. "It doesn't matter whether you sent the ships or not. Westley will come for me. There is a God; I know that. And there is love; I know that too; so Westley will save me."

"You're a silly girl, now go to your room."

"Yes, I am a silly girl, and yes again, I will go to my room, and you are a coward with a heart filled with nothing but fear."

The Prince had to laugh. "The greatest hunter in the world and you say I am a coward?"

"I do, I do indeed. I'm getting much smarter as I age. I say you are a coward and you are; I think you hunt only to reassure yourself that you are not what you are: the weakest thing to ever walk the Earth. He will come for me and then we will be gone, and you will be helpless for all your hunting, because Westley and I are joined by the bond of love and you cannot track that, not with a thousand bloodhounds, and you cannot break it, not with a thousand swords."

Humperdinck screamed toward her then, ripping at her autumn hair, yanking her from her feet and down the long curving corridor to her room, where he tore that door open and threw her inside and locked her there and started running for the underground entrance to the Zoo of Death and down he plunged, giant stride after giant stride, and when he threw the door of the fifth level cage open, even Count Rugen was startled at the purity of whatever the emotion was that was reflected in the Prince's eyes. The Prince moved to Westley. "She loves you," the Prince cried. "She loves you still and you love her, so think of that - think of this too: in all this world, you might have been happy, genuinely happy. Not one couple in a century has that chance, not really, no matter what the storybooks say, but you could have had it, and so, I would think, no one will ever suffer a loss as great as you" and with that, he grabbed the dial and pushed it all the way forward and the Count cried, "Not to twenty!" but by then it was too late; the death scream had started.

 

This is the text that I chose for my close reading. Possibly the climax of the book, Humperdinck is deeply angered by Buttercup's blatant words. Why? Why is Humperdinck, so perfect with his dashing good looks, reknowned as the greatest hunter in the world, and the only heir to the throne, why would he be so angry when one girl called him a coward? And more puzzling still, why did he react the way he did? If he was as unafraid as he claimed to be, why would he feel the need to torture Westley with more pain than any man has ever endured?

Maybe he wanted Westley out of the way. Perhaps he didn't want Westley to somehow crash the wedding. But I've always wondered if perhaps Humperdinck just wanted to hear Westley scream. There was nothing he could do to Buttercup for her words (after all, he planned to kill her after the wedding anyway), but torturing Westley made him feel empowered. Taunting him with the loss of his true love, and then killing him in the worst way possible...it is here that we see Humperdinck's true character.

Far from the handsome Prince Charming who swoops in to rescue the damsel in distress and marry her to live happily ever after in their quaint little kingdom, Humperdinck reveals himself to be exactly what Buttercup calls him - a coward. He doesn't challenge Westley to a duel to prove his worthiness as a prince, to prove he is not afraid. He doesn't let Westley so much as say a single word. He simply kills him, allowing him to neither confirm nor deny the princesses words and proving that the only thing he is not afraid of is his own conscience.

This may be one of the author's greatest points. Royalty is not always as flawless as we view it to be. Propaganda and self-advertisement, for lack of a better word, are the foundations upon which Humperdinck's character is built. He is self-acclaimed to be many things, of

which he is none. The only thing pure about him is the hatred in his eyes when he kills Westley.

You have some great thoughts here. As you revise this for the final paper, you may want to relate your interpretations to the text selections above. And you may want to consider using your questions as a way to guide your close reading (perhaps changing them to topic sentences). 

 

Visual Thinking and Analysis:

ARTIFACT

Cartooned, larger than life

The ships in the background are tiny compared to the people

The man in black is dressed professionally, almost artistically like Beethoven or Mozart

They are dressed in period clothing

The ‘king’ is wearing soiled royal clothes, but not so royal that he can’t move. He is, however, obviously losing the battle

The battle is on a very simple beach with a simple sky and a simple (calm) sea

The hero isn’t the ‘king.’ He isn’t winning the battle. Blood is gushing from his nose and he’s filthy and weary. It’s the pristine looking man in black

The battle between the two doesn’t appear to be affecting anybody else

NOVEL

The characters are caricatures, full of satire

No problem is insurmountable for the main characters, even a stab wound to the gut which makes Inigo hold his hand on his abdomen to prevent his organs from falling out

Humperdinck wears gaudy clothes (he is prince after all) and is not afraid to flaunt that he’s better than everyone else

Humperdinck is an overgrown, spoiled, pompous jerk - maybe with a little bit of tyranny and pure evil thrown in there somewhere. He's slightly overkill in the realm of traditional bad guy and he isn't the current king, oppressive step-parent, or even obligated to marry Buttercup. He is merely EVIL from birth, stuck in old traditions (such as referring to his step-mother as ES, which stands for, of course, Evil Step-Mother, not because she was evil, but because every step-mother he'd ever read about was evil, so obviously she was too). 

The descriptions in the book leave a lot to the imagination. They tell the story without laying out specifications of scenes

The hero is not the prince! The prince doesn’t even get the girl! The hero is the farm boy Westley who gets kidnapped by pirates and eventually becomes one (a very good one) and gets his girl (who isn’t really a princess – just beautiful)

Westley (also referred to as the man in black) isn’t pristine. He actually mostly dies at one point and is brought back in time to bluff his way to saving the princess. But his mind never dulls, even when he can’t move

 

Great start! The strong connections between the cartoon and novel. They're both satires - they rely on hyperbole and make social/political commentaries. 

 

Formal Analysis:

 

The characters in this picture are larger than life, flat and slightly cartooned, but still following the rule of thirds and based in a triangle with the men’s feet in fighting positions and their heads somewhat closer together. There is a small concept of distance in this painting, however not enough to convince the viewer that the ships in the background are not abnormally tiny compared to the subject matter. The blood is not red – more like water in fact, while the coat of the losing party is bright red, soiled on the shoulder as though he’s fallen and just now regained his footing. His clothes are still white, as is his powdered wig, and it appears that his eye is the same color as the sky – a discolored bruise or else he’s wearing makeup. The man in black’s shadow is incomplete, perhaps because he is too great a man to cast a shadow. He is completely unscathed. There is some depth (3-D in the clothes, wrinkles, shadows, etc). The sand is not textured and the water is systematically indicated by horizontal lines spaced out almost exactly the same way though wavy instead of straight. The king’s crown is disheveled and falling from his head, broken it would appear and more grey than gold, perhaps indicating a falling empire or a really terrible ruler. The king is on his tip-toes, as if he’s about to pitch over on his face. We can perhaps deduce from this that the American hero (the man in black, obviously) is destined to defeat royalty and, rather than take the crown, crush it to dust. Royalty is a tyrannical thing of the past! Thus declares America in our progressive journey.

 

This is a good description of the cartoon interspersed with close reading. As you revise this for the final paper, consider breaking these points into distinct paragraphs with topic sentences.  

 

Secondary Sources:

A little difficult to find. I'm still looking for one more.

 

Matz, Aaron. Satire in an Age of Realism

Knight, Charles. The Literature of Satire

Baum, L. Frank. American Fairy Tales

Anonymous. A Companion to Satire

Morton, Joseph C. The American Revolution

 

Thesis:

Through The Princess Bride and "A Boxing Match or Another Bloody Nose for John Bull", we can see that Americans view royalty as a thing of the past, outdated and tyrannical, stupid, gaudy, cowardly, inefficient, and, frankly, the arch-enemy of the roguish, intelligent, idealistic, and always triumphant American hero.

 

 

Outline:

 

Intro I. American hero

     Intro II. Villainous views of royalty

Body I. Flashiness

     A. Humperdinck's clothes

     B. 'king's clothes

     C. Economic waste

Body II. Outdated

     A. Pomp and ceremony of making Buttercup a princess

     B. Flatness of the caricature

     C. Humperdinck's closedmindedness 

Body III. Cowardly

     A. Zoo of Death

     B. Picking a fight

     C. Not taking off crown

Body IV. Inefficient

     A. Clumsy clothing

     B. Ceremony

Body V. Stupid

     A. Humperdinck's closemindedness

     B. Humperdinck's willingness to drop his sword

     C. Humperdinck's willingness to marry someone he didn't love

     D. Dazed expression

Body VI. The Villain

     A. The prince isn't the hero

     B. The prince isn't even a nice guy

     C. The king is losing the battle

Body VII. The Hero

     A. The hero is ambiguous

     B. The hero is dressed pristinely

     C. The hero is the best - at everything

Body VIII. Strength

     A. The hero is stronger than the villain

     B. The hero is stronger than other heroes (Inigo, Fezzik)

     C. The hero is never disheveled

Body IX. Intelligence

     A. The hero is the smartest (beats Vizzini, stops wedding)

     B. Frees captives

     C. Associated with great composers (dress style) 

Body X. Ideals

     A. The hero fights for ideals (love)

     B. The hero fights against the oppressor of those ideals

Body XI. Triumphant

     A. Nothing can stop the hero - not even death (Inigo, Westley)

     B. Royalty is defeated but left in history books

     C. King ends up with bloody nose

     D. Hero walks away unharmed

Body XII. Hero/Prince

     A. The hero is not and cannot be the prince

Conclusion. 

 

Final Paper: The American Hero's Perspective of Royalty

 

 

As posted on Friday, April 15, 2016:

 

 

The American Hero’s Perspective of Royalty as Portrayed in The Princess Bride

            The idea of the American hero was born into American literature centuries ago, whether present through tales of heroic heists during the American Revolution, sacrificial displays of courage during the American Civil War, visions of cowboys and Indians fighting out their differences in the Wild West, or the triumphant familial recollections of American veterans returning from WWII having saved Europe – again. The American hero is a roguish, intelligent, idealistic, stylish, hard-core citizen who is always victorious over his arch-nemesis. Every hero has one, that despicable being who wronged the hero, the sworn enemy. Inigo’s nemesis was Count Rugen. Westley’s was Prince Humperdinck. In both instances, we can see that royalty, in the eyes of the American hero, is nothing more than yet another obstacle to be conquered. Even today, hundreds of years after the American Revolution, we can see the continual threads of distaste for royalty, evident in writings up through the 1970s. Through The Princess Bride and “A Boxing Match or Another Bloody Nose for John Bull,” we can see that Americans view royalty as a thing of the past, outdated and tyrannical, stupid, gaudy, cowardly, inefficient, and worthy of the title of ‘arch-enemy’ to the American hero.(You done a great job explaining the american hero. May you could introduce the characters of the book so that we know exactly who you are talking about when you describe their heroic situation)

            Despite what Disney may tell us, America has always viewed royalty as a villainous entity, as a representative of bondage and misery. As apparent by the two main ‘bad guys’ in The Princess Bride, William Goldman clearly represents royalty as the essence of malice and malevolence through the most heinous individuals he could think up. Though this essay will mainly focus on the crown prince, Humperdinck, it cannot be ignored that his chief adviser is also a detrimental force, both to the country and the health of the heroes, with which to be reckoned. The artifact which contributes to this comparison also reveals that American political cartoonists often thought it appropriate to portray their much-despised former government as unavailing and pompous. From these two sources, the conclusion can be reached that America simply despises royalty.(Give us some examples of the way Americans views as to how America despises royalty)

            Prince Humperdinck, future ruler of the quaint kingdom of Florin, has a royally ingrained sense of fashion. As seen in the passage where he quite blatantly and rudely refuses to marry the princess of Guilder after coming to realize that she had a complete lack of hair, Humperdinck is vain in his constant attention to self-image (Goldman, --). Not only does he constantly worry about his own grooming, clothing, and public image, he sees it unfit to taint himself by marrying a woman without hair, even though he is one of the only people who knows of her condition. This is indicative of the extent to which his pride and vanity control him and lead us to begin to recognize the first signs of cowardice and a lack of ability to appreciate emotions such as love, sacrifice, and humility.

            As seen in the illustration of John Bull (Charles), who represents a personification of the United Kingdom, we can see that American cartoonists characterized the UK’s form of government with gaudy, rather old-fashioned clothes (“John Bull and Uncle Sam: Four Centuries of British-American Relations”). John Bull is wearing breeches, stockings, and waistcoat, but, judging from the state of his nose, they will not remain that color much longer, perhaps symbolizing the deterioration of the monarchy. His coat is bright red, soiled on the shoulder as though he has recently fallen and just now regained his footing; yet we know that as soon as he leaves the fight, there will be servants awaiting him to assist him in undressing and give him another of the same sort of coat, this one unsoiled, most likely throwing away the ruined coat rather than repairing it.

            In both instances, we can see evidence of economic waste. Even in regards to the royal family today who truly are nothing more than popular figureheads and origins of style trends, waste can be seen. The expenses lavished upon the royal weddings, births, deaths, and even Jubilees are huge. According to The Atlantic, “sustaining the royal family costs Britons 53 pence, or about 81 cents, per person, per year. The total came to about 33.3 million pounds (about $51.1 million) for 2012-2013” (Khazan). We can see this displayed in both the artifact and the novel. The extravagant and gaudy clothes of Humperdinck and John Bull are a misuse of resources. The message is clear: royalty is a waste of money.

            Not only is royalty wasteful, it is outdated. This can be seen in the pomp and ceremony of Humperdinck’s instating of Buttercup’s ‘princesshood.’ Before Humperdinck would marry Buttercup, he insisted that she be a princess – marrying a commoner would be scandalous. Rather than finding a princess of royal blood, however, Humperdinck merely finds a small plot of land, Hammersmith, on which nobody lives that belongs to neither Florin nor the neighboring countries and makes her the princess of that (Goldman, --). This may have been a result of protocol or pride; the book never really indicates which. Either way, Buttercup’s being made a princess was for nothing more than the sake of the title, and Humperdinck did not see fit to marry someone of low breeding. His bride must be a princess.

            Even if this could be excused as mandatory protocol, Humperdinck’s view of his step-mother cannot be dismissed. Humperdinck’s mother died when he was born and his father remarried to a homely lady whom Humperdinck admits to be actually quite nice. Despite this, since all the step-mothers Humperdinck had ever heard of or read about had been evil, the prince decided to always refer to his step-mother as ES, which, of course, stands for Evil Step-Mother. Humperdinck stubbornly refuses to call her anything else, reasoning that since she was a step-mother, she must therefore be evil, and he must treat her with the utmost contempt and disrespect (Goldman, --). These both truly represent Humperdinck’s close-minded character. He is unable to think outside of the realm of what has been done in the past, even if it means demeaning someone who has done nothing to deserve it. It is in this that we see Goldman’s portrayal of royalty as retrogressive.

            Seen both in the traditional garb and wig worn by John Bull and the fact that he is impressively bad at boxing, we can tell that he also is stuck in past traditions. He, though able to command armies, is unable to fight. Britain, at the time of the American Revolution, was a massive empire, continually growing, and by the time of Victoria’s reign spanning more than a quarter of the world’s population. As America broke away from Britain and European ideals and customs, including colonization, America proved itself to be a formidable enemy, taking victory in its finest form and conquering the British (Marston, 1-4). The English king was unable to keep his grip on America because of his inability to relinquish the concepts of imperialism and move into a new age of equality and paid labor. Progress did not mesh with the king’s ideals and thus was never striven toward.

            In addition to the detriments of being unable to adapt to new ideas, royalty is also portrayed as cowardly. Evident in nearly everything he does, from his deceitfulness to his reactions to being accused of pusillanimity, Prince Humperdinck proves himself to be exactly what he proclaims he is not: an enormous coward. When Humperdinck detains Westley, the hero and Buttercup’s true love, instead of returning him to his ship as he had promised, the horrible repercussions of his cowardice come into play. Buttercup calls the prince a coward to his face, and Humperdinck, dashing heir to the throne and the greatest hunter in the world, becomes deeply angered by her blatancy, so much so that he tortures and kills Westley with more pain than any man has ever known (Goldman, --). The Machine is what kills him, yes, but in Humperdinck’s words, “think of this too: in all this world, you might have been happy, genuinely happy. Not one couple in a century has that chance, not really, no matter what the storybooks say, but you could have had it, and so, I would think, no one will ever suffer a loss as great as you” (Goldman, --) we can see that by the way he places emphasis on true happiness and the fact that Westley will forever be deprived of it that it is not the physical pain of dying that will torment Westley, but rather the knowledge that he will never have even the slightest chance of having a happy ending. The loss that he mentions is not Westley’s life; it is the loss of every hope and dream, of love, of everything which makes Westley human.(Great way to use the examples from the book to justify your observation)

            Possibly the climax of the book, this is where we see the pinnacle of the prince’s cowardice. Perhaps he wanted Westley out of the way so he would not somehow crash the wedding. But perhaps Humperdinck just wanted to hear Westley scream. Buttercups words made him feel exposed, and rather than challenging Westley to a duel to prove his worthiness as a prince, to prove he is not afraid, Humperdinck simply kills him, depriving Westley of any chance of rebuttal, allowing Westley to neither confirm nor deny the princess’s words and proving that the only thing Humperdinck is not afraid of is his own conscience.(Great start, just try to go into more detail and fight the authors as to why you believe these assumptions)

            This same cowardice is seen in artifact as, instead of removing his crown to fight with the man in black, the king keeps it perched precariously on his head. He does not allow himself to be on the same level as his opponent, never letting his opponent forget that he is in control, that he is the king. This contributes to Goldman’s portrayal of royalty as attempting to remain above the fight. 

 

 

 

 

 

Rubric:

Name (paper): The American Hero's Perspective of Royalty as Portrayed in The Princess Bride

Name (First Reviewer): Chase White

Name (Second Reviewer):

 

 

	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactory	Comments
Organization	Strong thesis at the conclusion of the introduction to guide the paper. Thesis connected and supported in all body paragraphs. Thesis makes a strong argument about a single theme or idea using the primary text and artifact. Discussion of the primary text and artifact is coherent and succinct.	Thesis is vague or spread throughout the introduction and the paper. Thesis is not clearly connected to all body paragraphs. Thesis does not make a strong argument about the primary text and/or artifact.
Close Reading	Analyzes the theme of the American hero in or through a primary text and artifact. Close reading brings the primary text and artifact together in meaningful ways. Places close reading in conversation with secondary sources. Summarizes and paraphrases evidence from the primary text to support the close reading (only using direct quotes when it is necessary to analyze the language).	Does not clearly analyze a theme from American Literature in or through a primary text and/or artifact. Close reading does not relate the primary text and artifact in meaningful ways (although it may discuss both separately). Does not situate close reading among secondary sources. Primarily summarizes the text or quotes it (rather than analyzing it).
Support (Research)	Integrates support from secondary sources to support close reading. Creates a clear conversation with secondary sources (without being overpowered by them). Uses strong evidence from secondary sources. Summarizes and paraphrases evidence except when quotations are necessary.	Does not integrate support from secondary sources. Argument is either overpowered or disconnected from secondary sources. Evidence from secondary sources is not clearly connected with the argument. Uses unnecessary quotes from the secondary source.
Pre-Writing	Completed all pre-writing activities on-time (including conferences and rough draft workshop)	Did not complete all pre-writing activities on-time.

 

 

 

 

 

Course Work

 

• What was the main point of the article we read about short fiction: "The Remarkable Reinvention of Very Short Fiction"? 

Answer: The main point of this article was to answer the questions posed in the synopsis. "Is very short fiction a renaissance or a reinvention?" At the end of the article, the author concludes that the art of very short story writing is not something new. "Great writers have been writing very short stories since long before the novel," the author says.  It has all (most of) the elements of a regular short story but often creatively fits them into a smaller word count, sometimes without any words at all. 

• What EVIDENCE did the author give to support this claim? 

Answer: "How can a short story be and still truly be a story?" The author claims that most students would rather write a one page short story than a typical twenty-five page short story. He claims it can be a good way to learn writing and can be just as creative and intuitive as normal fiction. He even says "it...doesn't explain but rather suggests or invokes a story." 

• How does this relate to the short stories we read from Sudden Fiction? 

Answer: I think his idea that short stories have vivid descriptions and don't explain but suggest a story is very accurate to the short stories we read from Sudden Fiction. They're very brief, but still leave you with distinct imagery. They invoke your imagination to make up the work that the words didn't cover. "Chuy, in the back, always sucked on his stupid lollypop, a nasty habit we all hated but tolerated because of his connection at the checkpoint." That's all the description we ever hear of Chuy, but it's vivid enough to allow our minds to fill in the blanks. 

• In "Cannibals and Explorers" - a MICROSTORY - Ana Maria Shua makes a commentary about the behavior of European explorers and in the New World. What is she saying? How does the condensed form of the microstory enhance her message (see The Remarkable Reinvention of Very Short Fiction for ideas about the power of these mini-stories)?

Answer: Her message is very clear. The European explorers were no better than the cannibals themselves. She doesn't need a lot of length to explain it. She merely describes the cannibals and their beastly behavior, and suddenly we see images of the New World explorers and the behaviors and attrocities that they committed.  

• How does Fernando Benavidez's story "Montezuma, My Revolver" related the history of conflict between Native Americans and Europeans to the present? Why is this significant?

Answer: The honor of the main character is destroyed when he is accosted and abused (violently) on a bridge. Even though he survived, he still metaphorically died. He lowered himself to a being below human to exact revenge and bring another low with him. This is similar to the conflict between the Native Americans because even though the Europeans claim to be so much higher socially and morally, they lower themselves to the point of dogs by their killings (slaughter, really), views of killings, and inhumane actions. The Europeans destroyed not only physical lives but reputations as well.  

• Don Quixote is a satiric Spanish epic critiquing Spanish military and chivalric ideals (and actions). It was written by Miguel de Cervantes in the 1600s (as Spain sent conquistadors to plunder the New World). What do you think Juan Martinez is saying about the relationship between modern life and the past in "Customer Service at the Karaoke Don Quixote"? 

Answer: There are many things that he could be trying to get across, but here's what I got out of it. He is saying that modern life and the past have a relationship like the people coming to the bar. If you keep visiting the past to get drunk in the racial prejudices, you can never move on to somewhere else. The bar keeps serving something to keep the people coming; there's always something else in the past, some unsettled score. He keeps saying 'is good' that the business is good. But maybe getting drunk and singing about our sorrows doesn't do anything to improve anything. Maybe moving on from the past is what we really need to do to move forward. 

 

 

 

Reading Questions for The New Bedford Samurai

Due 22 February 2016

 

Please your answers to the questions below AND five questions of your own (to ask in class after the guest lecture). Remember to tie your questions to SPECIFIC pages in the novel and be prepared to talk about this material in class on Monday.  

 

Creating Reading Questions:

• ·         GENRE:
• o   How does the genre shape the narrative? How does it compare to other genres we've read? – The narrative reads just like a fiction novel.
• o   Can a nonfiction novel have a hero? – Absolutely. Manjiro is definitely the hero of this novel. It revolves around him and his life’s journey. 
• ·         CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT:
• o   How is the character of Manjiro Nakahama developed? What imagery does the author use? – Manjiro seems to always be tied to the ocean. He came from the ocean and he seems to always be linked back to the ocean. He’s akin to the Lady of the Lake, who comes up from the waters to give Arthur a gift, Excalibur. The same way, Manjiro emerges from the ocean to give the world a gift, to Japan the gift of industrialization, and to the rest of the world, the gift of Japan.
• o   How does Manjiro’s experience of encountering the West allow the Western reader to see our world with new eyes? – Manjiro’s experiences allow us to see our world for what it appeared to be in his eyes. To him the white people were savage, full of waste and with no value for life. They were brilliant and innovative but barbaric.
• ·         NATURE:
• o   How does Nature become a part of the heroic narrative? – Manjiro is always interested in nature and its wellbeing. It comes into play as a major part of the heroic narrative as things that he describes are often compared to things in nature. And again, Manjiro is tied to the ocean.
• o   How does Manjiro Nakahama's map emphasize his global experiences? – It reveals that he is a traveler and he loves it.  

     Do you feel inspired to join one of the nature societies that Dr. Vlasopolos mentions in her preface? – Not really. I think valuing nature is something much more personal than becoming a naturalist or joining a nature society. It’s not spitting your gum on the ground when you’re out hiking; it’s not throwing your cigarette butts out the window (or just not smoking at all); it’s not littering; it’s being aware of what animals are endangered; it’s following the rules of how many deer you can shoot per season; it’s recycling and eating healthy. And besides, we’re college students. We’re broke 

• o   How does Manjiro’s map here resemble his journey in the novel? – Manjiro blazes a bright red path for Japan across the globe as the first Japanese man to speak both Japanese and English.

 

 

 

• ·          

 

1. Was being struck considered a ‘gross humiliation’? (16)

2. Why isn’t the spirituality of the Japanese a more relevant thing in this book? Devils are mentioned once on page 28 but not again for a long while after.

3. Is racism a continuing theme throughout the whole book? (47)

4. Why did you focus so much on the embroidery in the American rooms? Why not pick some other aspect of Western décor? (68-69)

5. Is it intended irony when Aunt Millie calls the reverend a savage for knocking on the door while the Americans themselves are considered savage by the Japanese? (76)

 

 

1. Would he rather live in Japan or the U.S. and why does he make the decision(s) to live where he does? - I think Manjiro loves people and he wants to live where he can make a difference, where he can bridge the gap between the two societies.

2. How does Manjiro relate to the ocean (use the map above and the text)? - Manjiro seems to always be tied to the ocean. He came from the ocean and he seems to always be linked back to the ocean. He’s akin to the Lady of the Lake, who comes up from the waters to give Arthur a gift, Excalibur. The same way, Manjiro emerges from the ocean to give the world a gift, to Japan the gift of industrialization, and to the rest of the world, the gift of Japan.

3. If the roles were switched, could Manjiro have been as successful? - We can't really know, but we can speculate that since it worked one way, it may have worked the other.

4. Give two examples of continuity in Manjiro's experiences and relationships with people in different places - They're both seen as and consider each other savages. They're both really racist!