Thoughts on: David Latham's "Melinda's Closet"

I really enjoyed reading Latham's article on "Speak." I think that in the back of my mind I made a mental note on the fact that Melinda hid in a closet both at home and at school, but I never went back to think more on it. The idea of being in "the closet" is such a huge marker in today's society and even though this story was written 10 years ago, I'm not sure that Anderson could have written about Melinda's "closet experience" without at least somewhat referencing its connotation in her own mind. The closet (in the literal sense) actually makes sense to me as a place for Melinda to choose to hide. She is still in the school or at home but she is still separated from everyone, and she is the only one who knows about it. For the first time since she was raped, she gets to make the decisions. She gets to decorate the closet, she can invite or exclude both company and objects. It is small and it is in her absolute control, and she needs to feel that way about something in order to begin to heal.

Where I think Latham really excells in creating a convincing argument is in his use of psychology to prove his points. That Melinda exhibits the main features of PTSD is obvious from the text, but Latham is able to use this to link Melinda's recovery process to that of everyone--especially homosexuals, but not exclusively--who are trying to work through the same process to escape from their own closet as well.

At first I was kind of sceptical to the idea of linking rape with homosexuality, but I think Latham makes some very good points. He doesn't diminish Melinda's experience--as I feared he would--but instead, he looks at the psychological and emotional recovery process, and I think that it is a very interesting connection.

Thoughts on: Laurie Halse Anderson's "Speak"

“Speak” is an incredibly well-written novel about a girl who is unable to say the very thing that she needs to say to be free from the pain of what has happened to her. Melinda Sordino’s rape changes everything in her life from her ability to relate to others to her view on the world in general. Although I found it frustrating to some extent—it is obviously not a smoothly flowing teenage novel like “Forever”—it is still very powerful and effective.

I really appreciate the Laurie Halse Anderson’s style of writing with this novel because it becomes a way to understand Melinda’s world to an even deeper extent. The paragraphs are broken and feel quick and desperate as though she cannot stand to think about any one subject for very long, and it is more than just the constantly active mind of a teenage girl. Through Anderson’s style we are better able to see that Melinda carries the experience at the forefront of her mind and she cannot decide what to do with it, so all other thought becomes a way to distract herself from the reality of what has happened to her. The way that Anderson structures the dialogue and thoughts are also very relevant to Melinda’s psychological state. There seems to be a very blurry line between thought and speech—especially for Melinda—and the novel feels like a play at times when Anderson gives direction as to who is speaking. Melinda’s experience has made her so aware of how she feels most of the time that she senses the truth about other things as well. She sees how the world is almost putting on a play—and that either nobody is truthful with themselves, or they don’t want to admit the truth that they see. Melinda sees everything as 2-dimensional.

As I started this book, I kept thinking,” I’ve heard this story before”. It took a few pages to realize that I have seen the movie, and I hated it at first! Like the novel, the movie feels very inconsistent and awkward. I was eventually able to get into the movie, but I don’t think that I ever figured out—until I read the book—that this discontinuity was deliberate. I enjoyed the novel much more than the movie, but then, that is probably because I already knew what had happened to Melinda and it was easy to understand why the author would use such fragmented text.

I would definitely consider teaching this book to an adolescent class. It deals with a very real issue in a very real way. I think that students can relate to the setting, and while I hope that none of the students would ever be able to personally relate to Melinda’s rape, there is a possibility that some may have had a similar experience. Like “Forever”, it may be hard for some boys to relate to a novel written from the perspective of a teenage girl’s mind, but it is such a unique perspective, and the issues that it deals with—rape, family problems, problems with friends—are very real to most students.

Thoughts on: Levithan's "Boy meets Boy"

In “Boy Meets Boy,” David Levithan describes a high school—and even an entire town—that is so completely different from our expected reality that it becomes almost other-worldly. He seems to throw every possible stereotype out the window when describing this world. I will admit that I was rather confused by Levithan’s strategy in creating such a setting until I read Pattee article. I didn’t realize that the creation of a fictional utopia was a literary strategy—especially one that has the express intent of making society aware of the need for social change. It makes sense to use something like this. It is an eye-catching strategy and it compels the reader to compare this fictional setting to reality. I also have to mention that I got a kick out of seeing Pattee quote the ever interesting Trites!

Levithan’s use of a utopian setting became very clear once I became aware of its existence! To be perfectly honest, I felt both overwhelmed and entertained by Levithan’s fast moving narration. My biggest weakness in reading is that when I cannot relate to any of the characters, I give up reading altogether. I was afraid that I would find this novel hard to relate too, but Levithan pulled me in the moment I began to read, and held my attention until I found a character that I could find commonality in. Once I realized that the setting was deliberate, things began to fall into place. However, I find myself torn as to whether I like the use of utopia or not.

I think that Levithan uses this Utopian technique to serve his purposes well. Like Pattee says in her Trites quote, “Boy meets Boy becomes a tool for making sexuality visible” (169)—and it does. The reader cannot help but to suddenly stop think about how very different our world is compared to Levithan’s utopia. However, my next thought is not, “how can I make my world like this?” It tends to be, “this situation is so unrealistic that I cannot imagine it ever happening.” If Levithan wanted to actually change how society works, I think he would be better served by creating a story within a traditional setting—but this is only my opinion. Pattee mentions the problem with using traditional conventions to try and assert a new reality when she quotes Trites as saying that such novels tend to “undermine that alleged liberation” (169).

I’m not sure if I would want to teach this novel to a high school English class. I feel that it plays with concepts that are extremely important for high school students to grasp. First of all, Levithan emphasizes tolerance. I think that too many high school students are intolerant because they are afraid that tolerance means that you have to go against what you believe—I often find myself caught up in that fear. (And of course, many students are intolerant simply because they do not understand other people). Tolerance is about showing genuine respect to every individual regardless of how different they are from you. What I didn’t like about this novel is that the entire middle section is nothing but drama! I guess it fits with the age group that Levithan is writing for, but I wouldn’t use any other book that was so filled with pointless drama. I chalked it up to trying to bring the familiar into a situation that is so completely different from ours, but it seems to undermine Levithan’s initial push as a utopian setting. I understand why he does it; it just doesn’t work for me.

I typed in "what does tolerance mean" on google and found a website for something called the "Museum of Tolerance." The first page talks about what tolerance means, and then it goes on to discuss why it is so important. The museum focuses a lot on anti-semitism, but it also has all kinds of exhibits on the Civil Rights Movement, and even the idea of "personal responsibility." The museums are in CA and NY, but I think the website itself has some great information. www.museumoftolerance.com

Thoughts on: Judy Blume's "Forever"

Judy Blume’s novel “Forever” is the story about one young woman’s sexual awakening. Katherine must face the choices that every young person must make in dealing with her relationship with Michael. Like most teenagers today, Katherine and Michael must define “forever” and “love” for themselves. While I suppose that I wish that “Forever” would have ended in that typical sappy way—cliché as it might be—I am also glad that it didn’t. The typical teen movie ends with the young woman and her hunky love interest finally getting together, but it usually stops there. Most of us like to assume that it was a “happily ever after” kind of thing, but we are never told. Blume refuses to fall into the trap of the teen love story formula by not ending the story with our two favorite characters truly finding forever. Still, what I love most about “Forever” is that our heroine is able to learn and grow through her experiences. Katherine becomes a woman in the pages of this novel. Her emotional maturation lends credence to the feminist ideals.

While I found Trites discussion on how sex and power relate in young adult novels fascinating—“sexual potency is a common metaphor for empowerment in adolescent literature” (84)—I feel that she is much too harsh on Blume’s “Forever.” I consider myself a feminist, and in doing so I tend to agree with a great deal of feminist criticism. But, Trites has nothing good to say about teen novels that deal with sex—even those like “Forever” that were intended to change how female sexuality is portrayed.

Trites declares of Judy Blume’s novel, “[t]he text tries to liberate teen sexuality by communicating that curiosity about sex is natural, but then it undercuts this message with a series of messages framed by institutional discourses that imply teenagers should not have sex or else should feel guilty if they do” (88). In defending her position, Trites recalls the conversations that Katherine has with her mother and grandmother. Katherine’s grandmother warns her to be sure that she should “mak[e] wise choices with her sexuality” (Trites 89), and her mother asks her to make sure that whether or not she chooses to have sex with Michael, that she be responsible in her decisions. Trites asserts that Katherine’s mother’s and grandmother’s discourses “construct intercourse in terms of something that requires emotional and physical protection, implying Katherine’s vulnerability” (90). I agree that their words of warning represent sex as something that “requires emotional and physical protection” (90) but I disagree with her belief that this is a bad thing. Katherine’s “matriarchal support-system” (89) are not forbidding her to have a sexual relationship with Michael. What they are doing is making sure that she is prepared for it. Is that so wrong? Most parents who try to raise there children to have morals or to be cautious do not do so with the intent of restricting their children, but rather to empower them by allowing them to make choices based on as many of the facts as possible! Trites would like to brush sex off as a big deal only because we have a wrong perception of sexuality, and not because it is something that should be treated as a big deal. In my opinion, this isn’t what feminism is about. Feminism is about empowering women, now pretending that our actions don’t have consequences. As Katherine’s grandmother makes clear, there are decisions that must be made once someone decides to have sex. What kind of birth control to use. The problems involved with contracting sexually transmitted diseases. What to do if pregnancy occurs—birth control is not a guarantee. If someone is mature enough to make the decision to have sex, then they must also be able to handle the decisions of the “what ifs” that go along with it. Katherine’s mother and grandmother would be wrong not to discuss the responsibilities she will have as a sexually active woman. Katherine’s own discourse reveals that she believes that having sex is a big decision that she must be ready for. It was a decision that she had to make for herself. Had Katherine’s mother and grandmother given her the wrong impression of sex—if they had presented it as something that isn’t as important as she seems to think—they would have taken away some of Katherine’s power to choose for herself. She likely would have not thought so seriously about how she wanted her relationship with Michael to progress and instead of making sure that it was what she wanted, had sex with him just because she perceives it as nothing of importance.

Wow. I don’t think I would want to teach this novel to a high school English class. It deals with so many controversial things—most of which will be based on the many moral standings and view points of individual students and parents. It would be easy to assume that every high school student is like Katherine and Michael, and that in this day in age, every parent would be as “progressive” as Katherine’s parents, but this simply isn’t true. Trites would obviously disagree with me, but I don’t think sex is something that should be taken lightly. And while I do think that students should be exposed to various views on controversial subject matter, not every student thinks the same way, and we can’t assume that every student is mature enough to deal with some of this stuff. That being said, I do think that it is important for students to understand sexuality. Where I am uncertain is whether or not that should be my job as their high school English teacher.

If I were to teach this novel, I would probably have the students compare Katherine and Michael’s view of “love” and “forever” to other couples—either in another novel or perhaps in a movie.


Some Essential Questions:

1. What is the relationship between “love” and “sex” as defined by they story of Katherine and Micheal?
2. What does “forever” mean to Katherine? How does it affect her actions, and does her perception of “forever” change as the novel progresses?

Thoughts On: Robert Cormier's "The Chocolate War"

If Adolescent Literature is marked by a shift in focus toward learning how to “navigate” (Trites 3) the various forces and power at work within the world, then Robert Cormier’s "The Chocolate War" is a perfect example. It doesn’t require reading very far into Cormier’s novel to realize some of the key themes of the novel; the most prevalent of these themes being a look at power—who has it, the importance of submitting to it.
In "Disturbing the Universe: Power and Repression in Adolescent Literature", Roberta Seelinger Trites explains that there are various definitions of power. Max Weber, describes power as “the ability to impose one’s will upon the behavior of other persons” (Trites 4). Trites also gives Foucault’s definition of power—“that which represses” (4). At the simplest level—without fully researching how these two men explain the development of power to create exerting forces over the world—these two definitions seem to have much in common, and to Robert Cormier’s text which works in accordance to both of these definitions.
Max Weber’s definition deals with power on a personal level. Although he may explain that social forces, and not just people, can control other’s behavior, the definition indicates the human side of power. Take, for instance, Cormier’s characters Archie and Brother Leon. Both characters use the power on a personal level to get what they want out of others. This power is normally based, for both of these characters, on the ideas of manipulation and instilling fear in others with the threat of violence. Archie is able to assume an incredible amount of clout and power with not only the kids at his school, but the faculty as well. No one, except the hero of the story, can say no to Archie’s assignments. Each person “accept[s] the assignment like a sentence of doom, the way all the others did, knowing there was no way out, no reprieve, no appeal…” (Cormier 36). The manipulation that Archie is known for may seem superficial—convincing kids to do menial tasks such as unscrewing everything in a classroom to upset the teacher and disturb the class—however, the fact that he can still force other students to do them shows the extent of his power.
Brother Leon also has power over students and teachers alike. Although he requests Archie and the Vigil’s help in ensuring that the chocolate sale will go through, his request is somewhat of a farce. While Brother Leon seems to be giving power to Archie, he is really manipulating the boy and making sure that if he needs it, he will have plenty of say over the Vigils. When the chocolate sale continues to go poorly, Leon tells Archie “I don’t care about fun and game. I don’t care whether its Renault or your precious organization or the state of the economy…” (Cormier 156). Leon has played to Archie’s ego, and once the boy accepts the challenge given at the beginning of the novel, he becomes the scapegoat for the failure of the chocolate sale. Archie has very little choice except to give in to this man that he is actually afraid of.
Cormier’s novel is also a very good example of Foucault’s definition of power—“that which represses” (Trites 4). Trites spends time explaining how power does not have to come from a single person, but also from social forces at play within our world—Foucault’s ambiguous “that”(4). If we further question how Archie and Brother Leon came by and maintained their power, we would find that both rely on the same social forces that directed the world long before their time. For Archie, this power is found within the Vigils. Alone, he could probably do very little, and although Archie reinforces his own fearsome state using the power of the Vigils, he cannot remove himself from its influence over him. Archie’s own statement that Jerry will fight simply because of the peer pressure he will experience once he is on the stage, is the same knowledge that Carter and Obie use against him. When Carter asks why Obie is convinced that Archie will reach in the black box for the marbles, Obie replies “[b]ecause there are four hundred kids out there yelling for blood. And they don’t care whose blood it is anymore. Everybody in the school knows about the black box—how can Archie back down” (233). Obie is correct, the social pressure in standing before the entire student body is enough to “repress”(Trites 4) Archie’s own will.
Similarly, Brother Leon relies on social forces, and not just fear, in his control over the student body. He is their teacher and eventually their headmaster. Although he has a talent for making the students fear his violent temper, he also wields the power of the grades! It doesn’t take much to convince David Caroni to reveal Jerry Renault’s original reason for refusing to sell chocolates. When Brother Leon brings Caroni in for a discussion about an “F” that he has received, Caroni quickly realizes that it is a ploy to get him to talk about Renault. Caroni wonders, “[w]ere teachers like everyone else, then? Were teachers as corrupt as the villains you read about in books or saw in movies or television?” (Cormier 107) There is no repercussion, however. As a teacher, Brother Leon has full say over the grades that his students received. This power is given to him by the same social forces and expectations that require all students to submit to authority.
Cormier’s novel is no doubt a study of power, but the question that remains is: what is the purpose? As Trites mentions, there are quite a few similarities between Cormier’s novel and William Golding’s "The Lord of the Flies" (24). Still, Cormier must have had an express intent in writing "The Chocolate War" beyond creating a similar story to Golding. Although Foucault would interpret the story to be a warning of what happens when someone does not submit to the ever-present dominating forces, even Trites cannot fully agree with this explanation (4-5). Perhaps Cormier’s intent was to show the affects of power in a real world setting—it would be easy enough to brush off the horrible actions of the boys in "The Lord of the Flies" as something that would only happen under extreme circumstances. There is something about Cormier’s novel that most of us can relate to. Although the repression that most of us have experienced at both the personal and social levels are not nearly as extreme as in "The Chocolate War", there is little doubt that it does exists.



Work Cited

Cormier, Robert. The Chocolate War. New York: Knopf Books for Young Readers, 2004.

Trites, Roberta Seelinger. Disturbing the Universe: Power and Repression in Adolescent Literature. New York: U of Iowa P, 2004.