Optional Blog topic: "Trashy???"
I am really dumfounded to see so many people use the same word to describe The Chocolate War. A good number of you said you thought it was "trash," or "trashy." I just don't understand it. So, I'd like to throw it out to the class for discussion. What makes it trash? I mean, that's a strong word. Those of you who didn't use this word, do you agree with the assessment? I'll stay out of this one as far as replying goes, but I'd be eager to hear anyone's comments. This assessment in your reviews really struck me as an odd but fascinating reoccurance.
posted by Bucky C. at 11:33 AM
4 Comments:
I did not describe the CW as trashy but can understand how that may have been construed amongst the class. I didnt particularly like the CW and I do agree that parts of it, left me far from satisfied. In defining "trashy" in my own words, I would have to say that the CW carried moments of a soap opera gone bad. Who knows... im just taking a stab at how i felt while reading it.
I didn't use trashy, but I would choose some other strong words for my objections. I completely agree with Andrew about the narrative style and the issues that arise from Cormier's depiction of male adolescence. I really felt as though I were a member of the Trinity School at times, having experienced several roles in the story.
That said, my overall concern is handing this book to a male adolescent (I won't address female adolescents, because it alienates them to such a degree to be counterproductive, another of my complaints). Give this text to a Jerry in your class, and what does it teach him? Dr. Strzepek summed it up by saying "You can't win alone, you need to win over people and make your own group." Is that what I'm teaching my students? You need to fight the system by becoming like Archie? Also, hand the novel to an Archie in my class. What's to say that this won't be fuel for the fire? I thought the most creative thing about the book were the "assignments". I just don't see what good handing this book over to the wrong audience will do. That said, how do we choose the audience?
All of the above should be read with the following disclaimer: I want to get this book. I was hoping to get some help with it, because as I said, it really feels like it will do more harm than good because of the inherent danger in the very things Andrew liked about the book. I hate fluff just as much as anyone else, but to have the adolescent protagonist literally crushed at the end, what am I to do with it?
I know I said I wouldn't leave any comments on this page, but since Schmitty wanted some help with it (just drop me an e-mail or a phone call when you need help, and I'll do what I can. Even if you need to leave a message, I'll get to you.), I'll try to respond.
1. The narrative style is actually very complex. When you said you felt like you were in Trinity school, that to me signals a success. Cormier uses free indirect discourse masterfully. In this technique, the boundaries between the narrator and the speakers' or characters' thoughts and actions get very blurred. We don't have an omniscent voice per se, as we seem to have one that is telepathic, able to "possess" a character almost such that the words of both are the same. Consider it something like the "Vulcan mindmeld" where Spock says what the other person says as they say it. They are two seperate pressences, but the lines between who is who are breaking down. It's a pretty postmodern way of getting into a character's thoughts and "being there" while not being there. So, when you say you feel like you are "in," I say "hoorah!"
For advanced students, a discussion of this type of narative technique could definitely be one thing to do with the book.
2. As some pointed out in their journals, the use of archetypal characters is another thing that Cormier does well. Sure, it might seem like they are stock characters and are unbelievable, but with suspension of disbelief, as someone noted in their journal, we see we have a pretty good allegory for life working in there. As your Nilson and Donelson suggest, archetypal figures are part of what fit this book into YA Lit.
And I really do suggest that you all be good English major types and reference the text when you struggle to see how something is or is not YA Lit, etc. It will help you internalize the reading and also helps me feel like you actually did it and are thinking about the issues therein. (This is not a passive aggressive condemnation of anyone, just a suggestion to the entire class; quoting a text here and there is a good idea).
3. So, we have the pomo narrative technique and the archetypal characters. Now, what to do with that pesky message? It seems bleak, but is it? Remember day one when we said we sometimes have to look for the silverlining in YA books. Now, I'm not sure the message is happy, but I'm also not sure there is one true message. Dr. Strzepek's ideas about "don't go it alone" strike me as sound. In fact, when I share my oral bridge with you tomorrow, you'll see another literary connection you could make with ol' Jerry that fits right into that idea. If that is the one message of the book, I can see a Paideia or essay or basic group discussion about what this means for us, especially those of us in American schools. With the individualism of American consumerism so strong within us, will we accept such a message? Or, with the dualistic "community" feel Americans also enjoy, do we accept it? The concept of ROLE for the individual -- as individual or as group member -- really seems to play out in this novel. Does the book advocate for a "it takes a village approach?" Is Jerry's statement somehow a condemnation of the mob mentality of American consumerism (Spend or Die)? Does it make a social or political statement at all, or is it really just a base text about a kid who gets the crap beat out of him for being different? Couldn't stories of gay people tied to fenceposts in Wyoming remind us that even in this base form, the book still has ties in reality?
So, I guess my conclusion is this: This book is one of those that really gets back to one of my earlier maxims: The questions are more important than the answers. If you do want to use this book (And I don't necessarily advocate for it either way, though I do stand up for it as meritous. The books we read in class are not assigned with the undertone of "you should all teach these" but to help us get at exactly the sort of issues you excellent students have raised), my advice is to look for its educational utility "beyond the message," "beyond the page" instead of getting caught up in the idea that the book has as its goal "telling it like it is" and "proving a concrete point."
I hope this helps. I might also mention that, since the textual style is so complex the first time around, to better understand the book, it might simply merit a second reading over the summer or when the time is available.
So, as to what to do with
Ignore that last fragment there... :)
Post a Comment
<< Home