Citizen Rex

The multiple-panel sequence I chose for scrutiny in Citizen Rex was page 106. This page features very little dialogue, but utilizes pictures to convey a meaningful moment of the story as many comic artists do. By McCloud's definition the panels here follow an aspect-to-aspect form of transition. The second, third, and fourth panels have no dialogue, and the images create a sense of time standing still as the protagonist has a revelation of his past. This creates a mood of deep emotion and thought, and as McCloud says in his third chapter, "Rather than acting as a bridge between two moments, the reader here must assemble a single moment using scattered fragments."
At the bottom of the page, the protagonist finally remembers what had been plaguing him for throughout the story. The presentation of this moment is very unique and noticeable. The character is standing outside of the panels in the utter nothingness of "the gutter." rather than the thin strip the gutter usually is, the author puts the character out in the middle of an ocean of this white expanse. He is distanced from everything else, and from the comic itself. The character's realization is so intense that he has had a sort of "out-of-body experience." The gutter typically represents nothingness; a blankness that the reader must fill with his or her own ideas that can act as a transition or form of fragmentation. By placing the character in this area, it shows his disconnect and how he is lost in thought, thereby losing all sense of his surroundings.

A I have two questions regarding the comic,
1. What is the significance of the Block in the story? I realize it plays a role as the start and end of the comic, and ultimately leads to the climax, however I would like to discuss its purposes. The car crash on the side and the large "Why?" are very apparent, and there are multiple meanings behind it.
I would like to know the thoughts of the class on the Block.

2. Throughout this comic, the color scheme is clearly black and white, however there are moments where the author utilizes shades of color to add depth.  In many cases though, there is the use of only one shadeless color. This often allows the characters to melt into the environment, or vice versa. When a character wearing stark black is near a stark black object, they blend together. Was this an intentional strategy of the author? If so, why?

Some questions about Miss Clairol...

1.Why is Champ's mother Arlene getting dressed up? Why is the fact that Arlene is getting so dressed up significant to Champ? The close bond between Champ and Arlene is very prominent in this story. What points does the author raise about the mother-daughter relationships of the Chicano/a people and how the minority mindset of this culture is perpetuated through this dynamic?  

2.Why did Champ and her mother go to the store? What does Champ's mother hope to accomplish by getting dressed up? The author makes a point that Champ's mother feels the need to put on an "Americanized" visage by dressing up and dyeing her hair to impress her date. What does this say about the sociocultural dynamic of the Chicano/a culture?  

Thomas Rivera

This week we had two very fascinating reads. Tomas Rivera's "And the Earth Did Not Devour Him," and Richard Rodriguez's "Aria."

Although these works were composed nearly a decade apart from each other, they have similar ideas and fight the same battle: The turmoil and conflicts of being a part of the Chicano culture.

In Rivera's work, the main focus is on a young boy who goes through a sort of identity crisis and loses track of himself. Only through the coming of age and the passage of time does he finally reach a state of understanding himself and his culture. This theme is also very prevalent in Rodriguez's writing. The subject is the young Rodriguez, who faces a realization about his life after he grows and gains the maturity that one garners from age. The process of aging, and the level of understanding that brings is a theme in both stories.

Speaking broadly, both texts offer a window into the Mexican American world. Rivera tells tales in the form of multiple vignettes, each with its own unique story. The recurring theme throughout however is focused on the life of migrant workers at the time.

Rodriguez reports the same minority challenges, but on a smaller, social scale. He recalls his childhood and the difficulties of a Mexican family living in the United States. He fights to keep his heritage and the comfort it brings, but ultimately is forced to conform to public society.

Looking closer, both texts are primarily seen through the eyes of a young boy; but more specifically, a boy who represents the Chicano cultural strife. The subject loses his innocence as time goes on, and it shapes his demeanor. These stories both tell of Chicano hardship in the form of a personified character. Years of abuse, degradation, and harassment come to define the culture, and the beauty of its people lies within the black and blue that remains. This is seen in the characters of both stories: a boy and his culture are beaten down and stripped of individuality as their heritage is condemned.

Another clear similarity between the texts is a sense of isolation. In both stories, the main character is on the outskirts trying to fit in with the rest of society. The isolation is an important element in character development as it affects the mental and social dynamic of the characters. The battle for social equilibrium is omnipresent in the stories, just as it is in the culture, making a very important point.

Rodriguez relays how the Spanish language is lost in the "proper" society of America, while Rivera tells of the oppression a working Chicano citizen may face.

Although they write of different sides of the conflict, the immediate message is the same.

Both these works are influential and controversial pieces and continue to be very important in defining the Chicano culture.

For my discussion question, I would like to bring up the usage of children in both texts.
The recurring  focus on juveniles in these works is extremely apparent. What were the authors' purposes for using these select characters? To convey a sense of innocence and the ability to grow as a person, or is it relatable on other levels? And if children are also used to represent the Chicano culture, what is being said about the culture?

Woman Hollering Creek

Woman Hollering Creek is a short story by Sandra Cisneros about a woman whose delusions of marriage are wiped away as harsh reality sets in.

The passage I chose for scrutiny is on page 49 of the story:

"Not that he isn't a good man. She has to remind herself why she loves him when she changes the baby's Pampers, or when she mops the bathroom floor, or tires to make the curtains for the doorways without doors, or whiten the linen. Or wonder a little when he kicks the refrigerator and says he hates this shitty house and is going out where he won't be bothered with the baby's howling and her suspicious questions, and her requests to fix this and this and this because if she had any brains in her head she'd realize he's been before the rooster earning his living to pay for the food in her belly and the roof over her head and would have to wake up again early the next day so why can't you just leave me in peace, woman."

This passage takes place close to what I believe is the climax in the plot. After Cleofilas marries her lover, her new husband abuses her and life quickly becomes hellish. The woman begins to realize that marriage is nothing like what she saw on television. This paragraph paces her stark revelation and presents a plot complication as Cleofilas finally sees the gold fade from what she thought would be heaven. The rising fear and conflict eventually incites the woman's desire to run away and become free. 

Indirect character presentation is used in this passage to show the reader the kind of tension and abuse that occurs regularly in the household of Cleofilas and her partner Juan. Her husband is portrayed as a stereotypical abusive husband as he cusses and twists the blame onto Cleofilas. The man's "Prince 

Charming" illusion wears off as his wife lives in constant fear and oppression. The run-on-sentence seems to symbolize her husband's growing agitation. It starts with one example of conflict, which then snowballs into a rant of frustration that the angry man expresses.
Cleofilas is a very dynamic character. She starts as a very simple and young woman with great naiveté towards marriage, but as the story progresses, she becomes worldly; the fantasies on telenovelas are just that, and there is never "happily ever after." She is worn and quite literally beaten down. She gains a knowledge that only hardship can create.

The Point of View in this story is mainly that of Cleofilas and the reader experiences each passage through her weary and inevitably biased viewpoint. However, this passage makes a sudden shift to be focused on the husband's viewpoint and his emotion towards the situation halfway through; a window into his abusive mindset.
The mood of the story is very heavy. The images that the author's diction creates easily create a very depressing scene. The usage of words such as "the baby's howling," "this shitty house" and "doorways without doors," set an atmosphere of a dark, dank, and low-wealth house that is constantly teetering on the edge.

All of these elements make up for a heart-wrenching story of a pain so deep that the reader can feel it. I found it to be a very interesting read, and the select diction allows it be interpreted in many different ways. I would often reread the same passage periodically throughout my close reading to find a completely new meaning in the words. This is the magic of literature.
The question I bring to the table is about this diction and the author's reasons for using it.

Throughout the story there are pockets of dialog, however the conversations are presented without quotations and in the same format as other non-conversational passages, making them harder to comprehend. What is the purpose of this? What was the author's motive behind this unique approach? 

I am Joaquin

I Am Joaquin was written in 1967 by poet and boxer Rodolfo Corky Gonzales. Reading and digesting this eight page, footnote heavy poem definitely seems daunting. Not only is it lengthy, but it also is chock full of overwhelming historical references.
After reading only one page, it is obvious that the speaker is writing from the perspective of a repressed culture. Defining which that culture is however, proves not as simple.
Throughout the poem the speaker refers to himself as Mexican, but also a toiling Indian, a Spanish despot, A Mayan prince or Aztec among numerous others. After reading the poem through several times and doing research, I came to the conclusion that the discussed culture that seems so diverse is Gonzales' version of Chicano. The Chicano have ties in many different facets of history, and the speaker addresses this through the poem that could be described as a poetic history paper.
The main focus of the poem is the speaker walking through the turmoil and successes of each culture that helped form his own. The Indian in him fought for his land and freedom, the Mexican fights a revolution, and so on.
Because the speaker has a role in so many cultures, throughout the poem, there are many contradictions; he tells how he and the Chicano culture are weak but strong, abused and abusive, killed and killing.
I thought a particularly interesting stanza was on the first page when he writes,
"I am the sword and flame of Cortes the despot And I am the eagle and serpent of the Aztec civilization."
In history, Cortes is the Spaniard notorious for the ravaging of the Aztec civilization. In the poem however, the speaker is both the death of the Aztecs and their symbol of hope and pride. I think this shows how complex the Chicano culture is, and how many levels there are to it.
I also liked the final stanza on the first page: the speaker says he "toiled," and "gave his Indian sweat and blood," yet is "both tyrant and slave." I thought this was a great point in saying that although he is a slave of the Spanish master, the ground he works on is his heritage and responsibility. As a slave toiling in the dirt, he is almost given free reign over the lands. He is a tyrant over the ground but still a slave to the master.
Near the end of the poem, the speaker writes of all he has endured. The "rugged mountains," "slavery of the fields," "barrios of the city," "suburbs of bigotry," "mines of social snobbery," "Prison of dejection," "muck of exploitation" and the "heat of racial hatred." All of these examples show a vital point in each facet of his Chicano culture, and how other histories affect his. Indian slavery, abuse of minorities, and the hubris of success. These oppression can also be seen as metaphors. The "mines of social snobbery" could be interpreted as literal mines that he slaved in, or as a metaphor for the dark, exhausting social snobbery of the time.
There is so much more than just words and history in this poem, and I wish I could say I was experienced enough to pick it all up. The style of poetry used here is not something I usually think about when I hear the word "poetry," but it is beautiful in its own right.
Something I would ask about this poem is "why?" Why did the author write this poem, and why did he write it this way? What was he trying to accomplish? Was he trying to promote awareness? Ignite hope? Or just express his heritage?
The unique wordage used makes it a memorable piece of literature, and by the end of this class, I hope to have the knowledge and skills to be able to dissect it better. Perhaps I'll read it again at the end of the quarter.