harry potter rules! essay deux

“In a children’s novel, closure usually brings a sense that the experiences represented have been meaningful; fullest understanding comes only from the perspective of the ending.” Examine the effect of closure on meaning in ONE of the set novels.
In general, the word “closure” will be used instead of “ending… The former refers us better… to the functions of an ending: to justify the cessation of narrative and to complete the meaning of what has gone before.

Although J.K. Rowling intends to have seven books regaling the exploits of the wizard, Harry Potter, each book in the series is substantial enough to stand on its own and be interpreted in its own right. This is most apparent in Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, the first book in the series, where Harry discovers that he is a wizard and spends his first year at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
Harry Potter employs the use of the third person limited narration, where the narrator focalises through Harry. Thus, the reader is immediately positioned either for or against the characters that Harry interacts with in the text. Through these interactions and adventures that Harry gets himself involved in, the reader is able to interpret meaning from them. Yet it can be argued that the fullest understanding of the text and its underlying messages can only be obtained at the end of the novel. Nevertheless, whether there is complete closure in Harry Potter is debatable.

This ambiguity of closure is evident in Harry’s relationship with the Dursleys. Forced to take Harry in after he was left as a baby at their doorstep, the Dursleys have always tried to ignore his presence, “as though he was something very nasty that couldn’t understand them, like a slug.” They intentionally kept all knowledge about his past a secret from him and attempted to prevent him from going to Hogwarts as they “just didn’t hold with such nonsense.” It is only with a little intimidation and magical help from Rubeus Hagrid that Harry finally subverts the power structure between the Dursleys and him. Ironically, Harry feels most welcome and ‘at home’ at Hogwarts, the place where he encounters the most danger. Thus, the text interestingly subverts the commonly-held belief in conventional fantasy texts of the protagonist longing to return home (to the Dursleys, for Harry), where he can finally let his guard down. This theory certainly does not apply to Harry, who has to spend the summer with the Dursleys after a year at Hogwarts. Yet, Harry, instead of dreading how trying his time the Dursleys will be, focuses more positively (and mischievously) on ‘exhibiting’ his newly-learnt magical skills to them. Thus, the reader is left with the sense of optimism and happiness, that Harry will make the best of the situation, and in anticipation of further developments in his antagonistic relationship with the Dursleys in the next few books.

Initially, Harry feels pressurised by the expectations of others and is not confident of his abilities. “‘Everyone thinks I’m special…but I don’t know anything about magic at all. How can they expect great things?’” However, through his matches as a Seeker in the game, Quidditch, and his various altercations with Draco Malfoy and Professor Snape, Harry develops from being a passive character with the Dursleys to a more pro-active one at Hogwarts. He also becomes more in touch with himself, as evident when he begins to recognise that the pain he feels in his scar is an omen of approaching danger. Thus, he learns to trust himself and is prepared for his final showdown with Voldemort. As Harry matures through the various experiences, the reader would be able to infer that one can learn from even the most excruciating and trying ones.

Harry therefore, comes to epitomise the conventional hero, who valiantly disregards all danger to save the day. “‘I’m going out of here tonight and I’m going to try and get the Stone first… it’s only dying a bit later than I would have done, because I’m never going over to the Dark Side!’” Bravery, of a different sort, is also shown by Neville Longbottom. He stands up to Ron, Hermione and Harry even though they are his friends when he perceives them to be breaking school rules. “‘I won’t let you do it,’ he said, hurrying to stand in front of the portrait hole. ‘I’ll – I’ll fight you!’” Both are rewarded for their courage and bravery at the end of the text. Thus the reader could easily interpret this as being behaviour that should be encouraged and extolled.

The importance of friendship is also emphasised in the text, especially towards the ending when Ron Weasly and Hermione Granger, two of Harry’s closest friends at Hogwarts, risk their own safety and possible expulsion from school by trespassing Hogwarts’ third floor’s forbidden corridor, just to aid Harry in defeating Voldemort. Throughout the text, the three work closely as a unit to solve the mystery of the Philosopher’s Stone; battle a troll and study for their exams, amongst other things.

Harry owes their friendship partly to their all being in the Gryffindor house. In fact, Harry might have had a completely different experience at Hogwarts had he chose to be in the Slytherin house instead, where he could have been “‘great’”. Surprisingly, the Sorting Hat, which decides which house a first-year student gets designated to, listens to Harry’s plea to not be sent to Slytherin. Harry achieves much representing the Gryffindor house as its Quidditch Seeker; becomes close friends with others in Gryffindor like Neville and Seamus Finnigan and helps Gryffindor significantly to win the house cup. It can then be inferred that Harry succeeded in achieving so much because of his conscious decision not to be in Slytherin. Thus, the text can be interpreted as reflecting that “identity and social position can be a matter of choice”. The reader could thus infer from the entire text that nothing in life is pre-ordained; (s)he is the creator of her/his own destiny.

Draco, Harry’s nemesis, is one reason that Harry chooses not to be in Slytherin. Descending from a long ancestry of wizards, Draco represents the wizarding families that are “‘much better than others’” in terms of wealth, status and bloodline. Interestingly, Rowling seems to have intentionally developed Draco as an unlikeable character, who struts about arrogantly with his two sidekicks, Crabbe and Goyle. Instead, the reader, like Harry, finds comfort in the friendship of Ron, whom Draco disparagingly terms as “‘riff-raff’”. Though less well-off, Ron substitutes monetary wealth with his warm acceptance of and undying loyalty to Harry. Rowling’s critique of the class system is contrary to Fred Inglis’ view of class being “‘too obvious and too irrelevant’” to be discussed in children’s fiction. Through the two very contrasting characterisations of humble Ron and haughty Draco as representatives of the different classes in society, the reader senses that the author does not favour the elite, but the underdog. This partly evident through how Ron and the others help Gryffindor snatch the house cup away from an initially leading Slytherin by just ten points. Subconsciously, this underlying message to support the working class could be internalised by the reader.

Rowling has also constructed the text in such a way that the reader is immediately positioned against Voldemort, mainly through the focalisation of the text through Harry and the narrative which relates how the other characters refer to him only as “You-Know-Who” out of fear. It is clear from the beginning of the text which characters represent the good and dark side. Though Harry manages to defeat Voldemort eventually in the text, the reader knows that it is not the final battle between the two as Voldemort is “‘still out there somewhere’”. Thus although it can be read as that good will triumph over evil, the reader knows even at the end of the text that the struggle between the two forces is not completely over yet.

Harry Potter ends with Harry returning home to spend summer vacation with the Dursleys after an entire year of learning, adventure and excitement at Hogwarts. Through the encapsulation of all of Harry’s exploits, climaxing with his battle with Voldemort, the reader fully understands the themes and messages inherent in the text.


Bibliography
Krips, Valerie, “A Notable Irrelevance: Class and Children’s Fiction”, The Lion and The Unicorn, vol. 17 (no. 2), (1993), pp. 195-209.
Miller, D.A., Narrative and its Discontents: Problems of Closure in the Traditional Novel. New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1981.
Nikolajeva, Maria, Children’s Literature Comes of Age: Toward a New Aesthetic. New York, Garland, 1996.
Routledge, Christopher, “Harry Potter and the Mystery of Ordinary Life”. In Gavin and Routledge (eds.) Mystery in Children’s Literature: From the Rational to the Supernatural. New York and Hampshire, Palgrave/St. Martin’s Press, 2001, pp.202-209.
Rowling, J.K., Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. London, Bloomsbury, 2001.

engl286 essayuno

Junior fictions often depict characters responding to the challenge of difference or otherness in creative ways. Compare and contrast the narrative strategies used to represent challenge and difference in two of the books listed here.

Children’s literature encompasses an entire spectrum of books from various genres, ranging from picture books with arresting illustrations to fantasy novels with out-of-this-world depictions. Despite the many varieties of books however, most of them share certain characteristics, which aid the child in understanding the text and interpreting meaning from it. Children are usually the protagonists in the stories; the language used is constructed to suit its target audience and the conclusions are generally resolved strongly (Winters & Schmidt 10).

These characteristics are evident in the category of books that come under the genre of realistic fiction. Realistic fiction consists of plots that centre around “familiar, everyday problems, pleasures and personal relationships” (Norton 458). Unique in that it does not attempt to sugar-coat touchy issues, realistic fiction honestly tells it like it is, warts and all.

Books in this genre appeal to children as they can relate to the situations that the books’ protagonists face. The books reassure them that they are not the only ones in that particular situation. They also act as “both mirrors and windows of life” (Cullinan & Galda 222), as they not only make children think about their own situation, they also present alternative lifestyles that the children might not actually personally experience in real life.

Two examples of junior fiction books that have the protagonists deal with everyday problems faced by children are The Wacky World of Wesley Baker and Hannah plus One. Wesley has to deal with acting in the school play, avoiding Agnes Potter-Higgins, who constantly declares her love for him, and performing up to his father’s exceedingly high expectations. Hannah, meanwhile, worries that she will be lonely once her mother delivers the new baby.

While Hannah plus One may be aimed at a younger audience than The Wacky World of Wesley Baker, both books relate the plots chronologically. The stories are developed progressively over the chapters, with both protagonists facing various little obstacles along the way that they have to overcome.

Both feature person-against-person conflicts that are finally resolved at the end of the stories. Hannah has to come to terms with her family that the arrival of her new sibling will not translate into her being neglected by the other family members and Wesley has to prove to his father that he can in fact be good at sports.

The reader is aware of the thoughts and feeling of the two protagonists through two different points of view. (S)he is able to get an insight into the minds of the two protagonists and understand the motivations behind their actions and behaviours. In The Wacky World of Wesley Baker, the story is told with Wesley as the main focaliser. The first person narrative reduces the distance between the reader and Wesley, so that (s)he can easily identify with him. It draws the reader deep into the story as Wesley directly communicates with the reader through the narrative – “She blows kisses at me. Can you imagine it?” (Kemp 3). The reader is convinced that the story is really narrated from the point of view of a boy, especially when the word “Beeeooooootiful” (Kemp 95) is spelt like how a boy would say it.

Hannah plus One differs by being told through third person limited narration, where the “subjective viewpoint of the first person [combines] with the objective distance of the third person,” (Nodelman 59). Interestingly though, the first page of the book is presented from Hannah’s point of view in a first person narrative. The third person limited narration only officially starts from the tenth page, where the narrator begins to express the thoughts and feelings of Hannah occasionally – “Hannah stops. More twins. She hasn’t thought,” (Gleeson 10). It is obvious that the narrator is focalising through Hannah when the narrative appears to resemble Hannah’s thoughts – “Above her, her mother’s belly hangs like a great blue whale,” (Gleeson 21).

In general, the voice of The Wacky World of Wesley Baker is more informal and lighter than Hannah plus One. The first person narrative of Wesley is witty and sharp, with refreshing and honest insights into the life of an ordinary British schoolboy – “Mr le Tissier explained what a theme was and by the time he’d finished nobody knew” (Kemp 12). The light-hearted tone of the narrator (Wesley) reflects his easygoing nature, which in part helps him to overcome his problems. The third person limited narrative in Hannah plus One inhibits much emotional response from the reader to it, as it is rather detached. Thus, though Hannah’s problems are surmountable, they will not be solved as arrestingly as Wesley’s.

Yet, the two stories would be boring and incomplete without the assembly of secondary characters, who exist to frustrate, support and challenge Wesley and Hannah. Nodelman notes that theorists have categorised characters into being either flat or round. Flat characters are, like the name suggests, one-dimensional while the round ones have more depth and complexity to them – they develop as the story progresses (51).

The majority of the characters in the two books belong to the second category. They are “not all good, or all bad,” (Winter & Schmidt 232). The characters who initially seem to be antagonistic towards the two protagonists have their redeeming qualities while those on the protagonists’ side are not completely angels either.

An example would be Hannah’s older twin sisters, Lena and Sue. In the earlier chapters of the book, it appears that the only purpose they serve in the story is to bully Hannah and make her feel left out. They tease her mercilessly about the imaginary friend they think she has and use rulers to hit her shins. However, when she is sent to detention, they offer their support to her and even seem protective of her, whilst she remains unaware of the change in them – “She hasn’t noticed that her sisters are walking with her and not ten paces in front,” (Gleeson 37).

Meanwhile, Wesley’s relationship with his father is a big source of tension and frustration for him. His father refuses to acknowledge that Wesley is not athletically-inclined and constantly harangues him for his lack of talent thereof.

‘Well, Wesley, you won something,’ cried Dad, handing us our ribbon. ‘But what a disappointing day.’
‘Dad, Dad, I’m sorry,’ I managed to say to him (I was puffed out). ‘But Agnes has done brilliantly.’
'I know,’ he said. ‘She didn’t let me down,’ (Kemp 104).

But Wesley, being the dutiful son, never complains and just continues to bear with the physical trainings conducted by his father. It is only when Wesley is hospitalised that his father realises that things need to be changed.

Wesley’s conflict with Agnes Potter-Higgins is also resolved by the end of the story. His attitude towards her changes drastically from loathing to mutual respect as he realises that the two of them are more similar than he had previously thought. Initially, he uses negatives adjectives and verbs to express his distaste for her by describing her as “a pain in the neck” (Kemp 2) and calling her ‘Dinosaur’s Armpit’. But as he interacts with her more, he begins to understand her better and even grudgingly likes her company.

Angry at being always left out in the family, Hannah starts lashing out violently, hitting a classmate and bashing a sunflower. She attributes her violent tendencies to her alter-ego, Megan. Through Megan, Hannah is able to vent her frustrations and express herself in ways she would not dare to as Hannah. But the need for Megan soon reduces after Hannah realises that she can handle situations on her own. However, interestingly, Hannah names her newborn sister, Megan, so that she too will have a playmate of her own as “Hannah + Megan = 2,” (Gleeson 74).

Hannah interacts mainly with her parents and twin sisters, though a late development in the story results in her doing detention for hitting the above-mentioned classmate. She feels left out in the family, as her parents have each other, just like the twins. This distinct line of separation is especially evident between the twins and Hannah.

“Whenever Mum wipes the dust off the bookcase, she puts the photos back together, arranging the frames as if they were a pair. Before they go to bed at night, Lena, Sue and Hannah move the photos: twins at one end, Hannah at the other. An invisible line divides them, the same as the one which divides the books on the shelves below, the clothes in the hanging space in the wardrobe and the tennis racquets in the corner behind the door,” (Gleeson 50).

However, the three siblings finally manage to bond through Hannah’s adversity. The two elder twins offer advice to Hannah regarding her detention punishment and wait for her after the session.

These two stories offer an accurate and honest view of problems that could be faced by any reader. Through them, the reader is able to gain a better understanding about the problems (s)he faces and the methods of resolving them by seeing them “from a different, more mature, and more objective perspective” (Nodelman 22). While the problems may be explained through various narrative strategies, these strategies are only secondary to the most important thing in a book – the story that the author has to tell.

Bibliography
Cullinan, Bernice E., and Lee Galda 1994 Literature and the Child (3rd ed.). United States: Harcourt Brace College Publishers
Gleeson, Libby 1996 Hannah plus One. Australia: Puffin Books
Kemp, Gene 1994 The Wacky World of Wesley Baker. England: Penguin Group
Nodelman Perry 1991 ‘The Eye and the I: Identification and First-Person Narratives in Picture Books’. Children’s Literature 19: 1-30
Nodelman, Perry 1996 The Pleasures of Children’s Literature (2nd ed.). United States: Longman Publishers
Norton, Donna E. 1999 Through the Eyes of a Child: an Introduction to Children’s Literature (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc
Winters, Carol J., and Gary D. Schmidt 2001 Edging the Boundaries of Children’s Literature. United States: Allyn and Bacon

mbutterfly essay

“Fantasy is the … mechanism that structures subjectivity by reworking or translating social representations into … self representations” (Theresa deLauretis)
“It’s your fantasy isn’t it? The submissive Oriental woman and the cruel white man”
(Song Liling in M. Butterfly)
Could M. Butterfly be described as both a representation and a deconstruction of Western discourses and representations of Orientalism and of otherness? (In answering this question engage with the quotes listed above, and also with some of the ideas about race, gender, sexuality, subjectivity, otherness, discourse, deconstruction, and so on, discussed throughout the course.)

Based on David Henry Hwang’s play that was inspired by true events, M. Butterfly tells of the tragically-doomed love affair between René Gallimard (Jeremy Irons), a French diplomat, and Song Liling (John Lone), a Chinese opera singer. The clandestine relationship lasted almost twenty years before it was revealed that Song was actually a man, who had been disguising himself as a woman to obtain sensitive classified information from the French through Gallimard. While the film showed how the West generally exercised its domination over the ‘exotic’ East, it also interestingly offered an alternative reading that deconstructed some of the abovementioned discourses. This occasional schizophrenic meaning-making process is epitomised by the obvious problem of choosing the correct pronoun when referring to Song. For the purposes of this essay, I shall use ‘she/her’ to denote Song.

M. Butterfly has a few Western discourses at work, but none as pervasive as Western superiority over the East, which manifests itself in the construction of the Oriental ‘Other’. This can be seen physically, through the film’s settings, costumes and props, and thematically, through the inter-racial romantic relationship between Song and Gallimard. There are the quintessentially Chinese back alleys, ubiquitous red paper lanterns and locals riding bicycles and tending roadside stalls, amongst other things. The opening credits also give the reader, as the film can be considered a text, a prelude of what to expect in a film dealing with the ‘Far East’ with oriental sounding music playing in the background as images commonly associated with the Orient (by the West) like Chinese opera face masks, watercolour paintings and kimonos are shown.

However, these discourses can be deconstructed to expose “the hidden work of ideology in our daily experience of ourselves and our world”. It must be noted that such representations are not simply a reflection of the East. Instead, these images construct the reality associated with the East because they represent the exoticness and foreignness of the East, as perceived by the West, and in this case, the director, David Cronenberg. These dominant ideas of representations of the East are grounded in Orientalism, which generally serves to situate the East as “the West’s inferior ‘Other’”. This Western domination over the East allows the West to “understand, in some cases control, manipulate, even incorporate, what was manifestly a different world.”

In Orientalism, the West is perceived to be “rational, mature and normal”, unlike the East. The superiority felt by the West in M. Butterfly is shown through the disdain with which the French regard the locals. Gallimard pays scant disregard to Song’s maid, rudely brushing her off when he perceives her to be in his way. The French make jokes about the Chinese blowing their noses on the pavements and spitting onto passing car windscreens. By regarding such behaviour as uncouth and uncivilised, the French are subconsciously judging and disparaging the Chinese by imposing on them their own cultural practices, ignoring the fact that what the Chinese are doing is common in their culture.

It is arguable that the East is seen as “a mirror in which the West sees the rejected and disavowed parts of itself.” It can also then be suggested that the Orient is essentially a Western construct, which therefore reveals more about itself than the East. The issue of identity in the film thus builds upon this premise of the self and other. One’s identity is tied implicitly to what it is not. Furthermore, within these binary oppositions, there is a hierarchy, with one term valued above the other. In M. Butterfly, the West is superior to the East; the man above the woman and heterosexuality over homosexuality.

This is clearly evident in M. Butterfly, with Gallimard personifying the West and Song, the East. Their relationship, paralleling that of the West and East, has Gallimard in control “of power, of domination, [and] of varying degrees of a complex hegemony.” The hierarchy is further perpetuated along gender lines, as Gallimard is a man and Song, a woman (to Gallimard). Therefore, not only is Song subordinated on the basis of her race, she is also discriminated implicitly against by her gender.

Gallimard constructs Song as his perfect Oriental ‘Other’ – a submissive woman willing to “die for the love of unworthy foreign devils”. Initially she spars with him intellectually, challenging his views about the world. An example is when she questions Gallimard’s admiration for Madame Butterfly’s sacrifice of her life because of unrequited love. Song contests his fantasy by asking if he would feel similarly if it were a blonde cheerleader instead in love with a Japanese man. Insightfully, she echoes his thoughts, “Now I believe you would consider this girl to be a deranged idiot, correct? But because it’s an Oriental who kills herself for a Westerner, you find her beautiful?” This presents an interesting take on an Oriental character (especially a female one) by allowing her to have opinions of her own. However, it unfortunately does not last long. Soon, Song falls into the stereotypical role of a subservient and willing slave, eager to fulfil her master’s every desire. She waits patiently for him every night to visit her, submits herself sexually to him when he makes requests and never complains. Therefore, Song comes to be Rene’s Butterfly, the epitome of Oriental fantasies, with her as the “submissive Oriental woman” and Rene, “the cruel white man”. He has embraced the “social representations” of the Oriental ‘Other’ and used them to structure his own ideas about Song and what she would symbolise to him.

Yet it is worth noting that without the subjugation of the East (and Song) as the inferior ‘Other’, the West (and Gallimard) would be unable to substantiate its claims of superiority over the East – “the truth of the master is in the slave”. Moreover Orientalism, through shaping the East, also helps to construct the West, sometimes as inaccurately as its portrayal of the East. The depiction of the Westerners who spend their days attending soirees and dinners in M. Butterfly is an example of the stereotypical view that they spend more time socialising than working.

Interestingly, while M. Butterfly offers rather stereotypical views of the East, as conjured from a Western perspective, it also subverts the notion of the West’s (and to a lesser extent, masculine’s) insidious superiority. As the true identity of Song is revealed, the reader gets the impression that it is ironically the East who has the upper hand, at least in this film. “His Butterfly is not a victim of the colonial master, the “white devil,” or a passive object of his desire; Song Liling’s Butterfly is not guileless and not passive, not an object but indeed the subject – the conscious and willful subject – of a fantasy that sustains the agency of his own desire (“I invented myself just for him,” Song says at the trial).”

Thus, there has been a role reversal of master and slave; a destabilisation of the supposed hierarchy between the East and West; man and woman. Song has actually been consciously playing up her duplicitous role as the pliant Oriental mistress that is Gallimard’s fantasy. She perpetuates his fantasy of the Oriental woman being exotic by showing him the “ancient Oriental ways of love”. She boosts his ego and makes him feel superior to Chinese men by telling him that “they keep women down” because they are insecure and that it is “exciting… loving a Western man”. Song allows herself to be thought of as meek and helpless by Gallimard. When she tells him that she is pregnant, he offers to “love you and rescue you and save you and protect you.” Ironically, while Song is perceived to be the needy one, she is actually actively constructing herself in that role that she knows Gallimard desires.

Hence, the one in control in the relationship is Song (and the East), not Gallimard (and the West), who is tricked by her disguise. Even after Gallimard learns that Song is actually a man, he is more devastated because his fantasy of his Butterfly is over rather than because of Song’s actual biological makeup. When Song strips naked to prove that he is a man, Gallimard retorts, “You’re nothing like my Butterfly.” He hangs on to the idea of his Butterfly, which he constructed for Song, and of which she was a willing participant in the process. Thus, by choosing fantasy over reality, it allows Gallimard to continue to dominate and have power over the East, despite the true circumstances of the situation.

Unfortunately, the reason behind this deception remains unexplained in the film. However, the general consensus points towards Song being in love with Gallimard and dressing up as a woman as being the only acceptable method of continuing the relationship with him. This need for false pretences on the part of Song and the reception of it when all is revealed also presents a related issue relevant to this essay – that of sexuality and gender.

Song, by dressing up as a woman, has transcended the well-established boundaries of masculinity and heterosexuality. For undisclosed reasons, Song discards the gender attributes commonly associated with his biological sex and instead takes on the gendered identity of a woman. Aware of what constitutes Gallimard’s fantasy of the “perfect woman”, Song becomes the feminine and gentle Oriental ‘Other’. Trying her “best to become somebody else”, Song constantly practices her deception; even reading magazines that Comrade Chin (Shizuko Hoshi) deems as “decadent trash”. Song thus comes to represent the epitome of femininity with her long, flowing hair and acquiescent demeanour because “in the figure of Butterfly the performance of femininity actually comes to embody it, for both men, regardless of anatomy”. Yet while she is performing this role, she is actually subverting the discourse of femininity as she is essentially a man just acting the part. But as gender is considered a cultural construct and performative, it seems plausible that one can “learn to become a woman or a man, feminine or masculine”, like Song did.

The question of defining femininity and what makes a woman ‘woman’ is also raised in the film. Interestingly, the film repeatedly endorses that the concept of the ideal woman is a fantastic one – “only a man knows how a woman is supposed to act.” Therefore, no ‘real’ woman would be able to live up to this fantasy. Thus, it seems like only poetic justice that the woman that Gallimard should fall in love with is a man.

At the end of the film, Gallimard refuses to accept Song when his true identity is exposed. It thus becomes clear that Gallimard only approves of the relationship when it is a heterosexual one – between a woman and a man. Homosexuality is not even to be considered as a possibility by Gallimard. This point, that it is the fantasy of having an Oriental female lover that Gallimard wants and not one of mutual respect and love, regardless of biological sex, is reiterated when he rejects Song although even “under the robes, beneath everything”, it is the same person. Instead, Gallimard is in love with “a perfect lie” – his construction of Song as his docile Butterfly. It has been advocated that his disappointment lies more in the destruction of his fantasy than of Song being a man, though this fact is certainly also unacceptable to him.

Heterosexuality being the accepted and dominant form of sexuality in arguably traditional and masculine societies like France and China, Song’s sexuality, and consequently Gallimard’s, are questioned as a result of their relationship. Under the “sex/gender system”, their liaison would be categorised under ‘bad’ sexuality. For not only is it a homosexual one, it deals partially with cross-dressing and fetishes. Gallimard himself is aware the ridicule he faces because of his affair with Song that “made all of France laugh.” If Song was really disguising herself so that she could be with Gallimard, it is unfortunate and yet perfectly understandable why she would have to resort to such devices to continue the charade. It could thus be interpreted in this context that the most “forbidden of loves” Song is referring to earlier in the film is that of homosexual love. This reveals the absolute hierarchy of sexuality in society, with heterosexuality being superior while homosexuality remains something barely tolerated. However, the debate still rages over if the relationship between Song and Gallimard should really be considered homosexual, since Gallimard was always under the impression that he was indulging in a heterosexual one.

M. Butterfly ends with Gallimard killing himself while dressed up as a Japanese woman. It is the only way in which he is able to hold on forever to his fantasy of his exotic Butterfly. Meanwhile, Song gets deported back to China. The film, especially its ending, thus seems to be a cautionary tale – covertly dissuading readers from following the two men’s path, lest they want to end up broken like them. Thus although the film can be seen to represent and deconstruct Western discourses, it ultimately still supports, consciously or not, the dominant hegemonic ideologies prevalent in society today.

Bibliography
Bristow, Joseph, Sexuality. London: Routledge, 1997.
de Lauretis, Theresa, “Popular Culture, Public and Private Fantasies: Femininity and Fetishism in David Cronenberg’s M. Butterfly”. In Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1999, vol. 24(2), pp. 303-334.
Derrida, Jacques, Writing and Difference [1967]. London: Routledge, 1978.
Lewis, Reina, Gendering Orientalism: Race, Femininity and Representation. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.
MacKenzie, John M., Orientalism: History, Theory and the Arts. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1995.
Moore-Gilbert, Bart, Stanton, Gareth, and Malley, Willy (ed.), Postcolonial Criticism. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc., 1997.
Said, Edward, W., Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. England: Penguin Group, 1995.
Sullivan, Nicki, Text, Image and Culture (Cul 100) Week Five: ‘Representation’ lecture, Macquarie University, 30 Aug. 2002.
Sullivan, Nicki, Text, Image and Culture (Cul 100) Week Twelve: ‘Deconstructionism’ lecture, Macquarie University, 1 Nov. 2002.
Tyson, Lois, Critical Theory Today: A User-friendly Guide. New York: Garland, 1999.
Young, Robert J.C., “Deconstruction and the Postcolonial” in Deconstructions: A User’s Guide. Ed. Nicholas Royle. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave, 2000, pp. 187–210.

one of my first essays in uni...

“Meaning is constructed (made), not dis-covered”. Discuss this statement using at least three of the following concepts: signifier/signified, paradigm/syntagm, connotation/denotation, genre, intertextuality, discourse, representation, reading/writing.

According to Humanist theory, every text has one correct and true meaning, which is created by the text’s author. To discover the text’s meaning, the reader must decipher the author’s interpretation of the text. However, in this essay, I will argue that contrary to this Humanist belief, meaning is not derived from the author. Instead, every person reading a text will create his/her own meaning from it; there is no single, fixed and definite interpretation. To illustrate my argument that meaning is made and not discovered, I will use of the following concepts: genre, intertextuality and discourse; and a comic strip from ‘Non Sequitur’ by Wiley Miller.

In cultural studies, every object, be it living or inanimate, is considered a text. Each text has a meaning that changes all the time, depending on its interaction with other texts. While a text might be embedded with a certain original meaning that the author wants to convey, its meaning evolves and varies according to the text’s reader, who has already internalised various concepts that help him/her in the meaning making process.

Genre, which entails a system of classification and categorisation according to certain shared elements present in a number of texts, is one such concept. Although some texts may fit neatly into certain genres, most of them have characteristics that span an entire range of genres. The reader who usually expects a certain text in a certain genre to be constructed in a certain manner would be disconcerted. An example of the possible disorientation that could occur from relying on such an assumption would be having a romantic subplot in a text centring on the creation of the nuclear bomb, which is recognised to be in the realm of scientific discovery. Therefore, while genres help a reader easily gauge what a text would entail, they also set up boundaries that limit the possible interpretations of the text. Consequently, genres affect how the reader chooses reading strategies for different texts and thus how (s)he makes meaning from the text. Such an instance is shown in the attached comic strip.

Since their introduction, comic strips have entertained readers and made them laugh about a variety of subjects ranging from world issues to body parts. The comic strip is meant to provide respite from the day’s toils and put a smile on the reader’s face. Therefore, when the reader encounters a comic strip, (s)he expects to be amused by it and laugh. Through the concept of genre, the reader makes assumptions about the content of a comic and its potential meaning.

Interestingly, the ‘Non Sequitur’ comic does not contain the typical slapstick humour commonly found in the genre of the comic strip. Instead, by urging its reader to laugh at its wit, the ‘Non Sequitur’ comic can be further categorised into a subgenre of the comic strip – that of the parodic variety. However, as the comic has been recognised as belonging to the genre of comic strips, the reader immediately forms an impression of what the comic would entail and the potential meanings that could be ascertained from it. Thus a reader with the impression that all comic strips have obvious ‘ha-ha’ jokes would find difficulty in understanding the dry humour of the ‘Non Sequitur’ comic.

Genre also influences how we read language in a text and understand its meaning. One sentence can be interpreted in many ways, depending on the genre a reader thinks it belongs to. In the ‘Non Sequitur’ comic strip, the phrase “Another failed attempt in Ed’s quest to attain an aura of romance” can be read in different ways. In the satiric comic strip genre, it can be interpreted as being wry and witty. But if the phrase were thought to belong to the genre of romantic texts, Ed would just be seen as someone ignorant of the ways of rekindling a romance. Therefore, as the sentence can be read in many ways, the meaning made from it would also differ among readers. It is then evident that genres, while aiding in showing how meaning is constructed, also limit its possibilities.

The idea that a text consists of more than one genre is reflected most clearly in the concept of intertextuality. It involves juxtaposing texts against each other to reveal their “shared textual and ideological resonances”. This concept relies on the belief that “a text consists not of a line of words… but of …a fabric of quotations, resulting from a thousand sources of culture.” Therefore, meaning is constructed through this inter-relation of texts.

Intertextuality is evident in the ‘Non Sequitur’ comic strip through the phrase “Hark… what light from yonder doorway breaks? It is the east and Ed is the sun. Arise fair sun and kill the envious moon…on your way out with the trash.” The reader’s prior experiences with other texts and the associated learning strategies affect his/her reading of this comic strip. Thus, to fully understand the punch line of this comic strip, the reader has to read the text, or more specifically, the language used, beyond its literal meaning. (S)he must be aware that the author has paraphrased William Shakespeare from one of his most famous works, Romeo and Juliet. Therefore, the reader who is well-versed in Shakespearean literature would derive a meaning different from the reader unaware of the literary reference. Intertextuality thus comes into play here and aids in the meaning making process.

The reader can also construct meaning from the text through the discourses present in the comic strip. There are many differing definitions of discourse available, but for the purpose of the essay, discourse shall refer to the “network of statements, images, stories and practices by which certain beliefs or a set of ideas about a particular topic are circulated and sustained in order to naturalize these as self-evident or common sense.”

Through discourse, a reader is aware of the topics that can be discussed and those that should remain in the domain of secret conversations. In most cases, there are dominant discourses, held by the majority of people, affecting their interpretations of texts. Counter-discourses that subvert the perceived ‘normal and right way of thinking’ also exist, though to a lesser extent.

In the ‘Non Sequitur’ comic strip, there are several discourses present. The most obvious is that of romantic love. The comic strip clearly conveys the man, recognised through the woman’s ‘soliloquy’ as Ed, trying to keep the passion in his relationship alive, only to be rebuffed by her. She mocks his attempt at romance by paraphrasing the above-mentioned Shakespearean quote to include a request to remove the trash. The reader knows that the discourse of romantic love is being espoused through the following points – the use of lines from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, one of the most recognised romantic literary texts; Ed’s outstretched arms, which seem to be reaching for his partner and the presence of the male and female characters. The notion of romantic love is also expressed as being between a man and a woman, or in other words, through a heterosexual relationship. This is clearly a reflection of the perceived norm of relationships that is being exhorted in present-day society.

Discourses about gender are present in the comic strip. The man is always portrayed to be responsible for manual jobs, as evident when the woman asks Ed to remove the trash. The man, who is shown with his arms wide open, is the one who attempts to romance his partner. It perpetuates the commonly-held stereotype that the man does the wooing and not the other way around.

The comic strip also reveals the discourse regarding age. Romance is perceived to extinguish in a long-term relationship, especially when the two individuals are middle-aged. It is commonly regarded that people in this age group dress in a certain manner, as evident from Ed’s attire, which consists of a singlet and polka-dot boxer shorts. Women at this age also tend to be portrayed in a rather unflattering light, as the comic strip shows. They wear oddly-shaped spectacles and are bossy and are generally not very nice people. The woman in the comic strip epitomises this through her unwillingness to partake in Ed’s little romantic quest. Instead, she makes fun of the entire episode.

All these discourses have already been internalised in the reader who has been repeatedly exposed to such ways of thinking through the various media. These ideals are regarded as the norm and thus, do not strike the reader as being worthy of analysis. However, the reader, instead of accepting them unquestioningly, should query the origin of such discourses and their resultant effect on the texts and the meanings derived from them. Consequently, the construction of meaning from texts would be based partly on the discourses that are known to the reader.

Every reader has been through different experiences in different cultural contexts that shape his/her perception of texts. They use all this prior knowledge and learned skills to help them understand a text. No two individuals read a text in exactly the same way, because while their life experiences may be similar, they are not identical. Thus, the meaning intended by a text’s author might not be transmitted fully to the reader, who would only find certain segments relevant. Rather, the meaning of the text would be constructed differently by each reader. Therefore, meaning is made (by each individual reader) and not dis-covered.

Bibliography
Barthes, R., The Rustle of Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.
Giles, J. and Middleton, T., Studying Culture: a Practical Introduction. Massachusetts and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999.
Miller, W. 2002. The Non Sequitur Homepage. http://www.non-sequitur.com/index.php3?previous=1&inday=8&inmonth=8&inyear=2002 (16 Sep. 2002).
Payne, M., A Dictionary of Critical and Cultural Theory. London: Blackwell, 1996.
Pearson, W., Text, Image and Culture (Cul 100) Week Four: ‘Intertextuality and Genre’ lecture, Macquarie University, 23 Aug. 2002.
Sullivan, N., Text, Image and Culture (Cul 100) Week Three: ‘Humanism/Postmodernism’ lecture, Macquarie University, 16 Aug. 2002.
Sullivan, N., Text, Image and Culture (Cul 100) Week Four: ‘Reading’ lecture, Macquarie University, 23 Aug. 2002.

immortality, here i come!

as another sign of my increasing egotism and narcissism, i have decided to upload (oooh what a tecno-savvy word!:P) all my essays onto the net.. so if anything should happen to my laptop, i have a copy in posterity... though if anything happens to blooger, then i'm a dead duck.. so excuse my indulgence but, here goes!

cloggedup

oohhavebeensickforfourdays..egads..thisispathetic!isthisasignimighthavetoactuallysuccumbtoeating*shockshockhorrorhorror*VEGETABLES?