Will's Students- Jackie

[WillL at fieldschool.com]

Date	5/8/97
Subject	Will's Students- Jackie
>From	WillL
To	Pynchon List

Will's Students: Jackie

Thanks again to the wonderful Pynchon List for indulging my students during this
busy time on the list (too busy, if you ask me -- I can barely read half the
list messages, much less respond).  I have asked my students to write about four
paragraphs or so about one of three stories:  TRP's "The Secret Integration,"
William Vollmann's "The Blue Wallet" (from THE RAINBOW STORIES) or James
Baldwin's "Sonny's Blues."  They will then be required to post responses to at
least three of the comments they receive from the List.

Please note that these posts are unedited by me.  Also, you should know that the
students' "central texts" this year have been THE WIZARD OF OZ (the movie), THE
SCARLET LETTER, HUCK FINN, Whitman's "Song of Myself," and THEIR EYES WERE
WATCHING GOD.  When reading THE SCARLET LETTER, they read a one page excerpt
from GRAVITY'S RAINBOW regarding heretical Puritan William Slothrop.  They are
steeped in the idea of Preterite and Elect as a metaphor for various dichotomies
in American society, as well as the idea that such dichotomies are often false
constructions.  This project in the culmination of the THEIR EYES WERE WATCHING
GOD unit, which has dealt with gender and race inequities depicted in American
Literature.

Again, we welcome your critiques, to be addressed directly to the students.

My next student is Jackie McManus (a woman), writing about James Baldwin.

***********

     I am convinced that you will find "schisms" or "splits" in whatever you
read. These splits (black vs. white, dreams vs. reality, preterite vs. elect)
are everywhere in literature. When I come across one of these splits in
something I read, I really sink my teeth in it. But can you blame me? How can
you resist digging into a split that is so clear and crisp when you find it?
Life is so full of things in the "gray area" (somewhere in between two
extremes), and it is pleasing when you find something so clearly defined into
two opposite poles.
 
    I found one of these splits in "Sonny's Blues" by James Baldwin. This
split is a double-whammy of sorts because not only is it a clear split in
literature, but also it represents a clear split in life. The split is
between people who do take risks in life and people who don't take risks in
life. It sounds as though I am exaggerating when I declare that risk-takers
and not-risk-takers define two opposite groups of people. However, this is a
split that is true in literature and in life. In "Sonny's Blues", the
narrator and Sonny represent perfect examples of risk-takers and not-risk
takers. The narrator lived a very safe life. He stayed away from drugs,
gambling, fights, and risks in general. Many would argue that his lack of
risk-taking paid off. He had a secure job of teaching, a family, and a stable
life. However, his brother, Sonny, was a risk-taker. He was a drug-user, a
thief, and a musician (the biggest risk taken of them all). Many people looked
down on Sonny's actions, but Sonny trucked on and did what his instinct told him
to do. Sometimes, he failed (like by ending up in jail), and so he turned around
and headed in the right direction.

     In the end of the story, Sonny and his brother are in a small cafe where
Sonny is playing piano. Everyone is focused on Sonny and his talent. The
narrator, who spent his life making "safe" decisions in order not to fail, is
sitting at a table by himself in the cafe watching Sonny. Sonny has all of the
attention and the fame, and the narrator has nothing. It's not surprising that
the narrator has nothing because that is what he had heading for him from the
moment that he decided that he would live a safe life free of risks. Risk-taking
is like gambling. Truly, you have two options when it comes to gambling. You can
put all of your money in the pot, or you can put nothing in the pot. If you
decide to take the risk and gamble, you either make it big or lose miserably. If
you risk no money at all, you have no chance of winning and no chance of losing.
Sonny "gambled" his life, and he lost some and won some. In the end, he won more
than he lost. The narrator "gambled" nothing at all. When he is alone and
fame-free at the end of the story, he knew that it was coming to him. This
"split" of risk-taking applies to everyone. You can take a crowd of people, and
split them into two groups -- the risk-takers and the not-risk-takers. It's up
to the person to take their pick and choose what kind of life they want to
live.

     "Splits" are a form of binary thinking. Some people find this binary
thinking to be a bad thing. I find splits and binary thinking to be extremely
helpful. It doesn't come around too often in real life, so why not take
advantage of something that is so clearly defined (for once)? Usually, life is
full of things that are not clear. We have to really sweat in order to deal with
these "gray area" things. Splits are a simple form of analyzing things, and we
shouldn't doubt their worth just because of their simplicity.