Suddenly, a Knock on the Door

1) What is your reaction to the text you just read?
"Haha, I see."
I don't really get short stories, I never really understood them. Is it for fun? Is it an experience? What's the point of a story? Am I supposed to get something from this? So, I guess my first reaction was, "oh". My second reaction was, "ok, now what?" Maybe it's highlighting the difference between two cultures, or bringing to light the political and racial tensions. Maybe it's just the author writing about his home in a way that's more creative than a biography. Maybe it's the author writing about how he feels, maybe it's his writing block diary, or how he feels about fantasy stories. Maybe I'm overthinking it and he just thought, "damn, wouldn't it be cool if the story was the story?"

2) What connection did you make with the story? Discuss the elements of the work with which you were able to connect.
The desire to hear about something other than reality, to take a few minutes and become lost in another world, in someone else's perspective that's not your own. Or, creating something out of nothing...it's kind of impossible to create something out of nothing, because the something already exists in the creator in some form. Works based on a theme people can relate to or understand quickly are often more well received than pure fantasy.

3) What changes would you make to adapt the story to another medium: what medium would you use? What changes would you make?
The story could be adapted into a short film. It would be longer than reading the original text, since certain things would be better shown than told, such as the difference between Sweden and the Middle East. You could have a god voice narrate that entire part, but it would make the transition into a visual medium useless. Rather, it might need to start with showing splices of the Swede's way of life, and the speaker's in order to show the contrast. Without that to preface the events of the story, it wouldn't be nearly as meaningful, or interesting.

Curate Yourself

I don't normally read anything that would be considered appropriate for this course because I don't usually read or watch anything with a a strong activism base or special form that's interesting to literature. What I am really passionate about is food. More specifically, the amount of misinformation and negative attitude towards food and diets. I feel like this issue is worse in colleges, where it's a badge of honor to not have eaten for x amount of time because "I was working", or "I haven't eaten anything but instant noodles all week". On the flip side, it's also frustrating to see people say they're unable to eat "healthy" because kale is disgusting, or fresh produce is more expensive than frozen foods. I think these ideas come from misconceptions of food, and what is healthy. The usual argument for frozen/junk foods being cheaper than cooking yourself calculates items such as spinach, chicken breast, and so on. However, these budgets or comparisons never factor in the food that's cheap, and still equally healthy, such as root vegetables and fatty cuts of meat. 

I feel strongly towards being able to eat good food and maintaining good health, since I don't believe it involves putting chia seeds in multigrain sides to complement boiled chicken tenderloin strips. I personally like to spend time every day preparing meals because I believe eating better lets you work better. Even if it seems like it's taking a lot away from your work time, you can't get the most worth out of your quarter-million dollar degree if you're dead or perpetually on medication to keep your body functioning. Everything we were originally made to do - eat, and sleep - should be given extra care to; it's a large part of both mental and physical well-being.

That being said, I think one of the important steps to start prioritizing satisfying food in life is to know more about it. Just knowing the history of recipes, what makes certain dishes taste good, and different kinds of ingredients can naturally lead to a wider variety of food you consume. Food doesn't need to be laden with trans fats or pounds of sugar to be satisfying, and these works showcase such dishes - or in one case, drinks.

Nobunaga no Chef, or Nobunaga's Chef, is a period piece that not only serves to teach about the nutrition of ingredients as well as a bit of history behind certain dishes. Since it's taking place in the Warring States period of Japan, it also helps those who have difficulty remembering who betrayed what as there's distinct faces and simplified personalities to put to the names.

Simply named Bartender, the series follows a young bartender as he works through his personal issues and strives to become the perfect bartender, one tat can provide the best service to the tired souls who wander through the bar doors. I think asides from teaching you very specific cocktail recipes, this manga also teaches empathy and tolerance. From American movies, to quotes from classic literary works, Bartender gives a brief, sometimes romanticized, history behind every liquor and cocktail. Mixed with dynamic characters each with their own struggles, from politicians to art curators, Bartender gives a delightful spin on cramming your brain with movie and book trivia.

For those who would rather read something more light-hearted and follows the 3 pillars of classic shounen manga of friendship, effort, and victory, Shokugeki no Soma is an easy series to binge read. Equally filled with great recipes and bits of cooking know-how of technique and theory, Shokugeki is probably the closest to "entertainment" of these three, but not lacking in knowledge to absorb.

Other cooking mangas I also enjoy:

• Kinou Nani Tabeta? (What Did You Eat Yesterday?) - more like a walk through of recipes, but wrapped with a light story of a gay couple living in Japan, where it's not yet accepted by older generations. Generally just about the ingredients and recipes, there's enough story and touching interactions between the couple to generate interest just when the recipes get too tiring.

• Yakitate!! - Like Shokugeki, this manga is shounen manga with all the tropes that come with it. The story follows a genius boy and his attempt at creating the perfect bread that Japanese people who love rice will like. He calls these "ja-pan" (pan is bread in Japanese/Spanish haha get it). With a lot of nonsense over top, there's still real recipes tucked in between chapters, and knowledge drawn from the author's own dedicated research.
• Shinya Shokudou (Midnight Diner) - the scans are no longer easily available. They can still be found here but most sources had them taken down after Netflix did a live adaptation. For this one, however, I recommend the Netflix series above the manga. The manga has less focus, and is more of a laid-back read. While not a bad thing, the Netflix series really honed in on the touching stories and interesting characters, as well as improved the pacing and storytelling of the manga.

Long Form Television

What is TV?

Convenient form of entertainment or education that's also affordable, and more accessible than other media forms such as film or books. 

What is long form TV?

Long, usually narrative driven series with high production value in world building, and character development. Different pacing and story elements to encourage consistent viewership.

The Effects of Binge Watching

I think long form "TV" is different now because of streaming services - consumers are no longer waiting week by week for the next episode. Instead, seasons are released at once, creating more anticipation in between, heightening the chance of binge watching. For this assignment, I watched some episodes from the first season of Orange is the New Black, a show that was popular a few years ago. More traditional shows had either recaps at the beginning of the episodes, or they contained situations with overarching story elements, such as sitcoms. It's more apparent in OistNB that it is a Netflix series just because it doesn't really do either of these. It's one story, with little or no recap. 

Like other TV or segmented forms of entertainment, there are cliff hangers, but only at the end. Traditional weekly TV would have mini cliff hangers before every commercial break. Other streaming exclusive shows such as House of Cards is also written for the platform - in a discussion in class our group agreed we wouldn't watch it if it was weekly, since it would be hard to remember or follow. 

One of the effects I noticed about binge watching last week was I noticed subtleties less. I didn't care as much as about things such as filming quality, symbolism, or character trait hints since I was just intent on getting through the episode to watch the next. The stories are written to hook the viewer, and these tense stories made me notice less about the production, and concentrate more on the resolution.

Reading the Multimodal Narrative

I read Emil's Bite that Changed My Life before reading her graphic novel, and I think it made my views skewed. Her interview comic was very much the same as her "voice" in her graphic novel. Not just the aesthetics and graphical components, while it also made an impact, it was also the way she wrote and phrased her sentences. It was written as if it was a younger child, or young adult, with very matter-of-fact sentences. This carries over in My Favorite Thing is Monsters, where I was unsure who the voice of the comic was. For most of the time, I felt as if it was the author narrating her story to me, but looking at it objectively, it seemed more likely it was written in the protagonist's point of view.

In a way, you could say "well, duh, the author put her soul into the comic, of course it would reflect her". In Emil's graphic novel, though, I felt like it was more about her and her experience, wrapped in a story. The story wasn't even that important in my opinion. It's about the protagonist solving her neighbors murder, but at the same time it's not. It's more about her interaction with people, her conversations, her relationship with her mother and brother, and her views on the world and how the world views her. The story may just be a vessel to show off her as a character.

Writing and Reading from Diverse Positions

I enjoyed hearing the author talk about her writing experience and the story in person, as it helped give me more understanding of the work in general. I couldn't relate to the story very much. While I grew up in a city with a large South Asian community, I've never made any connections. The races were very much segregated on their own. I enjoyed the way Sindu chose to wrap up the novel. I think nowadays, especially shown through social media in the US, people are expecting happy endings and acceptance because it's seen as "right", and any family refusing your new sexuality or beliefs is shunned as immoral and a bigot, usually quickly suggesting them to cut the offending family members out of their life. Marriage of a Thousand Lies shows a more realistic and down-to-earth side of society and familial relationships. Someone's intolerance doesn't usually mean that they're terrible people. It's usually the result of the times, their environment growing up, and what they were conditioned to believe. Just as how Americans expect certain behaviours from foreigners (like smiling) or political ideals, not every culture is ready to jump the gun on abandoning their relationships. It's tragic and upsetting that Lucky has to compromise this way in order to have a peaceful life, but I feel it's also important to show this reality instead of continuing the idea that everyone will happily accept your life choices without resistance. 

Privilege as a Position

In this post, I'd rather talk more about our reaction to the movie and the book as a class, rather than the book itself. I didn't quite "get" the book, or the movie. What was I supposed to feel? What was I supposed to think? Was it supposed to show me the absurdity of a man's life? Or was it supposed to show me a third person, neutral view into a lifestyle no one could relate to? Even after watching the movie, I'm confused. If anything, the movie made it even more confusing. The book was already hard enough to understand - while short, the first half or so is almost entirely dialogue. I was lost easily, and couldn't tell who was saying what, unless someone's name was mentioned. The characters felt like they were reading to me, and that was magnified in the movie. In the end, I don't really know what I'm supposed to take from it.

I think what was more interesting, and more insightful, was the discussion around privilege in class. I think what Matthew brought up (but wasn't really answered, in my opinion) was valid. What counts as "rich"? You have two vacation homes, a yacht, and a private jet? Or you buy 4 Apple watches for your dogs? Or, you can live a life free of debt? All of these count as privilege, yet all of these come with their own burdens. I feel like people like to rag on the rich or privileged because it's easy. It's mentioned that Eric has made it so far because of his talent to read patterns. It doesn't seem like he has much skill in doing regular things, and he's plagued from boredom frequently. Is that a privilege? Why was there such an open dislike on his character? Because he fucks a lot of women, or because he's stubborn?

How I see it is, he's obviously not born into old money, and he doesn't really seem to understand what money is in the first place. It's a means to an end, which is true especially in the modern world. So, is it wrong? One scene that was brought up discussion was Eric trying to buy the cathedral. Many criticized him, including his dealer, that he didn't understand the value of it, and shouldn't keep art to himself. However, let's assume Eric has been able to make it this far by having this talent in asset trading and betting, as it's insinuated. My experience with people who are insanely talented or sensitive to things like that are often, for the lack of a better word, extremely slow at everything else, including common sense. Displaying empathy, processing emotion, and communication are things we take for granted, and we expect of others without fail. For Eric to be what I assume to be intelligent from what he reads when he's suffering from insomnia, he probably doesn't see his wife, sex partners, or security guards as how we see other people. For example, when he asks his wife why she's still refusing to have sex with him even though he has taken her out to dinner and attempted to make conversation, some classmates have pointed this out as Eric being drunk on power, and demanding what he should get in return. Growing up with my mother as a research therapist for young children who develop autism after birth, my first reaction was to write it off as Eric actually doesn't understand why. If his wife was a graph, a currency, a company's stock, he would've done everything flawlessly so far. Taken her out for meals, talked to her every time he's seen her during his trip, and asked her questions. In his mind, this was what is expected of men to do to sleep with women, or make them happy, so I didn't see his confused outburst as frustration of just not getting what he wants, but also what he hasn't done or done correctly.

In a sense, I feel bad for Eric, and I feel bad for "privileged" people, whatever that means. I'll never know my parents struggles of living through the 50's in China, and I'll never know my classmate's personal struggles over the years. So, if my parents have starved and were denied education for the first decade of their life, do I not deserve to feel pain and frustration? Because my father has worked tirelessly over the years bringing his family to Canada, is he now too privileged to complain because he finally paid off some debt? Am I too privileged unless I complain about not being afford to eat anything but instant noodles or spend the time to fill out FAFSA applications? Does Eric's struggle to relate and feel at ease in this world get nullified because of his money?

We divide ourselves from people who seem to have it easy, because we need someone to blame that we're burdened by problems. We see their golfing trips, and steakhouse meals, and stubbornness in situations, and we get upset. We don't see - and don't need to experience - the stress that comes with having to close a deal while you're trying to make sure you don't golf like an idiot, remembering the fifteen different ways you say appetizer in other languages, and who's toes this time you're going to step on if you refuse an offer you don't want. Somehow, we have decided that some jobs are easy, and just magically make you money with no stress.

Especially in Eric's case, I felt it was unfair for him to be talked down because "he's just looking for control because he just lost all his money". Is that unfair? Do people in Forex just get their currency from their exotic currency trees at their money tree orchards for free? Do I just get a stock from a top 100 company on NASDAQ every year? Does it not take work to accumulate assets? Even the act of keeping your initial investment is something most people can't handle, let alone trading with large numbers where you'll affect the market. Is Eric not allowed to be upset that the one thing he was sure of - his talent in patterns - is now going to shit right before his eyes? Assuming the author's allusion to Eric's pattern talent, it's fair to say Eric probably made it this far by trading the market, not taking out a million dollar loan from his secretly rich grandpa and buying up JPY. It's fair to say that Eric spent months, if not years, watching every percentage of a cent? The Forex market is different from stocks - it's open all the time. So when does Eric get to stop thinking about it? Thinking about potential changes, political shifts, or just someone accidentally creating a dominoes effect with a sell order?

Before we criticize the privileged, we should remember that the act of living in America as a student, and not a sex worker trafficked from Thailand, is already a huge privilege that no one cares about. We should be grateful we're allowed to call the current president a shithead, we should be grateful we we're allowed to vote without a gun pointed to our heads, and we should be grateful that we're granted the freedom of speaking ill of the country that lets us live here. If we don't want to be chastised for sitting in an air conditioned room at a $300 per class environment in the middle of one of the most desirable and expensive retirement cities in Florida, we should stop whining about people with some 0's to their name. I can guarantee you that no one here is a saint that is the perfect model of an empathetic, patient, loving, and generous person that we expect "privileged" people to be.

Reading From a Position

The Secret History of Wonder Woman was a nice change of pace. While I knew a little bit about women's suffrage and feminism in the late 1800's, reading about it with context helped me understand the subject a little more. The in-class discussion around the movie and book also gave me some insight into modern feminism. It's interesting to see how the lives of different people intertwine to create something that is still enjoyed and monetized decades later, with the core of it still resonating with its readers. While not a comic reader myself, I appreciate the craftsmanship that went into the conception of Wonder Woman, as well as how much history is behind her character. Talking against change and pushing boundaries seemed to be hard for the creators and their colleagues back then, and I'm sure many people now in America still feel the same way.

Reading through Lepore's book, it was surprising to see how "progressive" and "modern" the people involved were. However, I still don't quite understand how Wonder Woman is seen as the fruit of passion Marston had for female supremacy, it seems more like a fetish. I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to comics and the culture that surrounds it, so I'm probably quite off, but just making a woman strong and rescue people while claiming it's a comic for the girls doesn't make it empowering. Instead, the snippets of comics in Lepore's book - taken out of context probably didn't help its case - made me feel like I was reading the storyboard of a fantasy BDSM porno with a female dom. It seems like Marston's love of women and his opinion that they were superior come from his family of mainly women, but I don't think it's respect that he has, it's worship. 

As for the charge of sadism: “Binding or chaining the fair heroine, in comics strips, or the hero like Flash Gordon et al, is not sadism because these characters do not suffer or even feel embarrassed.” Wonder Woman teaches the enjoyment of submission to loving authority: ... Wars will only cease when humans enjoy being bound.”

While I don't necessarily disagree with all of this, I don't think this comic is for girls. I don't think any of this has to do with feminism as it was defined in the late 1800's to 2000's. In the quote where Marston tries to justify his inclusion of bondage in every strip, he himself states that "wars will only cease when humans enjoy being bound". Wars were an affair of men and their egos, and I agree with Marston that there's no such thing as freedom, so you might as well learn to love authority. However, what does this have to do with women? If anything, it should be teaching boys that they shouldn't fear not being in control to achieve Marston's ideal world. In the end, it seems like the Wonder Woman comics were an interesting collection of Marston's psychology research and ideals, and should be marketed as such. Labeling it for girls or claiming that it has its roots seeped in feminism is misleading. That, or I'm completely missing the point.