|
Zhouwei's Writing Portfolio
http://20six.co.uk/twinsenzw
powered by
20six.co.uk
|
Cover Letter
To whom it may concern: This portfolio records my accomplishments in the Academic writing class. You can find below this letter five items: three drafts of an interpretive essay, one reading log, and a piece of timed-writing. I find them effective in reflecting both the elements that constitutes the Academic writing class and my gradual improvement in taking the class.
The timed-writing is identical to free-writing in the way that they both emphasized improvised work. Fluency, I suppose, is the keyword of timed-writing: fluency in the thread of reasoning, fluency in generating and demonstrating ideas, fluency in sentence composition and fluency in overall arrangements. I have done timed-writing three times this semester, and step by step, I learnt to free myself from the tension of time limitation and to write with fluency at last.
When working on a reading log, we are not supposed to concentrate on what the story told us, but to write down our own feelings. I was not quite used to it at first, while later, I started to realize the role “subjective feelings” plays in literature. If too much focus was put on interpretation, and subjective feelings tended to be neglected, we will witness an expanding number of critics with a shrinking quantity of innovators. I read each of the stories twice, once before writing the log and once after. The feeling was quite different: in the second reading, I become more sensitive to the specifics of the article, and more absorbed in it. I concluded that reading log helps to read better.
The three drafts of the essay occupies weeks of effort. I chose the thesis statement, “The essence of Americanization lies in the leniency towards non-native cultures”, on the work The Americanization of Shadrach Cohen by Bruno Lessing. I hoped that a thesis based on the theme of an article would turn to be more attractive and interesting than one which analyzes merely the setting of the story (e.g. the main character). What I failed to notice is that the thesis lacked evidences. Finding adequate evidences thus became the main task of mine in outlining the first draft. Then in the second draft, bricks were added into the framework. When I received comments from my instructor, Mr. Corio, and my peers, Linda and Anna, I was shocked by their similar remarks: I do not quite understand what you are writing about. The problem was clear: I failed to convey my ideas clearly. The interpretation of evidence could be extremely intricate: In substantiating the assumption A, we need to refer to evidence B, while understanding B involves the helps of context C and D, however, C and D seemed contradictory to A in the first place, but when we read E, we knew that they were not. It was hard enough to express to my readers how I think, or the whole process of my deduction. I kept working on it when writing draft three, and though it may still appear unclear, it is much better than it was.
The experience of drafting, reviewing and revising is beneficial, more beneficial than the result of the essay itself. It was through the process that I practiced my language, I learnt the principles of academic writing, and above all, cultivated my own way of writing-though it is still too immature to be called “a style”. I find myself tended to be strict with structure, both inter-paragraph and inner-paragraph. I also tend to be strict with logic. These tendencies bear both merits and drawbacks. I am quite sure that my writing makes sense, and is free of meaningless statements. Nonetheless, for my reader, as is mentioned before, it may be least enjoyable to read my writing since it shows no sign of perceptiveness. For me, demonstrating my ideas clearly is a torturous procedure-to find the equilibrium between inadequacy and redundancy is unexceptionally difficult. Also, in compromising to the structure of a paragraph, I tend to include too much information in a single sentence, rendering it long and complex. According to someone’s remark, my way of writing concerns something similar to the Stream of Consciousness, seemingly fruitful in innovation works, but quite dangerous in interpretation.
Different languages grant writing with a variety of beauty. I was amazed at English writing by its precision, its rhyme between lines, and its special way of humor. Thanks to Academic writing class, I knew about English writing better. Thanks to Mr. Ron Corio, I grasped the rules of formal writing and enjoyed the convenience of a platform of peer review and peer discussion. Thanks to my peers, Linda and Anna, your praise kept me away from frustration, your suggestion kept me reflecting on flaws I ignored, and your punctuality kept me ashamed of each action of postponing. Thanks to those who granted me remarks of any kind: “Amazing!” or “Good job!”, “Can’t you write better” or “You call it English?”, alike.
At last, thank you for your patience to finish this letter.
Yours sincerely
Zhouwei Zhou
06-18-2007
|
|
|
Essay Draft Three
Zhouwei
06-18-2007
Draft3
Leniency, the essence of Americanization
“The Americanization of Shadrach Cohen” written by Bruno Lessing, viewed retrospectively, illustrated that the highlighting of the significance of native-cultural protection was not a recent issue. The word “Americanization” essentially dealt with cultural interaction, and since chances are that impact will grow into encroach, the indication of the word is not always neutral. As early as in the beginning of the twentieth century, when the phenomenon was recognized that in American, cultural customs are slowly drained out of the immigrants, “Americanization” was blamed to be responsible for the loss of cultural recognition.
In “The Americanization of Shadrach Cohen”, Bruno Lessing expressed his understanding on the controversial word-“Americanization”, by telling the story of an old and stubborn Jewish immigrant, Shadrach Cohen, who is invited to America by his two sons, and eventually shows the young men the essence of Americanization.
Thus here comes a consequential question: what is the essence of Americanization? Quite different from its acknowledged definition as the influence of the United States on other countries, the “essence” is controversial, based on the different conception of different individuals. According to Bruno Lessing, the essence of Americanization lies in the leniency toward non-native cultures.
This assumption seems subjective, while reflection on the article can render it more convincing. The assumption is supported in four aspects mainly, namely: explicit statement, reference to the main character, to the natives, and to the superficially-Americanized.
We should realize the influence that the author’s conception exerted on the way he arranged the plot. Thus it is natural to believe that the scrutiny into Shadrach Cohen, being the main character, reveals directly the author’s conception of Americanization. Americanization indicates, or bears, a process of change. Shadrach Cohen does not merely stick to his old beliefs. We are informed that, after tiff and miff with his sons, Shadrach Cohen “was slowly undergoing a change” (50), “he become broader-minded, more tolerant, and, above all, more flexible in his tenets.” (50) Without considering the context, the “flexibility in his tenets” can be recognized in two opposite ways: Shadrach Cohen’s devotion in his tenets is diluted, or he accepts religions other than Judaism, customs other than Jewish ones as reasonable existence. It is not so hard to exclude the possibility of his apostasy or defection, judging from the author’s possible intention to defend America against the accusing (or misunderstanding) of cultural vandalizing, and from the piousness of Shadrach Cohen depicted by the story (“It is wrong to omit the prayer after meals” (47), “a strict observance of every tenet of their religion” (50) ). Hence, the assumption that Americanization concerns the attitude towards foreign cultures is a valid one.
As directly articulated, the liberty and democracy attracts Shadrach Cohen. But is it because he was attracted that he turns Americanized, or is it because of his Americanization that the liberty and democracy becomes perceptive to him? Both. It serves both as the cause and effect.
It partly stands for the reason since both of the two words carry an implication of tolerance, when the subject of these words is the entire body of Americans-prototypes of Americanizing immigrants, or aims of Americanization. Thus it is fair to reason out that the process of fitting socially into the American life embraces the recognition and gaining of these features. In some way, those features stand for the basis of the national ideology, according to the author, “the charm of American life” (50). Here it is not so farfetched to shed light on the interrelationship between being Americanized and being lenient and tolerant.
When the chronological order is considered, Shadrach’s decision of Americanization goes first, followed by the reference of the two words. That is why the perception of these words can be understood as effects of Americanization. As the effects, the statement conveys the idea that Americanization is self-provocative of its own trait, which means it is in the process of changing that Shadrach Cohen knows better about why the change begins. As a way of unraveling, the author’s explanation on the intricate paradox appeared quite enlightening. It is after the widening of his business that Shadrach Cohen gets more in touch with native businessmen, learnt from them with reverence while in the same time receives their reverence. Respect, as an example of the “effect of Americanization”, is a two way street, the more one offers, the more he receives. It starts when its merits are acknowledged, accumulates in the process when its merits are experienced. The first step triggers a positively feed-back mechanism.
The significance of underlying these two words should be noticed since these two words are synonyms of “leniency”. Lessing’s evaluation on these words can be utilized to deduce his evaluation on leniency. The link between these two affairs is strong.
Lessing’s attitude towards liberty and democracy is unqualifiedly positive, from which we can infer that he also evaluates leniency highly. Moreover, in the “serving as reason” effect of the two words, leniency is suggested a necessity in Americanization- A necessity, or in other words, the essence.
In concerning that the behavior of the Americans effectively reflects the spirit of Americanization, further probe into the author’s reference to the Americans should be requisite. At least two of them could be noticed: the one concerning the “American business men” and that concerning “Miriam”. The American businessmen “seemed to show to Shadrach Cohen an amount of deference and respect which they had never evinced toward the sons” (50). They literally views a person in the unbiased light, with no consideration of exterior, no discrimination on exotic customs or preference for the so-called “Americanized” behavior of mimicry. Similarly, when Miriam, the fiancée (or girlfriend) of Gottlieb, is introduced to Shadrach Cohen, “impulsively she ran toward him and seized his hands. And, with a smile upon her lips, she said: ‘Will you not give me your blessing?’ ” (51) Miriam has an insight through the appearance of a “newly landed Russian Jew” into the mind of Shadrach Cohen, where she finds shrewdness and tenderness. The weight of appearance is overshadowed by that of inner beauty, thus, the former is neglected. It is quite sarcastic that Miriam reacts contradictorily to Gottlieb’s worry that she might find Cohen’s appearance eccentric, and the negative impression may impede further development of their relationship. The two cases are vivid illustrations for the truly Americanized way of life, which matched with the assumption mentioned.
The author also expressed his ideas through ridiculing the behavior of those who are Americanized plausibly, or superficially, without even touching the skirt of its quintessence. Such examples include the description of Shadrach’s two sons and that of their employee. The sons of Shadrach Cohen dress in the way most Americans does (“wore a flaring necktie with a diamond in it” (46) ), greet their father in an American way (“promptly threw their arms around his neck”, “an effusive greeting” (46) ), grow out of the old customs (“omit the prayer after meals” (47)), demonstrating the word “superficial” in every aspects of its sense. The outgrowth of pretending is not so fruitful: flourish in business moves slowly, native business men shows not much interest on them. Later they learn from their father, knew how shallow, how limited, how meagre their conception have been, but still kind of unwilling to follow their father’s way of Americanization (“in a stiff, embarrassed manner Gottlieb presented her to his father”.(51)).
Their employee, the young man taught a lesson no less bitter than bile by the father of his employers (“Send him away at once”, “Young man, whenever you address a person who is older than you, do it respectfully.” (49) ), is too arrogant to be called Americanized (“a sharp tone”, “Come, come! I can’t stand here all day.” (49) ). The young man is quite myopic; his insight into Shadrach Cohen is so easily obstructed by the appearance of a newly landed Jewish immigrant. His discrimination over immigrating customs runs contrary to the author’s notion. The connotation here is quite clear: the sons and their employee stand for two sorts of misunderstandings: blindness and discrimination, which “coincidentally” share the same antonym: leniency towards exotic cultures.
The author’s mention of cigars and cigarettes, and their implications appear quite interesting in the cases of the “negative roles”. It seems that a character’s attitude toward cigarettes lay parallel to the author’s criterion of Americanization. In the night when Shadrach Cohen rebels his sons, he tells Marta, their servant, to take the cigarette out of Gottlieb’s mouth and throw it away, he adds: ”If he objects he goes out of the house” (48). When Shadrach Cohen see his sons’ employee, “the pale faced young man with a cigarette in his mouth”(49), he doubts whether the young man is “Americanized”, too? Are these specifics prearranged, or written unintentionally? Its reoccurrence seems not an outcome of chance or casualty. What is certain is that smoking concerns information relating to the surface or appearance only, thus, not thorough.
The assumption that the essence of Americanization lies in the leniency toward non-native cultures are substantiated in the facets as mentioned. In the view of the author, American society is a collage rather than a melting pot, in the sense that no form of elimination, corrosion or negative alternation is encouraged. People from different cultures join hands together, enjoy the melodious symphony of brotherhood. With every inch of the land occupied by liberty, thoughtfulness and leniency, the accusation of “cultural vandalizing” finds no place to stand.
Work Cited
Bruno Lessing. “The Americanization of Shadrach Cohen.” 1903. in The International Story: An Anthology with Guidelines for Reading and Writing about Fiction. Ruth Spack.
New York: St. Martin’s, 1994, 6-8.
|
|
|
Essay Draft Two
Zhouwei 05-08-2007 Draft2 Title Even before the War of independence, in colonial America, the significance of native-cultural protection was highlighted. Just in the way how the institution of Black slavery was accused before the colonists took arms against Great Britain, “to fight ourselves for what we are daily plundering from those who have as good a right to freedom as we have” (by Abigail Adams), “Americanization” was blamed to be responsible for the loss of cultural recognition. The word “Americanization” essentially dealt with cultural interaction. In “The Americanization of Shadrach Cohen”, the author expressed his understanding on the controversial word-“Americanization”, by telling the story of an old and stubborn Jewish immigrant, Shadrach Cohen, who was invited to America by his two sons, and eventually showed the young men the essence of Americanization which, as I assumed, lies in the leniency toward non-native cultures. We should realize the influence that the author’s conception exerted on the way he arranged the plot. Thus it is natural to believe that the scrutiny into Shadrach Cohen, being the main character, reveals directly the author’s conception of Americanization. Americanization indicates, or bears, a process of change. Shadrach Cohen did not merely stick to his old beliefs. We are informed that, after tiff and miff with his sons, Shadrach Cohen “was slowly undergoing a change”, “he become broader-minded, more tolerant, and, above all, more flexible in his tenets.” Without considering the context, the “flexibility in his tenets” can be recognized in two opposite ways: Shadrach Cohen’s devotion in his tenets is diluted, or he accepted religions other than Judaism, customs other than Jewish ones as reasonable existence. It is not so hard to exclude the possibility of his apostasy or defection, judging from the author’s possible intention to defend America against the accusing (or misunderstanding) of cultural vandalizing, and from the piousness of Shadrach Cohen depicted by the story (“It is wrong to omit the prayer after meals” (47), “a strict observance of every tenet of their religion” (50) ). Hence, the assumption that Americanization concerns the attitude towards foreign cultures is a valid one. It is directly articulated that the “liberty and democracy” attracted Shadrach Cohen, serving as both the cause and effect of Americanization, respectively. It partly stands for the reason since both of the two words carry an implication of tolerance, when the subject of these words is the entire body of Americans-prototypes of Americanizing immigrants. Thus it is fair to reason out that the process of fitting socially into the American life embraces the recognition and gaining of these features. In some way, those features stand for the basis of the national ideology, according to the author, “the charm of American life”. Here it is not so farfetched to shed light on the interrelationship between being Americanized and being lenient and tolerant. While as the effects, the statement conveys the idea that Americanization is self-provocative of its own trait, which means it was in the process of changing that Shadrach Cohen knew better about why the change began. I felt quite enlightened when I found the author’s way of explanation on the intricate paradox. “As the field of his business operations widened he came more and more in contact with American business men, from whom he learnt many things”, “Contact with the outer world had quickly impressed him”, “all these business men seemed to show to their father an amount of deference and respect” (50). Respect is a two way street, the more one offers, the more he receives. It starts when its merits are acknowledged, accumulates in the process when its merits are experienced. The first step triggers a positively feed-back mechanism. In concerning that the behavior of the Americans effectively reflects the spirit of Americanization, I suggest further probe into the author’s reference to the Americans. At least two of them could be noticed: the one concerning the “American business men” and that concerning “Miriam”. The American businessmen “seemed to show to Shadrach Cohen an amount of deference and respect which they had never evinced toward the sons”. They literally viewed a person in the unbiased light, with no consideration of exterior, no discrimination on exotic customs or preference for the so-called “Americanized” behavior of mimicry. Similarly, when Miriam was introduced to Shadrach Cohen, “impulsively she ran toward him and seized his hands. And, with a smile upon her lips, she said: ‘Will you not give me your blessing?’ ” Miriam had an insight through the appearance of a “newly landed Russian Jew” into the mind of Shadrach Cohen, where she found shrewdness and tenderness. It is quite sarcastic that Miriam reacted contradictorily to Gottlieb’s worry. The two cases are vivid illustrations for the truly Americanized way of life, which matched with the assumption mentioned. The author also expressed his ideas through ridiculing the behavior of those who were Americanized plausibly, or superficially, without even touching the skirt of its quintessence. Such examples include the description of Shadrach’s two sons and that of their employee. The sons of Shadrach Cohen dressed in the way most Americans did (“wore a flaring necktie with a diamond in it&rdquo , greeted their father in an American way (“promptly threw their arms around his neck”, “an effusive greeting&rdquo, grew out of the old customs (“omit the prayer after meals&rdquo, demonstrating the word “superficial” in every aspects of its sense. Later they learnt from their father, knew how shallow, how limited, how meagre their conception had been, but still kind of unwilling to follow their father’s way of Americanization (“in a stiff, embarrassed manner Gottlieb presented her to his father”.). Their employee, the young man taught a lesson no less bitter than bile by the father of his employers (“Send him away at once”, “Young man, whenever you address a person who is older than you, do it respectfully.” (49) ), was too arrogant to be called Americanized (“a sharp tone”, “Come, come! I can’t stand here all day.” (49) ). His discrimination over immigrating customs runs contrary to the author’s notion. The connotation here is quite clear: the sons and their employee stood for two sorts of misunderstandings: blindness and discrimination, which “coincidentally” share the same antonym: leniency towards exotic cultures. When I scrutinize the cases of the “negative roles”, I was amused by the author’s mention of cigars and cigarettes, and their implications. It seemed that a character’s attitude toward cigarettes lay parallel to the author’s criterion of Americanization. “Marta, take that cigar out of his mouth and throw it into the fire. If he objects he goes out of the house” (48), “a pale-faced clerk, smoking a cigarette”, “Was he Americanized too?” (49). Was these specifics prearranged, or written unintentionally? What is certain is that smoking concerns information relating to the surface or appearance only, thus, not thorough. The assumption that the essence of Americanization lies in the leniency toward non-native cultures are substantiated in the facets as mentioned. In the view of the author, American society is a collage rather than a melting pot, in the sense that no form of elimination, corrosion or negative alternation was encouraged. People from different cultures join hands together, enjoy the melodious symphony of brotherhood. Respects are expressed to each other. With every inch of the land occupied by liberty, thoughtfulness and leniency, the accusation of “cultural vandalizing” finds no place to stand.
Work Cited Bruno Lessing. “The Americanization of Shadrach Cohen.” 1903.
|
|
|
Essay Draft One
| Zhouwei
05-08-2007
Draft1
Title
The significance of native-cultural protection was highlighted, when the world was treading toward equilibrium in the sense that the gaps between national capabilities had been relatively narrowed. Nevertheless, since the gap still existed, the cultural invasion and the panic the invasion created brought about accusations against the powerful nation’s cultural extension of vicious view.
The word “Americanization” essentially dealt with cultural interaction. In “The Americanization of Shadrach Cohen”, the author expressed his understanding on the controversial word-“Americanization”, by telling the story of an old and stubborn Jewish immigrant, Shadrach Cohen, who was invited to America by his two sons, and eventually showed the young men the essence of Americanization which, as I assumed, lies in the leniency toward non-native cultures.
We should realize the influence that the author’s conception exerted on the way he arranged the plot. Thus it is natural to believe that the scrutiny into Shadrach Cohen, being the main character, reveals directly the author’s conception of Americanization. Americanization indicates, or bears, a process of change. Shadrach Cohen did not merely stick to his old beliefs. We are informed that, after tiff and miff with his sons, Shadrach Cohen “was slowly undergoing a change” (50), “he become broader-minded, more tolerant, and, above all, more flexible in his tenets.” (50) Without considering the context, the “flexibility in his tenets” can be recognized in two opposite ways: Shadrach Cohen’s devotion in his tenets is diluted, or he accepted religions other than Judaism, customs other than Jewish ones as reasonable existence. It is not so hard to exclude the possibility of his apostasy or defection, judging from the author’s possible intention to defend America against the accusing (or misunderstanding) of vicious cultural extension, and from the piousness of Shadrach Cohen depicted by the story. Hence, the assumption that Americanization concerns the attitude towards foreign cultures is a valid one.
It is directly articulated that the “liberty and democracy” (50) attracted Shadrach Cohen, as a reason of his changing. Both of the two words carry an implication of tolerance, when the subject of these words is the entire body of Americans-prototypes of Americanizing immigrants. Thus it is fair to reason out that the process of fitting socially into the American life embraces the recognition and gaining of these features. In some way, those features stand for the basis of the national ideology, according to the author, “the charm of American life” (50). Here it is not so farfetched to shed light on the interrelationship between being Americanized and being lenient and tolerant.
In concerning that the behavior of the Americans effectively reflects the spirit of Americanization, I suggest further probe into the author’s reference to the Americans. At least two of them could be noticed: the one concerning the “American business men” and that concerning “Miriam”. The American businessmen “seemed to show to Shadrach Cohen an amount of deference and respect which they had never evinced toward the sons” (50). They literally viewed a person in the unbiased light, with no consideration of exterior, no discrimination on exotic customs or preference for the so-called “Americanized” behavior of mimicry. Similarly, when Miriam was introduced to Shadrach Cohen, “impulsively she ran toward him and seized his hands. And, with a smile upon her lips, she said: ‘Will you not give me your blessing?’ ” (51) Miriam had an insight through the appearance of a “newly landed Russian Jew” (46) into the mind of Shadrach Cohen, where she found shrewdness and tenderness. It is quite sarcastic that Miriam reacted contradictorily to Gottlieb’s worry. The two cases are vivid illustrations for the truly Americanized way of life, which matched with the assumption mentioned.
The author also expressed his ideas through ridiculing the behavior of those who were Americanized plausibly, or superficially, without even touching the skirt of its quintessence. Such examples include the description of Shadrach’s two sons and that of their employee. The sons of Shadrach Cohen dressed in the way most Americans did (“wore a flaring necktie with a diamond in it” (46) ), greeted their father in an American way (“promptly threw their arms around his neck”, “an effusive greeting” (46) ), grew out of the old customs (“omit the prayer after meals” (47) ), demonstrating the word “superficial” in every aspects of its sense. Later they learnt from their father, knew how shallow, how limited, how meagre their conception had been, but still kind of unwilling to follow their father’s way of Americanization (“in a stiff, embarrassed manner Gottlieb presented her to his father” (51) .). Their employee, the young man taught a lesson no less bitter than bile by the father of his employers, was too arrogant to be called Americanized. His discrimination over immigrating customs runs contrary to the author’s notion. The connotation here is quite clear: the sons and their employee stood for two sorts of misunderstandings: blindness and discrimination, which “coincidentally” share the same antonym: leniency towards exotic cultures.
The assumption that the essence of Americanization lies in the leniency toward non-native cultures are substantiated in the facets as mentioned. In the view of the author, American society is a collage rather than a melting pot, in the sense that no form of elimination, corrosion or negative alternation was encouraged. People from different cultures join hands together, enjoy the melodious symphony of brotherhood. Respects are expressed to each other. With every inch of the land occupied by liberty, thoughtfulness and leniency, the accusation of “cultural invasion” finds no place to stand.
Work Cited
Bruno Lessing. “The Americanization of Shadrach Cohen.” 1903. | |
|
|
|
Final Timed-writing
0570038
Zhouwei
06-21-2007
Timed-writing Three
From the Necklace, what might have been the quality of Mme. Loisel’s life if she had not lost the necklace? Is her life better or worse now?
The assumption on the quality of Mme. Loisel’s life if she had not lost the necklace will be based on a deduction from the depiction of the heroine. Before the ball, Loisel have been so absorbed in a far-fetched dream of luxurious life. After the ball, there is a reference to her disappointment. Without incidents shocking enough to wake her from the dream, the strong obsession will probably continue. Loisel’s life will not be so different from how it was before the ball-dreaming, grudging, grouching vainly. What may change is that since she has experienced the life of the upper-class once, the dream may become more embodied, and the eagerness more violent.
In reflecting on the second question, what should be taken into consideration is that life of Mme. Loisel does not necessarily go without calamities other than the lost of the necklace. It is not so hard to imagine, that in another ball, arranged by Loisel’s responsible husband to ease her nerve after the first ball, Mme. Loisel lost a ring borrowed from another friend of hers. She will be hit back to reality, consequentially, just in the way how she has been after the first ball. What I want to suggest here is that misfortune will be bound to her as long as she is indulged in unrealistic dreams and as long as her husband doesn’t give up the attempt to satisfy his wife so blindly, so unqualifiedly. The lost of the necklace is not pure bad luck; acting reversely to her living condition will at last cost her something, as the tuition fee of the course: Getting back to the real world.
Is such a kind of life better or worse? To answer this question, we have to figure out a set and universally acknowledged criterion to judge good from bad. However, it is quite discouraging that such a criterion does not exist, or is not universally acknowledged. This question is identical to one asking whether growing up is good or bad. How can we be so confident that being realistic, as Mme. Loisel becomes after the lost of the necklace, is a sign of better living quality?-or, oppositely, worse than indulging in a dream, wild and unrealistic? The judgment of good or bad will never come as a result of a heated discussion by the bystanders, but a result of the subject’s conception. So for the second question, the answer should be: Mme. Loisel knows.
If we are enabled to rule out the possibility of other big incidents, Mme. Loisel’s life will still change gradually, into the way we witness now. In the long run, by the erosion of time and vague signs of warning against her quixotism, she will turn realistic. Just like what we say everyday, people grow up, whether they love it or not.
|
|
|
Reading Log
There has long existed in me an entrenched puzzle in the essence and structure of American society, of how the immigrating cultures are aggregated together so stably while, contradictorily, history in other nations showed us a clear and ecumenical correlation between cultural crash and confliction.
The bewilderment was not reconciled after I had read this fiction.
I believe the author was trying to inform us of his two basic conceptions of the American society: that exotic culture and the active effort in figuring it into the American society are positively welcome; and that intercultural comparison often leads to further recognition of an immigrant's native culture, however paradoxical it may appear. In such a sense, to a specific immigrating culture, a multicultural society can well serve as the hotbed of its public hearing. However, we have reasons to believe that such a collage-like composition of cultures denies the common ground vital for social harmony as well as the definition of the word “Americanization”: immigrants tend to behave in an “exclusive” way towards people from other cultures, which may be well analogous to excessive patriotism, or jingoism.
I heard of another explanation, emphasizing conformity. We appreciate, at least appreciated, the description of American society as a melting pot. This description explains satisfactorily the reason of the intercultural harmony, since they do not appear so exclusive and different. Nevertheless, the stereotype, known as culture of the Anglo-Saxons instead of that of Indian which is one heartbeat away from extinction, ironically turned out to be non-native. Besides, a monotonous society is not likely to experience the cultural flourish we witness in America. Nor can the uniqueness of American cultural over European ones, or the symbolic magnanimity for cultural distinction of the American society be satisfactorily explained.
Thus I am quite frustrated when I see myself turned back to the starting point of solving the relationship of harmony and versatility. Can they coexist? Or there even exits a clear dichotomy into them? At last it dawned on me that the two factors are somehow, subtly merged together, in a way beyond my understanding.
|
|
|
|
Zhouwei's Writing Portfolio
