Week 7: Extra Post.

Sorry it took so long, but here are the sites I mentioned in class. In the first site, the one with the fates of some of the characters, the section that explains it is blocked out, so you have to highlight that section to be able to read it (because it is sort of a spoiler).

http://uberdionysus.livejournal.com/407822.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V7MeewG_MU

Week 7: Trivialization and Sensationalism

I have been trying to think exactly which public sphere concept would go along with the unique narration style of What Is The What. After some reflection, I believe that the story telling, the breaking of the fourth wall, and the falling in and out of borrowed stories all relate to trivialization because by these means we are forming a relationship with the narrator and the other characters. Trivialization is obvious in most parts of the story, as it is highly personal, bodily, and relationship-oriented, but take that aspect of trivialization and mix it with narration style and we are sort of hit with a one two punch as far as being invested in Valentino and those he cares about. So, now we care, and the author can kind of have his way with us, which is where sensationalism comes in. Valentino's story is enough on its own, but we know things are added and exaggerated, and with a some research we can find out more about the small betrayals of our trust. The beauty of this book, though, is it comes with the disclaimer of being fiction, so all must be forgiven, and as another blogger said (Sabrina, I think) all of these stories were true for some one at some point; in other words, they didn't materialize out of thin air. I think Eggers was necessarily resourceful in both getting readers to care and then shocking them in hopes of inciting action.

Week 7: Sensationalism & Apathy

It's a stroke of serendipity that pushed Valentino Deng into the company of Dave Eggers. Had a creative relationship been formed between Deng and another, more traditional biographer, the result would have been far different than What is the What. Eggers, a notably experimental novelist, uses literary techniques and styles that fall far beyond the bounds of the standard biographer.

Admittedly, What is the What is sensationalized. The book discusses the sensationalizing that takes place around the stories the Lost Boys tell in America; boys being eaten by lions, drinking their own urine. This happened, Deng says, but probably not as often as the stories would have people believe. In addition to the discussion of sensationalism, What is the What does a little sensationalizing of its own. Not that these stories aren't true, but some of the things Valentino experiences are extremely harrowing and traumatic. The graphic and emotional descriptions Eggers uses are included for a significant reason: To make the reader care.

Apathy is another significant device in What is the What. Throughout the novel, Deng mentions the apathy he sees around him in America. People don't seem to care about their fellow citizens in this country, and the stark contrast between the apathetic, me-first culture of America and the unified collectivism of Dinka life troubles him greatly. Obviously, Eggers uses this discussion of apathy for a reason. In this case, the reader is obliged to consider their own apathy. Reading about the blatant disregard for our fellow man in What is the What is enough to get any reader to consider what they've been apathetic about and what they can do about it. Clearly, Deng and Eggers use this self-evaluation for one reason: To make the reader act.

What is the What and Trivialization

One connection I have made between What is the What and the concepts that we learned earlier in the quarter is the use of personal story/flashbacks and trivialization. The modernists would say that trivialization present in the novel and the fact that personal narrative is used to inspire people to act on the behalf of the Lost Boys. I’m sure Habermas would like it if the discussion in the public sphere about the civil war in Sudan was strictly political. A postmodernist would view the trivialization of the topic of the Lost Boys as beneficial to the cause, and a useful tool for motivating people to help Sudanese refugees. My personal view on this issue leans towards the postmodern point of view. I believe that reading Valentino’s story is important because it humanizes the issue. Personal narrative also is more palatable to the public and is more likely to prompt readers to do anything they can to help.

Week 7: Post Modernism and Lost Boys

What happened to the lost boys is something that no one should ever go through. To endure walking for months just to make sure you can live safely is not something anyone should endure. The fact that the lost boys tell their story in order to get other people to care is Post-Modern. Post Modernism is when details about what happened in a person’s private life is discussed openly with others. The Lost Boys want their story to be known and want others to care. The fact that they are encouraging Americans to try and make their country safer and better for their citizens is great. Post modernism is essential for the lost boys cause. It makes people aware and want to do their part to help. The importance of having people hear the lost boys stories is clearly explained in What is the What through Valentino, “It is wrong to say that I used to tell these stories. I still do, and not only to those I feel have wronged me. The stories emanate from me all the time I am awake and breathing, and I want everyone to hear them. Written words are rare in small villages like mine, and it is my right and obligation to send my stories into the world…”(Eggers 29). This shows that they want their stories to be known for people to realize the hard times they had to go through and that no one should take the good things they have in life for granted.

Week 7: Fragmentation

During week one of class we discussed fragmentation in the Public Sphere. In The Public Sphere: An Introduction, McKee points out that "some popular and academic writers worry that the public sphere in Western countries is fragmenting. There's too much choice" (140). While reading What is the What by Dave Eggers, I kept wondering why the Lost Boys' story was never in the media. Now that I look back on McKee's definition of fragmentation in the public sphere, I can see why. Our public sphere is so fragmented that we don't all have the same interests. If people aren't interested in certain issues, they'll never know about them. Since our PS is so fragmented, we don't know about Africa because the media focuses on other things.

If we take a look at one of the biggest issues Valentino faced as a refugee, then as a Lost Boy-dependency, we can draw parallels to Africa's level of dependency. Africa's structure has evolved from the days of colonialism, into a new independent, socialist continent. Since there are multiple outlets that people use to educate themselves, which is a result of fragmentation, people don't know the level of suffering caused by dependency in Africa. If people don't have information about Africa readily available to them, they aren't going to look for it.

Week 6: Taking the Good With the Unthinkably Bad

I was dumb struck when Tabitha was killed. How much can one person (even a character in a novel) actually take? No family, no country, and now the women who he loves, a woman that can understand and identify with what he has been through, is gone. And she's not just gone--she dies in a horrifying way that is connected, once again, to the SPLA and the war. I find it interesting that a person can take in so much pain, and still remain the kind of person who other people are drawn to, because people are drawn to Valentino. He has such a strong support system throughout the book because he is the type of person people want to help. Dut, the bicycle man, the village lady, the girl who picks him up off the road, Gop, Phil, Bobby, Abraham, and the others all see something special in him. But is that what the author is actually getting at? I like Valentino, so I think the others in the story must, too. But I wonder if the examples of help, which are likely exaggerated in the same way as the trials and tribulations, are really there to highlight that the people who are helping actually become extraordinary themselves once they do so--how something so small as sharing a meal, or extending oneself in friendship does not only change a life, but can actually save one. I think it is proof that even if you don't have much to give, you can make a big difference. Monetary help like the support Phil provides, although extremely valuable, isn't the kind of help that keeps Valentino alive, it is a series of smaller but equally selfless acts that takes him safely (relatively, anyway) through the story.