Response 7: Oct 27

Type your name in the Subject box, plus any subject heading you want for your response. Type or cut-and-paste your response in the box below that and hit the "Add a Comment" button. Note: you may need to scroll down to post your response if a lot of people have already responded.

comments:

Loving Loot --audj, Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:01:32 -0400 reply
Thank god I have the internet and power back. I totally didn’t want to turn in hand-written looseleaf paper and see if you would accept it! I like this book a lot. Particularly, the story “L,U,C,I,E” seems to be holding my attention the most. Nadine seems to speak instead of write. The story has a dictation feel, instead of a “I’ve been up the last three months writing this story” feel. The story is about a lawyer whose name is her grandmother’s and whose name has caused trouble her whole life. Lucie is such a strong character and her descriptions are intense as well as casual. I think casual seems to be a theme in most of the books we are reading. While I’m working on Victorian literature in my other English classes, which, of course, is very dry and proper. This casual writing is a breath of fresh air. And short stories! Why couldn’t the Victorians write short stories?! But I digress. L,U,C,I,E is a great story because it deals with death, and as humans, we are interested in the great beyond but also in the human emotion it invokes like grief. However, Lucie does not seem to be bothered by her mother’s death. She seems a little cold about the whole thing. Perhaps distance is her strength. I think the line that describes it best is on 102, and it reads “Were the dead stored, filed away?” As if, somehow, people are reduced to the paperwork they leave behind. She faces this everyday as a lawyer. People’s wills, convictions, and litigations are all just paperwork with people’s names on the paper. I like that her visit to her grandmother’s grave gives her a new light on her own life and her own name. The story ends with “Now when I write my name, this is what I understand by it.” The graveyard is creepy. The imagery is so strange. There are all these contradictions: “sickly sweetness,” “warm hair turned putrid,” “unbearable fermentation of the sweetness of life.” Gross. If I understand the story correctly, all these people are just left out. I guess they were getting the bodies ready to be embalmed, but seriously, yuck. I’m not sure what Lucie now understands by her name, but I find myself feeling glad for her that she’s found her way. She seems somewhat isolated from her family, though it feels intentional. It seems like her first reconnection to her family, her mother, father and grandmother is because of this death. But isn’t that what all tragedies do to families? Aren’t we supposed to ban together in the face of adversity? It seems like that’s what Lucie tries to do, but she falls a little short because of the cold attitude she has. Whether or not it’s casual is not my concern, but more that it seems emotionless. She doesn’t show a lot of grief over the loss of her mother or even over the remembrance of her grandmother. I like this story the best, though, because it seems to me that’s what real grief is. We cannot fully embrace it because otherwise it would tear us down completely.

BrieanneL? --Michelle, Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:14:04 -0400 reply
I have enjoyed all of the stories so far. It is nice that these stories are short and somewhat different. I also enjoy the author’s style of writing. She seems to only state the necessary in order to get her thoughts across. I like that fact that it doesn’t take her a bunch of pages to state one tiny thought. It is also a very casual style of writing. I like the fact that most of them are about things that we can connect with. The only thing that I’m not a big fan of is the way that these stories don’t relate to one another. In some ways I find this to be sort of refreshing, and in others I find it irritating. The first story is once again about an earthquake. But this story is much different from the last book we read because instead of just telling a story, I think that the author intended on making the audience realize how greedy our society has become. The earthquake in this story caused the ocean to be pushed back exposing all of the lost treasures at the bottom of the sea. The characters in this story were more concerned after the earthquake with the riches that they might find then the tragedy that had just taken place. Most of them surely had damaged property and/or had lost or injured loved ones. They seemed to be more concerned with the riches and the artifacts that they might find. The idea of having all these new treasures overwhelmed them. I found this very interesting because this says a lot about them as well as our society. I recently saw these same actions when hurricane Katrina hit. This event was a major tragedy where most people in that area lost their homes, families, and many their lives. Even though all of this horror was going on stories of looting were all over the news. Because everybody was forced to evacuate buildings it left them empty. People instead of helping those in need were stealing from them. They were taking anything they could get their hands on. This story seemed to just stick out in my mind maybe because this tragedy is such a recent event. In this story many of the looters lost their lives when the ocean rushed back in. I imagine that many of the looters from Katrina also ended up losing their lives. They were more concerned with stealing then protecting their own lives. I just think that this story points out the way many people in our society think and behave and also how badly it needs to be reevaluated and changed.

Breanne Alioto Response --bre4nne, Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:04:21 -0400 reply
Comparing the short stories in After the Quake to those in Loot is not a very easy thing to do. The stories in Loot at times seem much more descriptive than those in After the Quake. At times I found myself getting lost in the words, although I did genuinely like all the stories. The first story, Loot, gave me a good feeling of what the rest of the stories were going to be about. The only thing that I liked better about After the Quake, was all the reoccurring motiffs in the story. You did not find this in Loot, although all the stories seemed to relate to a certain culture and a certain point in time, they did not have those little symbols that you could find in every story. I want to particular talk about the first story, and the title of the book, Loot. I realise that Loot probably got its name because it discusses how after the earthquake people would just run around gathering things from the messes. Looters is what they were called. It seems almost sad to me, that people put possessions above their own lives. This story seems so tragic to me. I find it sad that these people do not realise that by staying and trying to get their possessions, they infact are putting their life in danger. Many people that went back for possessions were swept away from the waves. This reminds me of those that were involved in Katrina that refused to evacuate or leave their homes. Sure, their lives would be hard leaving everything they have behind, but they would still have their life. Has society reached the point where you can not possibly live a happy life with out valuable possessions. Things, they are just things. Things can be replaced, people cannot. I was just in love with the story Loot because of this idea that people put possessions above their lives. I hope that one day society can realise that monetary substances are not the most important thing to have. Life is.

Loot --Kgifford, Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:09:00 -0400 reply
Thank goodness the power was only off for a little while at home. It came on just in time for me to write this for class today.

I really liked this book. From the first story on I was caught up in the plot and the details of the book. I really fell into Mission Statement. It pulled me into the story as if I were there myself. I could see the poor skinny children with their bellies sticking out and the untamed, mine-filled lands surrounding the African’s homes. The feeling of the political atmosphere surrounded me. Nadine Gordimer writes a great collection of short stories with a variety of lengths.

The set up of the books stories made the book more appealing. The variation of the story lengths made the book much easier to read. It also made it a relief because we go from a long drawn out short story it a very short one. We go from a story that is over sixty pages to one that is four. It made the focus of each story easier to follow because there were breaks of short easy stories between the long complicated ones.

I liked this text so much more than After the Quake. The stories had points to them and they seemed to fit together much better than After the Quake. Each of these stories had some point or another to them while After the Quake barely made sense to me, let alone the stories fitting together in some easily understandable way.

I like the story about Lucie it immediately drew me in with the first lines. “My name’s Lucie—no, not with a ‘y’. I’ve been correcting that all my life” (page 97). I can relate to this because my name is Kristy with a ‘y’ not an ‘ie’ and I have been correcting people my whole life. When people mess up your name they prove that don’t really know who you are. It gets tiring correcting people all the time. I have just stopped telling people I go by Kristy instead of Kristina.

I think my favorite story was Mission statement because there is so much detail in the story. I love reading stories that make me feel like I am in them. This one did this very well. I felt the heat of the African weather and the fear of the land mine killing my family and friends. I could see the stiff suits on the official and the feeling of just being a background piece that no one thinks twice about once she is out of their site. Nadine Gordimer is a very skilled writer and I think, worthy of the Nobel Prize in literature.

Autumn Means --ameans, Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:57:49 -0400 reply
There was one passage in Nadine Gordimer’s collection Loot and other stories that really caught my attention. In the short story Visiting George, the last paragraph and especially the last sentence (or fragment/thought) portrayed, for me, a very genuine feeling of uncertainty and the solace the narrator receives by writing down what she experiences. It almost seems as though the narrator experiences a situation that feels like a dream, like a fantasy, like something she imagined – and the only way for her to accept the experience as reality is to write about it. In order for the narrator to feel she has actually experienced something significant that feels unreal, she has to record it in something concrete, something she can refer to later on. The passage, on page 72, is: “If I dreamt this, while walking, walking in the London streets, the subconscious of each and every other life, past and present, brushing me in passing, what makes it real? Writing it down.” I think that this passage refers specifically to her previous visit to an old friend’s apartment, where she notices that “she” (I assume this is the friend’s wife) is not there and her personal touches that were once apparent in the apartment are gone (the flowers). Instead of directly asking her friend about his wife, the narrator starts making up excuses to herself to justify the woman’s absence. Maybe she’s out running errands and forgot the flowers and the husband, preoccupied with getting his fish and fruit and wine, also forgot to pick up the flowers. The narrator seems to just dismiss the woman’s absence as coincidence because the couple has been so perfect together that it was nearly impossible to envision them separately. Then, sometime later, the narrator finds herself in London again; she decides to go back to the apartment and visit her friend. When someone else answers the door, the narrator finds out that her friend has died. I think this story focuses on the human tendency to be very self-centered; people take friends and relationships for granted, and when they’re faced with harsh realities that these friendships can no longer exist or that relationships they’d always viewed as stable have obviously crumbled, people tend to almost deny reality. This can’t be happening; this couldn’t have happened. I think that the last passage in the story exhibits a sort of coping method; in order to accept what has happened and move on, the narrator must write down what has happened. In order to feel as though she had connections with these people, she has to put those connections into words – organize her thoughts on paper. Not only does this concept of “What makes it real? Writing it down” apply to this particular story. I almost view this brief assumption as Nadine Gordimer’s philosophy. Each of the short stories deals with a very specific and quite personal issue that isn’t quite understood by those experiencing it. I think that, as writer, Nadine Gordimer is trying to say that writing these issues down, making them into solid, external entities separate from internal emotion and thought allows the characters to cope with their issues. By getting things out in the open, it is possible to have a more realistic view of situations and be able to talk to other people about it – rather than keeping everything bottled up inside.

Jenna Froess --jfroess, Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:17:51 -0400 reply
I saw some similarities and some differences between Loot and After the Quake. I like that they are both short story novels because I feel the changing of characters and settings keeps my interest longer. I feel this book, though, was a little harder to follow than after the quake. The first thing I thought of when I was reading it was the style of writing reminds me of Pattern Recognition. The author would frequently write one and two word sentences followed with a period, so it kind of brought me back to Pattern Recognition because I had to teach myself to get past that and follow the book. I really liked the story, Loot. It gave the book a good start of stories to come. The one thing that was very creative by the author was how instead of having the earthquakle flood the land it had a reverse effect and kind of sent the ocean backwards revealing all of these things on the ocean floor. Lately, in the news, all we have seen is flooding from natural disasters so this was an interesting scenario to compare to real life. If this same thing had happend in Katrina or Wilma, would the people we see crying on TV really be running around digging amongst the ruins of the ocean floor and forget about everything they just lost? It is interesting to think about how much greed could pre-occupy the mind like that if given the opportunity. The end of the story is kind of bugging me and I'm still trying to figure it out. Hopefully we'll cover it in class today. Why was a mirror what the man was looking for? And then why did he let himself get swept away in the ocean? I dont understand the significance of the mirror. One common theme in most of these stories and most of the books we have read this semester such as Persepolis, Pattern Rercognition, Loot, etc. is that they all take place in different countries. As i recognized that i thought a part of me likes that because you learn things about cultures along the way, but it also makes it hard to really understand the place and time because you can't relate to it. In LUCIE, the story took place in England (another foreign country) but I liked how the author described the way of life over there. I could kind of get a picture of England in my head when he was describing it. Another thing that is still bothering me, though, is the cemetary at the end. When they are describing the tombstones and these glass coffins or whatever they are the dead are being put in and how you can smell them. I'm trying to picture these caskets and waht they really look like, and if people in England really do that. One theme in many of these stories is death. In the first story, Loot, many people and the old man die by the earthquake and were swept away by the ocean, and in LUCIE the girls mother had died and they talked about her dead grandmother and great grandmother and in most of the other stories someone had died. In visiting George she went to visit her old friend only to find out he had died a few years ago. This kind of reminded me of After the Quake because I feel like death plays a strong role in this book. Why is death such a strong underlying theme in this book? Maybe the author is coping with a death herself by writing about it? I just thought it was interesting that this book had some underlying themes just like after the quake did.

The Diamond Mine --lgilkeso, Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:06:17 -0400 reply
The story, “The Diamond Mine”, is definitely something worthy of discussion. As I was reading this particular story, I got the feeling that the whole story an illusion. In the beginning of the story, it all seems so innocent. Simply put, the story from the beginning seems like a schoolgirl with a juvenile crush on a man in uniform that has begun to be very close to their family. We are told that the boy is eight years older than the girl. And that the girl is sixteen years old, making the boy 24 years old. Sixteen is a very crucial age for girls and this story blurs the lines of reality and fantasy in an attempt to highlight the extent of the confusion the girl faces. For some reason, I really feel that parts of the story were Tilla’s imagination running wild. Sure it is possible that the two of them went to the movies on a regular basis and spent nights together walking to and from the movies, walks that I’m sure became very special to both of them. It’s even possible that the two of them held hands and kissed and all that jazz. But the rest of the story seems a bit surreal to me. The part in the story that really drove home the idea of imagination is the first paragraph on the top of page 132. This paragraph says “She has no clear idea of where his hand is now, what she feels is that they are kissing, they are in each other’s mouths although they cannot look to one another”. To me this shows the illusion of the whole story. It’s obvious that Tilla wants to be kissing this boy, the boy she simply calls Him, but it is also obvious that they are not kissing. In the same sentence we are told that they are kissing, but that they aren’t at the same time. Physically they are not kissing, but emotionally she feels as though she is or should be kissing Him. The next part that makes me think that this is all an imagination is the very last part. I am referring partially to the part where the mother has to urge the girl to so much as say goodbye to the boy, but more so to the last full paragraph. In this part the girl says that he’ll lose sight of her, but that she’ll see him forever. This implies that the “relationship” is truly a figment of imagination and the relationship exists only in Tilla’s mind.

loot --scole, Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:38:51 -0400 reply
One thing that really interested me about the book was the title Loot. The book is a two bundred plus page book and the first story which the book is titled after is only four pages. This makes me think that this story is a very imprtant one that may have something to do with the others or relate with the others but in this story the message is more clear. In the story there is a earthquake "the most powerful ever recorded" and all the people run from there homes up into the mountains expecting there to be massive flooding but instead the ocean went away and all that was left was the treasures of the sea. To me this is like you think about the worst possible outcome of a situation and you act according to that idea but instead you get the best possible outcome. One line interested me alot "It is given that time does not, never did exist down here, where the materiality of the past an the present as they lie has no chronological order, all is one, all is nothing-or all is possessible at once" it makes you think as the sea not having the same laws the rest of the earth like there is no time, makes think about how the sea is such a mystery. Then the people who had just lost all the houses and there possesions completely forgot about those things, and in there greed they run to the sea and start taking anyhting that they think is valuable."it was robbing the power of nature that they had just fled" There is also a old rich man that is looking through the treasures but he does not take anyhting. he finds a mirror that he really likes and while everyone else died in greed he died having found something he truely liked.

JBradley?~LOOT --jbradley, Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:40:52 -0400 reply
Gordimer’s introduction to “Loot” with an earthquake was interesting… it explicitly defined the books title, loot (to steal) which gave me an explicit set up to the rest of the books stories. I just didn’t understand the importance or significance of the mirror, the only thing the man wanted or looted. Although, I thought the statement on page 4, “…it was robbing the power of nature before which they had fled helpless” correlates with the preceding short story “Mission Statement.” As I was reading, I found that this particular short story recognizes the small events and evolving ideas that are currently occurring during our era of history. The little things I noticed all have to do with, not the power of materialistic objects, but literally the power of nature. For instance in “Mission Statement,” I think history is found repeating itself along with introducing new ideas which frame our current era. Interesting statement I thought about on page 32 in relation to the stories, “Something incurable in the nature of human life itself. Taking many forms of which this was the latest, arising, returning endless eras and guises- disease, wars, racism. That’s how people come to believe- in the existence of God and the Devil (both capitalized).” I think history is controlled by the naturally evolution of humans; continually adapting to new roles and gender descriptions, such as the emphasis of the “bachelor woman” who has a formal title in a large agency/ corporation. This demonstrates how woman have taken a larger role in careers and in households which in the past have been considered male dominate roles; also statistics have shown that woman have been wedded and had children later in life. I think two examples of nature robbing the power of humans in this short story is the phenomenal AIDS virus and Gladwell and Roberta’s affair (the natural attraction between males and females). In these cases nature is robbing humans through an incurable disease and the affair explained in the book on page 65 “an orgasm stolen from past betrayal of all that makes up human feeling between people.” Maybe we do “steel” feelings from one another including the love and the relationship people have between each other. I think this story demonstrates the power of nature “looting” the lives of humans emotionally and physically. The ending of the affair was surprising and the assumed marriage of having two wives seemed a little strange and awkward. After I read the “Generation Gap” short story I understood how the mirror image from the introduction of the book was incorporated with the book. “Death is a blank mirror emptied of all it has seen and shown,” but in this case death is an ending of life which can not be seen after death, but in connection with a mirror, emptied, with nothing else to show or be seen. Overall, some of these stories were hard to understand at first, a lot of hidden messages and concepts to grasp. I also noticed in particularly with “Mission Statement” how emotional Gordimer’s writing style is and makes the text more understandable.

will good --wgood, Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:45:12 -0400 reply
I found this author's writings hard to understand. I didnt understand any type of plot or moral to any of the stories i read. The entire book is supposed to be about how people deal with or handle life after a major tragedy. I see how that fits into the theme of this course. People clearly had to deal with a huge tragedy after 9/11. Also it is some what similair to the recent tragedy of hurricane Katrina. There have been several earthquakes and mudslides in Asia recently which this book made me think of. The first story loot is directly related to the natural disaster tragedies. The story is about the title "Loot". After an earthquake ruins peoples lives, there are people running around picking up other peoples things, the definition of looting. As wrong as it seems, there were people doing the same thing after hurricane Katrina. In the story it seemed to me the author was describing the man as sort of sad. The author said he wass picking up random things he didnt even need. It described the way people take things in everyday life also. How a person has things the really want and always use, and how people have things the got but really dont use. They used this to describe the looter. He was running around grabbing what he could cause the object caught his eye and it was availabe. The story "Visiting George" seemed to be about people dealing with a different tragedy. From what i gathered from the writing, the character had lost some one. This story is why i complained about the writing earlier. I like a story that gets right to the point, this one is not written solidly and i find it had to read. However the point behind it is good. Other than some ones life being ruined by an earthquake, it could be ruined by the loss of something. Some one could die in your life and it would be hard to coup.

Jennings (Jay) Lyons --jlyons5, Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:55:25 -0400 reply
I personally was intrigued by the story “Look-Alikes” in Loot by Nadine Gordimer. “Look Alikes” sets up a plot on a university campus of homeless people everywhere, participating in begging, fights, drug use, and sex adventures like prostitution. The story goes on and on about how scandalous all these hobos and loafs are being, and how they interact with the university students and professors. I like how the story sets up slow, and leaves the reader wondering what is this getting too. A bit faster the story gets to more controversy by adding students getting mixed up the bums by participating in they’re the bum’s drug uses and fights. Then the story progresses more by involving the faculty and administration getting tangled up with the homeless and partaking in sex acts that are considered to be rubbish. All which leads to a great conclusion of all the rubbish magically disappearing without a trace. “From under the bushes and behind the grandstands they had gone, or someone had found a way to get rid of them overnight. But they are always with us. Just somewhere else.” (119). I really like how the last sentence in this short story ties every detail on the previous ten pages together. The sentence implies that all the chaos caused by scandalous acts are always present in every person from the Vice-Chancellor down to the everyday bum, but the rubbish is a masqueraded so we can all live our lives.

I really like writing style of Gordimer’s short stories. I found all that stories that I read pretty easy to read except for “Mission Statement” because my power was for the last two days (and still might be out now) and I was trying to read it by an alternate lighting source of a lantern. It was tough, I was really cold. I had a hard time concentration on the longer story in a time like that. I liked how Gordimer’s word choice wasn’t too difficult to comprehend, which made my reading flow successfully.

“Look-Alikes” conclusion says that the looting like hobos and loafs is in us all but isn’t expressed on everyday occasions. This relates to the title story “Loot”, where everyday people behaved like bums and took that act of looting because of crises they were in. So “Loot” displays a confirmatory message to “Look-Alikes”.

jamie green --jamieallison, Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:56:51 -0400 reply
For some reason I did not really enjoy this book. I do not know if it is maybe that I just do not like reading short story novels, or maybe it was her style of writing. As I read “Loot and Other Stories” by Gordimer I found myself constantly going back and rereading what I had just read because things were too jumpy and I did not think that her style of writing would flow very well. The story which I want to focus on is “L,U,C,I,E.” I read this story and then felt that I did not get a lot out of it and then I went back and reread it. I don’t know exactly how I feel about this story. Gordimer starts off the story by saying that she knows exactly who she is. She feels that everyone knows who they are. But I think to know who you are can have many different meanings. She describes it first as being physical characteristics. Now, I know that technically your physical traits are what make you, you. They are what make us look different from everyone else, but that does not make up who you are as a person. She at first makes it seem that the way someone is physically is who they are and I totally disagreed with this. She also talks about her name and the spelling of it and its origin and that making her who she is. But again I do not think that our name is what makes us, us. We do not even get to pick our name and people are constantly changing names and often a woman’s last name changes when she gets married. I just do not think that a name has anything to do with who someone is. I am not sure if that is what she was trying to say but I got the feeling that she felt that someone’s name was part of what made them who they were. I do not agree with this. At the end of the story, Gordimer has visited the site of relative’s graves. She is with her father and this is just after the passing of her mother and they are at the graveyard and she sees the plot of the woman that she had been named after, her father’s grandmother. She talks about her great grandmother a little and what she was like and her life and her name. The whole time I did not really understand what this had to do with Gordimer and who she really was as a person. Maybe I took this the wrong way and this is not what she was trying to say, but that is how I took it. She makes it seem as if a person’s name has anything to do with them as a person. She ends by saying that she knows where her name came from now, I guess it is nice to know that but I don’t think that it had anything to do with her.

jamie green --jamieallison, Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:56:55 -0400 reply
For some reason I did not really enjoy this book. I do not know if it is maybe that I just do not like reading short story novels, or maybe it was her style of writing. As I read “Loot and Other Stories” by Gordimer I found myself constantly going back and rereading what I had just read because things were too jumpy and I did not think that her style of writing would flow very well. The story which I want to focus on is “L,U,C,I,E.” I read this story and then felt that I did not get a lot out of it and then I went back and reread it. I don’t know exactly how I feel about this story. Gordimer starts off the story by saying that she knows exactly who she is. She feels that everyone knows who they are. But I think to know who you are can have many different meanings. She describes it first as being physical characteristics. Now, I know that technically your physical traits are what make you, you. They are what make us look different from everyone else, but that does not make up who you are as a person. She at first makes it seem that the way someone is physically is who they are and I totally disagreed with this. She also talks about her name and the spelling of it and its origin and that making her who she is. But again I do not think that our name is what makes us, us. We do not even get to pick our name and people are constantly changing names and often a woman’s last name changes when she gets married. I just do not think that a name has anything to do with who someone is. I am not sure if that is what she was trying to say but I got the feeling that she felt that someone’s name was part of what made them who they were. I do not agree with this. At the end of the story, Gordimer has visited the site of relative’s graves. She is with her father and this is just after the passing of her mother and they are at the graveyard and she sees the plot of the woman that she had been named after, her father’s grandmother. She talks about her great grandmother a little and what she was like and her life and her name. The whole time I did not really understand what this had to do with Gordimer and who she really was as a person. Maybe I took this the wrong way and this is not what she was trying to say, but that is how I took it. She makes it seem as if a person’s name has anything to do with them as a person. She ends by saying that she knows where her name came from now, I guess it is nice to know that but I don’t think that it had anything to do with her.

Christopher Glover: Loot --cglover, Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:13:45 -0400 reply
I found this book to be interesting with the way the writing style seems to change between each story. An example of this can be seen in the title story Loot. Throughout this story, it feels as though the writer is directly telling the reader a story. A specific example would be when Gordimer begins the second part of the story on pg. 4. She states, “But the writer knows something no-one else knows; the sea-change of imagination. Now listen,…” This gives the reader the preconceived notion that the writer is directly speaking to them, which seems to make for a more interesting writing style. Yet, in Mission Statement, there seems to be a fine line with disassociates the writer from the characters themselves, as well as the characters being disassociated from themselves. An example would be on pg. 52, when the main character is referred to as “the bachelor woman.” Why doesn’t the writer refer to her as Roberta, or as simply “her” or “she?” This style, in conjunction with the use of short, choppy sentences leaves the reader feeling like an outsider, as someone who is not supposed to be directly connected to the story, seeing as the main character and the writer both seem to be disconnected from the story.

Another aspect of Mission Statement I found to be interesting lies within the proposal to Roberta to be Gladwell’s second wife. I found this interesting because of the issues of forgiveness throughout the story. Roberta relates a story to Gladwell about her grandfather who owned a mine in the area, and use to make light of the fact that he would send his slave to the liquor store every week for a case of whiskey. The store was 50 miles away, and the slave would leave every Monday and return on Friday balancing the case of whiskey on his head. Roberta practically begs Gladwell for forgiveness because she feels personally connected to the wrongdoings that the English colonizers had placed upon the indigenous people of that area. He seems to have no problem forgiving her because it was not her own action, and because it was just the trend of the time and of her ancestors. Yet, Roberta does not seem to forgive Gladwell for his marriage proposal, even though this was just a custom of his people. Instead of forgiving him and/or accepting his offer, she just runs back to London or New York in order to escape the confrontation. I found this to be a disheartening reflection of Western civilization not accepting the practices and beliefs of third world countries.

Finally, I really enjoyed the ambiguity of Loot. I found that the discovery of the mirror by the main character was more a reflection of his self realization at the moment instead of a reflection of materialistic desire. Yet, this can be taken a number of ways. This also seems to be a reflection of the writer and her experiences through storytelling, since the mirror can represent a reflection of her life. I just really enjoy how this story can be taken a number of ways, and each reader is left with their own impression at the end of the story.

Amanda Goddard --agoddard, Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:40:21 -0400 reply
LOOT

Amanda Goddard-LOOT --agoddard, Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:07:33 -0400 reply
First off, I want to thank you very much for all of your help in getting me back on the WIKI, i'm usually pretty good with computers, so i'm very sorry for all of the hassle. With that being said. I think this is my least favorite book, this might possibly be a trend with me, because I really didn't enjoy Barry Lopez's Resistance much either, so maybe i don't like short stories all that much. I liked After the quake, because i enjoyed the way the author wrote, and this seems to be my biggest problem with Loot. The first story, Loot, i understood, but had to re-read passages constantly because the author would go off on little tangents, almost like she is thinking a mile a minute, and she can't get the thoughts on the page fast enough. If you try to read them out loud, you have to stop for a breath mid sentence, because the sentences go on and on. Murakami made us think, we had to do a lot of work to interpret the stories. We had to think of potential endings, because for the most part there weren't any. With Loot, I understand she wants us to piece things together, to have our own interpretations, but I don't think that she is giving us enough to go off of. I could barely follow the plot in "Mission Statement", and to be honest I fell asleep reading it on two different occasions. Yes, "Mission Statement" does have short little sentences to make us think, but at the same time, she goes on and on with the description of things, for instance on page 9, when Roberta is somewhat telling us about her life, giving us a synopsis of her, but almost in the third person she says "There were no children as a reminder of the marriage; only the tragic-eyed swollen-bellied ones of the horde waiting, here, there, for succour through the bureaucratic processes she served." This sentence, is in the second paragraph of this particular story. Usually in the second paragraph the author is "setting the scene," trying to pull you in, or intrest you to keep reading. I had to re-read that sentence a couple of times to understand what she was trying to say. She said she had no children, and that her failed marriage mocks that fact, but then she say's "only the tragic-eyed swollen-bellied ones of the horde waiting here, there..." This makes me think that shes talking about the children with AIDS, in Africa, that she is there to help, but she hasn't even told the reader about them yet, or the details of her assignment in Africa. I'm not trying to completely bash the book, I understand how pretigious the author is, thats one reason why i'm so baffled that I really didn't like the book. I understand that everyone interprets stories in their own way, I just hope that I enjoy the next stories a lot more than the previous ones. I am very excited to start our next novel though, because i'm am from American Indian cultures, and i think that it will be nice to read a little bit about it.

Katie Amos - Loot --kamos, Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:03:17 -0400 reply
Out of all of the stories in Loot by Nadine Gordimer, I found L,U,C,I,E to be the most accessible in terms of understanding, and the most interesting in terms of content. Don’t get me wrong, though, because I also feel there is much to be said about the other stories, such as Loot and Mission Statement, but the ideas I saw expressed in L,U,C,I,E were things I often think about but have never been able to put into words.

In the beginning of the story, Lucie is insistent that people spell her name correctly, with the “I, E” instead of a “Y”, which she says, on page 97, “has nothing to do with identity. The so-called search for identity bores me.” Yet as she explores the place where her father was born and spent some of his childhood, she begins to open up and almost yearn for connection to it. When they go to the cemetery and Lucie sees the face of the woman she was named for, and they smell the stench of death, it makes her name and her identity something more. Just as the story Loot uses disassociation and ambiguity, L,U,C,I,E shows how differently we see ourselves and others when that ambiguity is erased. Due to the fact that Lucie can put a face and a story with her name, it means more to her than ever and gives her a new sense of who she is.

I feel as though the last paragraph or so of L,U,C,I,E was very significant, especially after learning today of the things that Gordimer may have been going through at the time she wrote the story. On page 105, the character Lucie expresses, “So it wasn’t the secrets of the rotting past, Lucie’s secrets, it was the secret of the present, always present; the present was as much there, in the walled place of the dead […]?” as it was in the places where people live life to the fullest. She also says, on page 106, “Now, when I write my name, that is what I understand by it.” If Nadine Gordimer’s intent in writing this book was to create something that a reader would have to go back through several times, she accomplished just what she set out to do, because I read this story over and over. Each time I read that last paragraph I discover something new about what she is trying to express. Overall I feel that the character Lucy, as well as the author of the book, needed an experience to show them that although death is inevitable, it shouldn’t make you afraid to live. Also, I think that the story shows that as long as our loved ones are kept alive in our memories, they never really die. I also think it is interesting that Gordimer seems to be saying that even if we never meet our deceased relatives, they still play a part in who we are. Even if we are simply named after someone, that name holds more importance and more life than we are ever able to comprehend.

Loot-Casey Tominack --ctominac, Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:56:23 -0400 reply
During the class presentation for today, Paul brought up the fact that this book could be related to Chinua Achene’s “Things Fall Apart,” and used the quote, “Okonkwo was clearly cut out for great things. He was still young but he had won fame as the greatest wrestler in the nine villages. He was a wealthy farmer and had two barns full of yams, and had just married his third wife” as an example. This can be further linked to the story “Mission Statement.” On page 61 there is a discussion about divorce and wives occurring and the man states, “Roberta, you will also be my wife. You respect her, I know. She will respect you. It is quite usual in our society. Legal. Always been…”

Like any cultural differences, it is difficult to evaluate exactly how we feel about the issue. For example, I do not agree with polygamy basically because it is not the norm in America; however, has been a prerogative in many societies elsewhere in the world. I once worked with a lady from a different country and she left her husband because of his desire to find an “additional” wife. She was aware of the fact that she broke away from the norm by leaving her husband. It was interesting to learn that in most societies, like African societies today, the most honorable outlet is to allow polygamous marriage as a culturally accepted and socially respected institution. The point that is often misunderstood in the West is that women in other cultures do not necessarily look at polygamy as a sign of women's degradation. For example, many young African brides would prefer to marry a married man who has already proved himself to be a responsible husband. Many wives even urge their husbands to get a second wife so that they do not feel lonely. Quite frankly, most American women would be appalled by this male behavior, and in nearly all cases, would not allow it.

This is just an illustration of how we perceive ideas differently depending on which country we live in and what our cultural values are. It seems absurd for men to have multiple wives in America, but they take pride in it in other societies. But, also the Achene quote proves what certain cultures place value upon. In America, a person’s success is most likely judged by the amount of money he or she makes, their careers, etc.; however, in Okonkwo’s culture, the fact that he was the greatest wrestler out of nine villages, a wealthy farmer with two barns of yams, and, of course, a man with three wives made him a hero. The bottom line is the fact that we cannot be too judgmental about cultural practices and beliefs other than our own. They are probably analyzing our practices in the meantime, wondering why men are condemned for even considering more than one wife.

Loot-Casey Tominack --ctominac, Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:57:20 -0400 reply
During the class presentation for today, Paul brought up the fact that this book could be related to Chinua Achene’s “Things Fall Apart,” and used the quote, “Okonkwo was clearly cut out for great things. He was still young but he had won fame as the greatest wrestler in the nine villages. He was a wealthy farmer and had two barns full of yams, and had just married his third wife” as an example. This can be further linked to the story “Mission Statement.” On page 61 there is a discussion about divorce and wives occurring and the man states, “Roberta, you will also be my wife. You respect her, I know. She will respect you. It is quite usual in our society. Legal. Always been…”

Like any cultural differences, it is difficult to evaluate exactly how we feel about the issue. For example, I do not agree with polygamy basically because it is not the norm in America; however, has been a prerogative in many societies elsewhere in the world. I once worked with a lady from a different country and she left her husband because of his desire to find an “additional” wife. She was aware of the fact that she broke away from the norm by leaving her husband. It was interesting to learn that in most societies, like African societies today, the most honorable outlet is to allow polygamous marriage as a culturally accepted and socially respected institution. The point that is often misunderstood in the West is that women in other cultures do not necessarily look at polygamy as a sign of women's degradation. For example, many young African brides would prefer to marry a married man who has already proved himself to be a responsible husband. Many wives even urge their husbands to get a second wife so that they do not feel lonely. Quite frankly, most American women would be appalled by this male behavior, and in nearly all cases, would not allow it.

This is just an illustration of how we perceive ideas differently depending on which country we live in and what our cultural values are. It seems absurd for men to have multiple wives in America, but they take pride in it in other societies. But, also the Achene quote proves what certain cultures place value upon. In America, a person’s success is most likely judged by the amount of money he or she makes, their careers, etc.; however, in Okonkwo’s culture, the fact that he was the greatest wrestler out of nine villages, a wealthy farmer with two barns of yams, and, of course, a man with three wives made him a hero. The bottom line is the fact that we cannot be too judgmental about cultural practices and beliefs other than our own. They are probably analyzing our practices in the meantime, wondering why men are condemned for even considering more than one wife.

sarah haas --shaas1, Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:38:44 -0500 reply
Loot is a book that I did not like very much as a whole. Im not sure exactly why, maybe because I read it at a time when I was so busy with other things, but it seemed to drag on and on and not keep my interest. As far as Earthquake books go, I liked AFTER THE QUAKE better. Loot and Mission Statement were the two short stories that I found the hardest to read. Gordimer’s style of writing was difficult for me. Sometimes I didn’t know exactly what she was trying to say. For example, “I’m sorry no cup, glass-” . It is hard to understand what exactly she is trying to say and how she is trying to say it. It is also hard to tell who is saying what and distinguish conversation. I found myself having to read and re read and re read… One line on the first page struck me as very interesting, before I had even really gotten into the book. “The saliva of the sea glistened upon these objects; it is given that time does not, never did, exist down here where the materiality of the past and the present as they lie has no chronological order, all is one, all is nothing- or all is possessible at once. The part that really got me thinking is the last phrase… ‘all is one, all is nothing- or all is possessible at once’ when dealing with time as being existent or non-existent. It makes me question how time has all come together as one during the Earthquake, or any other tragic event. Life seems to speed up and slow down all at the same time. Making time for things that once seemed important is now not a priority because we devote all our attention to the tragedy. The days fly by but drag on. In some sense, that time is still stopped in the memories of the people whose lives were directly affected by the Earthquake each time they reflect on it, which could be every single day. I think that small phrase at the beginning of the book is very powerful and leads to deep thinking.

sarah haas --shaas1, Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:39:22 -0500 reply
Loot is a book that I did not like very much as a whole. Im not sure exactly why, maybe because I read it at a time when I was so busy with other things, but it seemed to drag on and on and not keep my interest. As far as Earthquake books go, I liked AFTER THE QUAKE better. Loot and Mission Statement were the two short stories that I found the hardest to read. Gordimer’s style of writing was difficult for me. Sometimes I didn’t know exactly what she was trying to say. For example, “I’m sorry no cup, glass-” . It is hard to understand what exactly she is trying to say and how she is trying to say it. It is also hard to tell who is saying what and distinguish conversation. I found myself having to read and re read and re read… One line on the first page struck me as very interesting, before I had even really gotten into the book. “The saliva of the sea glistened upon these objects; it is given that time does not, never did, exist down here where the materiality of the past and the present as they lie has no chronological order, all is one, all is nothing- or all is possessible at once. The part that really got me thinking is the last phrase… ‘all is one, all is nothing- or all is possessible at once’ when dealing with time as being existent or non-existent. It makes me question how time has all come together as one during the Earthquake, or any other tragic event. Life seems to speed up and slow down all at the same time. Making time for things that once seemed important is now not a priority because we devote all our attention to the tragedy. The days fly by but drag on. In some sense, that time is still stopped in the memories of the people whose lives were directly affected by the Earthquake each time they reflect on it, which could be every single day. I think that small phrase at the beginning of the book is very powerful and leads to deep thinking.

Diamond Mine, word. --mscott, Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:02:20 -0500 reply
Diamond Mine was my favorite short story in Loot. Although there wasn’t a ton of things going on in the story—it did a fabulous job of capturing my attention. In class, we discussed the idea of politics, voice, and sexuality. I think Diamond Mine is most certainly one of the most obvious sections of the book that brings these elements together. Basically, Diamond Mine is a short “coming of age” story—and like so many other young women, Tilla came of age in the backseat of a car. Her experience in said car was with a soldier. Her family was entertaining the soldier out of a sense of patriotic duty. Obviously, the soldier would not have been there if there was not a war—which is most certainly political. In both the beginning and the end, Tilla seems to be talking to the reader—inquiring if the reader is “him”. The story mentions that the soldier would be old, so it is obviously a memory—or recollection of what appears to be her first sexual experience. The idea that something as huge as a war could so heavily impact something as common as a young girl’s sexual encounters is remarkable. I’m sure such things happen often; however, I’ve never thought about it. I have always been very aware that politics and war have an incredibly powerful influence on most aspects of the world. I believe by relating the soldier and her first sexual encounter reveals how far the impact of war reaches. Her sex life seems so insignificant when compared with a war; however, they are very much connected. In the end, duty takes him away. She says she would have known if he died. So, in a way, the story reflects how war takes things away. Although teenage romances most often end—war is not usually the culprit. So, politics brought her the young boy—then took him away. Politics and sexuality are certainly connected in Diamond Mine. A huge war impacts Tilla’s sexuality. I think most girls are not expecting their first sexual encounter to occur via warfare. However, when you consider the far-reaching impact of war, it is not a surprise. Under the wooly rug, Tilla grew up—thanks to some strange political decision that brought a soldier to her house. And it seems as though she is still lamenting the loss of the boy—or the loss of her youth. Politics and war often are the culprits who take youth from the young.

Diamond Mine, word. --mscott, Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:02:44 -0500 reply
Diamond Mine was my favorite short story in Loot. Although there wasn’t a ton of things going on in the story—it did a fabulous job of capturing my attention. In class, we discussed the idea of politics, voice, and sexuality. I think Diamond Mine is most certainly one of the most obvious sections of the book that brings these elements together. Basically, Diamond Mine is a short “coming of age” story—and like so many other young women, Tilla came of age in the backseat of a car. Her experience in said car was with a soldier. Her family was entertaining the soldier out of a sense of patriotic duty. Obviously, the soldier would not have been there if there was not a war—which is most certainly political. In both the beginning and the end, Tilla seems to be talking to the reader—inquiring if the reader is “him”. The story mentions that the soldier would be old, so it is obviously a memory—or recollection of what appears to be her first sexual experience. The idea that something as huge as a war could so heavily impact something as common as a young girl’s sexual encounters is remarkable. I’m sure such things happen often; however, I’ve never thought about it. I have always been very aware that politics and war have an incredibly powerful influence on most aspects of the world. I believe by relating the soldier and her first sexual encounter reveals how far the impact of war reaches. Her sex life seems so insignificant when compared with a war; however, they are very much connected. In the end, duty takes him away. She says she would have known if he died. So, in a way, the story reflects how war takes things away. Although teenage romances most often end—war is not usually the culprit. So, politics brought her the young boy—then took him away. Politics and sexuality are certainly connected in Diamond Mine. A huge war impacts Tilla’s sexuality. I think most girls are not expecting their first sexual encounter to occur via warfare. However, when you consider the far-reaching impact of war, it is not a surprise. Under the wooly rug, Tilla grew up—thanks to some strange political decision that brought a soldier to her house. And it seems as though she is still lamenting the loss of the boy—or the loss of her youth. Politics and war often are the culprits who take youth from the young.

Brittany Peters --bpeters, Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:29:05 -0500 reply
While reading Loot by Nadine Gordimer, several of the stories struck a chord with me, not necessarily of personal experience, but of the general human experience. The one that rang loudest to me was “Look-Alikes”. In the story, homeless people begin to take up residence on the campus of a university, disrupting the lives of students and professors alike. The different organizations all believe something different and fight so much that nothing is done to try to get rid of these homeless or help them find another place to stay. Eventually, the professors begin to change, all due to the influence of the people living on the campus, and they start to hang out around their camp fires and drink their booze with them. I think this is where the title of the story, “Look-Alikes”, really comes in. At first, the students simply see people that could be Professor Heimrath, or might be Professor Jepson, but never say that it is them. In my opinion, the students put their professors on a pedestal and don’t think that any of them would stoop so low as to hang out with the “hobos” and “loafers” that had taken to hanging around the university campus. Some professors, such as the “closet alcoholic”, who made appearances in the drinking circles were unsurprising to the students. I think this is easily comparable to our views of our professors here. I can’t imagine any of my professors stopping to have a drink with the homeless man who sits on High Street asking for change. The point the author is trying to make is that anyone can be sucked into temptations, no matter how disgusting the person drawing them in is, but as humans, we can save ourselves from that realization by thinking it’s just someone who looks like them, but it isn’t them. In the story, no one knew what to say when Professor Jepson began staggering about without recognizing his students. He was a world-renowned nuclear physicist whom the student body trusted. Perhaps the drugged and drunken Professor Jepson was the look-alike referred to in the title, as the students were stumped by his appearance and demeanor.

Loving Loot --sbaldwin, Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:42:26 -0500 reply
Audrey: L.U.C.I.E. is a fascinating story and it's too bad we didn't get much chance to discuss it (all the stories in the book are fascinating). Notice how it situates writing as the medium between personal / bodily experience, on the one hand, and history on the other. Writing as a medium inscribed on a tombstone. There's a sense then that all writing is like a tombstone - literally, a surface of names for things that are no longer present, bodies that are dead and missing and that must (can only be) remembered. So, the dead are filed away in word and writing. The question of the smell is interesting there: she thinks it is for her, is the smell of her grandmother, but no it's the smell of the recently dead. What are we to make of this? Smell, perhaps, as an trace that we try to read personally (we take all texts and all history as in relation to us) but in fact a trace that means and is read culturally and in terms of a people's history.

BrieanneL? --sbaldwin, Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:51:29 -0500 reply
Brienna: I'm glad you liked these stories. I agree, there is a stripped down quality to the writing. It's minimal, though I don't feel that she misses things, do you? There's a kind of economy of naming and describing. Now, it is try that the stories are pretty diverse, but can we find ways they relate to eachother? Of course, simply by being put together, they end up relating. Certainly, they're all about South Africa or Africa in a post-colonial world, but that's perhaps too general. Notice, too, that the collection ends with the longest story (Karma), which itself ends not in Africa but in Italy. We could see some autobiographical turn here, if we know that Gordimer's family were Italian and Russian before being South African. We also see an opening of the book's concerns to the world outside Africa. Certainly there are common concerns across the stories, concerns with individual responsibility in a world of political complexity, concerns about love/sexuality as a commodity, concerns about history. But again, yes, these are pretty broad.

Breanne Alioto Response --sbaldwin, Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:02:01 -0500 reply
Breanne: I agree that the comparison between Murakami and Gordimer is difficult. It's not clear to me that one is "easier" than the other. Gordimer's writing is spare and yet descriptive; Murakami's is too, but in a different way. His is deceptively easy, hers is difficult but not elaborate. They resist us differently. Now, "Loot" certainly suggets looters, so there's the theme of violence, society out of control, disorder - all this following a natural disaster, though - like Murakami - Gordimer seems to take the disaster metaphorically to apply to the range of human actions as well, so a kind of cultural disaster. But what else can "loot" mean? It can also be the loot gained, pilfered by looting. Of course, there are all sorts of loot. In the Africa that these stories depict, the whites have lived off their loot, their exploitation of the native africans, who are now in power and themselves loot. And the story makes us as what writing/literature's role is in such a world. Does it help us find what to value among all the loot?

Loot --sbaldwin, Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:54:14 -0500 reply
Kristina: Yes, Mission Statement is really a great story. I think it captures the intersection of the personal and political - you feel how every action between the two of them is both things, always. It is interesting how she conveys detail. It's often small things that get repeated or come up later, suggesting a kind of thick and complex world. There's not extended explanation but precise - almost like Lucie about her name, a question of knowing the right spelling!

Autumn Means --sbaldwin, Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:02:16 -0500 reply
Autumn: Yes, a great passage to focus on! It's an amazing moment, this waking / walking dream. The role of writing records and makes real, puts into a lasting form, as it has in a number of the texts this semester. This is a pretty high claim for the role of writing. Against it, is the dream-like quality of existence. Now, what makes things dreamy, according to Gordimer? One way of thinking about it is the constant presence of the past, of history, of desire and missed opportunities, so that we're never all "here" but rather ghosted by these other things. The story exhibits this, with the different journeys and returns to the same place, with the physical setting overlaid by memories and expectations (and disappointments) about her friend.

LUCIE --cjoseph1, Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:20:17 -0500 reply
I think the most fascinating aspect of this story is the language that Gordimer uses. While typically I believe in the idea of not using 10 words to describe something where 2 would do, but there is a certain elegance and flow to Nadine's words. One of my favorite examples of this is on p.98 when Lucie hears gun fire from the Army firing range while standing next to her dad: "He didn't answer, a sudden volley of shooting did- stuttering back and forth from the hills in cracking echoes through the peace where my question drifted with the evaporating moisture of grass." As I said, I don't like excessive wordage, but that line is so beautifully written I had no choice but to admire Gordimer's choice of words. Another fascinating aspect of this story is how the dead are viewed. While Lucie and her dad are walking through the cemetery, the pictures on the tombs stick out to Lucie; "No face was old, sick or worn. Whenever it was they had died, here they consorted in the aspect they had had when your or vigurously mature." These are people that, as Lucie's dad has told her, lived through many revolutions; the collapse of the silkworm industry, foreign occupations, the coming of the local footwear and automobile factories. Yet these photos don't really encompass all this change; the pictures aren't of the deceased prior to dying when experience would line every wrinkle on their aging faces. Rather, it is a more romantic imagery of how the person once was. But then Gordimer goes on to explain the "unbearable fermentation of sweetness of life" that was flowing through the air. But this wasnt the sercrets of the rotting past, it was just the present smell of a localer who had been killed on a motorbike earlier that week. Because of this, "the present was as much there as it was where the young bloods tossed down their bright helmets in the bar, raced towards death, scattering admiring children in the church square." It's cool how while the pictures represent the past, these new young bodies that "raced towards death" represented the present void of the experience held by many of the deceased in the cemetery,

LUCIE --cjoseph1, Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:21:21 -0500 reply
I think the most fascinating aspect of this story is the language that Gordimer uses. While typically I believe in the idea of not using 10 words to describe something where 2 would do, but there is a certain elegance and flow to Nadine's words. One of my favorite examples of this is on p.98 when Lucie hears gun fire from the Army firing range while standing next to her dad: "He didn't answer, a sudden volley of shooting did- stuttering back and forth from the hills in cracking echoes through the peace where my question drifted with the evaporating moisture of grass." As I said, I don't like excessive wordage, but that line is so beautifully written I had no choice but to admire Gordimer's choice of words. Another fascinating aspect of this story is how the dead are viewed. While Lucie and her dad are walking through the cemetery, the pictures on the tombs stick out to Lucie; "No face was old, sick or worn. Whenever it was they had died, here they consorted in the aspect they had had when your or vigurously mature." These are people that, as Lucie's dad has told her, lived through many revolutions; the collapse of the silkworm industry, foreign occupations, the coming of the local footwear and automobile factories. Yet these photos don't really encompass all this change; the pictures aren't of the deceased prior to dying when experience would line every wrinkle on their aging faces. Rather, it is a more romantic imagery of how the person once was. But then Gordimer goes on to explain the "unbearable fermentation of sweetness of life" that was flowing through the air. But this wasnt the sercrets of the rotting past, it was just the present smell of a localer who had been killed on a motorbike earlier that week. Because of this, "the present was as much there as it was where the young bloods tossed down their bright helmets in the bar, raced towards death, scattering admiring children in the church square." It's cool how while the pictures represent the past, these new young bodies that "raced towards death" represented the present void of the experience held by many of the deceased in the cemetery,

LUCIE --cjoseph1, Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:21:27 -0500 reply
I think the most fascinating aspect of this story is the language that Gordimer uses. While typically I believe in the idea of not using 10 words to describe something where 2 would do, but there is a certain elegance and flow to Nadine's words. One of my favorite examples of this is on p.98 when Lucie hears gun fire from the Army firing range while standing next to her dad: "He didn't answer, a sudden volley of shooting did- stuttering back and forth from the hills in cracking echoes through the peace where my question drifted with the evaporating moisture of grass." As I said, I don't like excessive wordage, but that line is so beautifully written I had no choice but to admire Gordimer's choice of words. Another fascinating aspect of this story is how the dead are viewed. While Lucie and her dad are walking through the cemetery, the pictures on the tombs stick out to Lucie; "No face was old, sick or worn. Whenever it was they had died, here they consorted in the aspect they had had when your or vigurously mature." These are people that, as Lucie's dad has told her, lived through many revolutions; the collapse of the silkworm industry, foreign occupations, the coming of the local footwear and automobile factories. Yet these photos don't really encompass all this change; the pictures aren't of the deceased prior to dying when experience would line every wrinkle on their aging faces. Rather, it is a more romantic imagery of how the person once was. But then Gordimer goes on to explain the "unbearable fermentation of sweetness of life" that was flowing through the air. But this wasnt the sercrets of the rotting past, it was just the present smell of a localer who had been killed on a motorbike earlier that week. Because of this, "the present was as much there as it was where the young bloods tossed down their bright helmets in the bar, raced towards death, scattering admiring children in the church square." It's cool how while the pictures represent the past, these new young bodies that "raced towards death" represented the present void of the experience held by many of the deceased in the cemetery,

Jenna Froess --sbaldwin, Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:19:19 -0500 reply
Jenna: Yes, interesting to compare Murakami and Gordimer - both amazing and challenging short story writers, but quite different. I think that the stories in After the Quake did not offer traditional resolutions, but the characters' minds were relatively easy to slip into - we could understand what was happening and what was being thought from minute to minute, even if the overall story remained somewhat enigmatic. To some degree, I think Gordimer's stories are the opposite: the story is clear and the "movement" or flow is pretty familiar but there's difficulty at the sentence level. There's something about her language that shifts and resists, that refuses to stay put in one mind or consciousness. I appreciate you noticing the global character of the readings - I've tried to offer a range of writings from different cultures, to suggest specific concerns of those cultures but also "global" concerns. Note that LUCIE is occuring in Italy, not England. But otherwise I think you're right on with your observation. Gordimer seems to suggest that writing and memory go together, but also writing and death/loss. Both at once...

Toughest Indian..err Native American..whatever --mscott, Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:23:25 -0500 reply
The idea of the term “Indian” vs. “Native American” is very interesting. Throughout many of the stories the idea of the difference between the terms is discussed. The idea of “Indian” in the stories seems to be the more “genuine” of the two terms—at least through the eyes of the characters. (I’m already apologizing for my insane use of quotation marks). I believe the author renounces the distinction between the two terms. “Indian” in the story refers to the badass reservation born and raised kind of guy. “Native American” is almost an insult. This term is used to describe the more educated, sophisticated kinds who stray from the reservation. Having grown up in a small Southern town, I feel as though I can relate to the idea of the insult associated with education. The dynamics of a small town—close knit and impoverished—reminds me of the description of life on the reservation. Within the story, there is certainly as sense of “We’re in this together.” When someone chooses to leave the group—inevitably, the group is left feeling insulted. When the feeling member returns, they face the hostility that has developed from the group’s imagined inferiority Differences in dialect, dress, and even word usage, though simple, may be brutal insults to those unchanged. The distinction may between “Indian” and “Native American” is certainly a very spiteful one. However, this spite is not found only on the reservation. This sort of fear is found everywhere. When one chooses to leave behind the life in which others are perfectly satisfied, those left behind feels a though their lifestyles are being rejected. This idea brings refers to the discussion that the reservation is very much an extension of normal, reservation-free America. Therefore, the idea of “Indian” vs. “Native American” is not confined to the reservation. Although the terms are certainly different, the idea of leaving a small, confined community for something larger and possibly more cultured is found all over the world. I believe the author is trying to make this point. Certainly, he is not arguing in favor of “Indian” nor “Native American” as the appropriate stereotype.

The Diamond Mine --sbaldwin, Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:57:13 -0500 reply
Lauren: I know what you mean about the illusory or dreamlike quality of the story. Gordimer's use of indirect dialogue is really effective here; for me, we kind of float through the story, not quite sure what's in the mind, in the memory, or in reality. Now, I don't know if I read this as entirely a dream or illusion - perhaps so - but rather as emphasizing the potent mixture of desire and dream, but also of physical reality, that comes about in these moments: maturity, awakening sexuality, but also war, history; all this through the lens of memory - look at the first lines of the story. In some ways, this is about calling back through memory, seeking out this person... Looking at the lines you quote: there's a sense of bodily intermingling and loss of identity, which is both dream-like and I'd say quite real when it comes to intense physical experience - I think here of the role of sexuality and bodily experience in Gordimer, as something personal and unalienable.

loot --sbaldwin, Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:55:58 -0500 reply
Sam: Good point about the way the first story - the title story - hangs over the rest. Clearly it's quite different than the others - much more allegorical and suggestive. We're forced to wonder if it's in some way the "code" for others. But if so, what? If the focus of the story is this earthquake and the aftermath, what is the equivalent - what is the earthquake - in the other stories? Similarly, if the mirror is in some way the power of fiction and writing, it's power to explore and expose, then how is this played out in the individual stories?

JBradley?~LOOT --sbaldwin, Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:38:50 -0500 reply
Jessica: You're right of course, loot as a verb and as a noun, for what you steal or what you end up with - perhaps not what you want? I like the way you've taken the title word loot and thought about in relation to other stories, especially Mission Statement. There's they way we steal from each other - materially, emotionally; from other cultures and other times. There's also loot as what we're left with, the left overs of the past and of earlier people. So, I suppose loot always comes with a certain amount of guilt or at least baggage. I suppose this notion of the incurable in human nature is something like that - the remnants that we all inherit and can't ever get over, however modern we are, however much we become "bachelor women" and so on.

will good --sbaldwin, Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:53:18 -0500 reply
Will: I'm not sure I agree that the entire book is about people dealing with / handling life after a trajedy. Can we be sure - or at least, can we be sure it is directly about this? Partly, it's a question of the nature of the trajedy. I mean, can a trajedy be something less direct than a physical disaster? I appreciate what you're saying about getting right to the point. Can you imagine advantages of stories that don't do that, that take their time?

Jennings (Jay) Lyons --sbaldwin, Fri, 02 Dec 2005 09:59:10 -0500 reply
Jay: I'm glad you picked on this story to talk about, as there's certain clear connections with our university life. The story dramatizes the traumas caused by the homeless but also the way they come to mirror the "regular" people. We see how many groups try to make sense of the homeless - fit them into different categories of understanding. So, we can think about this in terms of the way we treat the homeless, underprivileged, and "different" in general in our own culture. To what degree is the normal/mainstream/etc. shadowed by its other? Also, I'm glad you like her style, of course. It's serious and direct, compact - it does a lot with a little.

jamie green --sbaldwin, Fri, 02 Dec 2005 11:19:54 -0500 reply
Jamie: I'm thinking of your response to LUCIE. You end by wondering what all this had to do with Gordimer as a person - are you saying this because you take the speaker in the story to be Gordimer herself? But is this so? I mean, surely its a fictional character speaking to us from the first? Though, perhaps a character with some aspects like Gordimer... Now, what is Gordimer trying to argue by claiming that names is important to who you are? Are there examples that help us think about this? Of course, we do feel names tie us to our past; you give the example of woman changing names when she gets married - surely this proves the importance of names to who we are? The change in name precisely shows her change in status? So, the social, public person is very much defined by the name. And, of course, fictional characters - or identity in writing in general - is precisely defined by names, by writing. Think of how much our identity is caught up in writing! Where would we be without our driver's license, for example, to "prove" who we are?