Thanks for indicating your midterm report preferences, Amanda (17th) and Markeem (24th). Everyone else, please indicate yours.
Here are some discussion questions on this week's reading. Feel free to respond to any of them, offer your own, or just share your own observations. Try to post at least three separate comments on the reading prior to each class. First: Questions JAN 27...
- In light of recent events in Middle Tennessee, and of what Frank says about giving god a bellylaugh, is it still wise to make plans for merely-possible contingencies in life? What is your philosophy of planning, as an individual and as a member of a community? 47
- What do you think of Frank's remarks about the days when Haddam wasn't so "skittish"? 48
- Have you "found yourself"? Still looking? How do you know when you've found it? 50
- Should we all aspire to a life of "achievement" or is it enough to be a "presence"? 51
- What do you imagine it would be like to survive your child by decades? How would you cope with the feeling of profound grief?
- Have you ever scattered a loved one's ashes, or requested that your survivors scatter yours? 53-5
- What does "giving life its full due" mean to you?
- Do you think there are particular things you need to do OR not do, to be happy? 56
- What do you think of what Frank says about Mike the Buddhist realty magnate making "a good Christian"? 58
- What do you think about Republicans "opening doors"? 61
- Howe would you feel if you ever received a call from your adult child like Frank's from Clarissa? 64-9
- Any thoughts on the medical profession? Do you agree with Frank? 70
- Thoughts on Frank's description of Trump? 72
- Does it matter, for the relevance of his philosophy, that Heidegger was affiliated with the Nazis? 73
- Does Frank's fantasy of flying to La Jolla indicate to you that there's something wrong with him? 74
- Is it mealy-mouthed to qualify statements with "I guess"? 76
- Should parents have specific life's goals for their children? 77
- Do aerial vistas provide important data? 80
- What does Frank mean by "randomness"? 82
- What does it mean to say that another world is in this one? 83
- Would Paul's airplane analogy bother you, if you were in his support group? 85
- Was Heidegger right about death? 87
[My own observation]: On page 64, when Frank sees a college football team de-boarding a plane at Marquette airport, he describes the players as “wide, lumbering, strangely-graceful galoots” and then points out that most (but not all) of them are Black.
ReplyDeleteI found this moderately offensive. All the words Ford used here—galoot, “a clumsy or oafish person” (oafish, meaning “rough or clumsy and unintelligent”); and lumbering, “moving in a slow, heavy, awkward way”—carry negative connotations. “Galoot,” specifically, brings to mind images of knuckle-dragging, unrefined cavemen or “sub-human” creatures like gorillas and chimpanzees. Considering the long and sordid history of Black people being compared to monkeys/apes as a way to characterize them as unsophisticated and unintelligent, this line came across, to me (a Black woman), as racist.
Normally, I might chalk something like this up to the author being unaware and making an error out of genuine and non-malicious ignorance. But considering Richard Ford’s less-than-stellar track record (He once spat on a Black author who gave a negative review of one of his books. Would he have reacted so violently if the reviewer had been white? He’s also admitted to using racial slurs against Black people in the past), I’m not so sure this is the case.
I want to be clear: I am not saying I think Richard Ford is a racist—at least, not an overt one. He probably (hopefully) doesn’t refer to Black people as n-words. He may even have a handful of Black acquaintances (or at least, doesn’t cross the street when he sees a Black man walking his way). HOWEVER! If you want people to think you’re not racist, describing Black athletes as “wide, lumbering, strangely-graceful galoots” doesn’t help your case.
I’m curious to know everyone else’s thoughts. How did you react when you read this part (or did you have any reaction at all)?
I found this section of the reading unsettling, and I struggled to separate the author from the character. However, there may be an intentional motive behind why this flaw is written into Frank’s character, perhaps to expose or critique a mindset associated with Paul and, more broadly, with certain older white male perspectives, although not all think this way.
DeleteI find myself wondering whether this aspect of Paul’s thinking will evolve over time or if it exists more subconsciously within him. Regardless, I think Richard Ford effectively exposes both the strengths and shortcomings of Frank and Paul, allowing readers to engage with their complexity rather than viewing them in simple terms.
This also raises important questions for me. Would excluding racist thought remove an essential part of the reality of men like Frank? Would doing so be an injustice to the authentic American experience?
Ford's reported 2004 altercation with Colson Whitehead is disturbing. I was already a fan of Ford's fiction when that happened, and still am; but I agree that there are legitimate questions about the relation between author and protagonist, and about whether Ford himself is an incompletely-reconstructed son of Mississippi. I will say, in his only-partial defense, that in an earlier Frank novel ("The Sportswriter") a white former football player is also characterized un-flatteringly. I think it's possible that his animus is directed more at athletes than at any other particular demographic.
Deletehttps://share.google/aimode/vpH7ZdfKASKCZajBI
That's an interesting take. I wonder if Richard Ford has a previous negative experience with athletes or while being one himself. This is a question I would have asked if I were at one of his events, such as the previous YouTube video you posted.
Delete1. I do believe we should make plans for our lives. However, those plans must be framed within God’s will. When we create plans that are self promoting, harmful to ourselves or others, and rooted only in human understanding, we are attempting to walk on water. My approach is to plan for what I can control and adapt to whatever unfolds beyond that.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if I plan to budget six hundred dollars a month for groceries, what happens when the store does not have the fish I normally buy, which makes up two of my five weekly meals, and the only option available is a more expensive brand? At that point, I either go over my grocery budget, put something else back, or shift money from another category, such as gas, to visit a different store.
Regardless, not having a budget at all would be reckless and would cripple my ability to give to others, which I believe is aligned with God’s will.
All due respect, but as a humanist I believe human understanding is the only kind to which we have ready access. I do agree that we must resist self-promotion, harm, etc. And we can, without divine intervention.
Delete10. I somewhat agree with what Frank said. However, I am not in the business of generalizing every republican or voter. From my perspective, many republican policies seem to open doors for the fortunate, such as billionaires, while rushing to close doors for those who are marginalized. The newer form of Republican politics, or at least those who support the president, appear comfortable praying on Sundays and reading from the Bible, but on Monday dressing as ICE agents and closing doors on families who may simply be trying to find a safe place to raise their children, which contradicts God’s word.
ReplyDeleteI do respectfully understand that not everyone is the same. Still, I find myself asking how we ended up in the business of guarding doors at all, instead of honoring land that was once meant to be free rather than freedom that is gate kept.
Right. My Republican neighbors were extremely neighborly during the ice storm. Politics was blessedly irrelevant. And though they seem to be a dying breed, there used to be lots of moderate and even liberal Republicans in the GOP. My late father was one. (Some of my best friends, etc.) But let's be honest: MAGA is a Trumpist cult that has nothing to do with traditional conservative values. SAD!
DeleteI hope these challenging times pave the way for a brighter future. It’s disheartening to witness the unraveling of centuries of democracy within a mere year. Nevertheless, I remain optimistic that this setback will eventually lead to a resurgence of progress once the current crisis subsides. Because everything will pass.
Delete14. In my opinion, it does matter. For example, America’s founding fathers, although the land was already inhabited, built the nation on the idea of freedom for white men. For hundreds of years afterward, it took fighting, dying, protesting, and bravery to move the needle and challenge that idea so that women and people of other races were recognized as American too, and deserving of rights such as voting and citizenship.
ReplyDeleteThis ideology, when built on hate or exclusion, often seeks to revert back to its original form, and I believe this is what we are seeing in politics today. I do believe people can change, but we must hold them accountable rather than just saying, “He thought a lot about human existence.” Okay, but what about the human rights you deprived while being a Nazi.
100%!
DeleteBillie Eilish had a nice statement at the Grammys, calling out the hypocrisy of persecuting immigrants on stolen land.
Heidegger was a smart guy. But intelligence alone is not enough, character is also required of wisdom.
Many stood up with bravery. Even the talented Olivia Dean from London mentioned her descent from an immigrant. The world is watching. America may attempt to erase its history, but the world will not forget how we deported children, senior citizens, the ill, and people who sought to experience the American dream we so confidently promoted to the world.
Delete14. Yes, Heidegger’s affiliation with the Nazis absolutely does matter for the relevance of his philosophy. I think we’re past the point where we can separate “art” from “artist.” What people do and say in their personal lives does matter and does impact how their work is perceived by the public. A person’s work/ideas/creations can also be better understood when looked at in the context of the totality of that person’s life. While Heidegger may have “thought a lot about human existence,” he also supported an oppressive system that worked to end the human existence of millions of people. He may have made important contributions to the field of philosophy, but he was also a Nazi sympathizer and an anti-semite. His support of the Nazi party was such a significant part of his public persona and personal convictions that it can’t (and shouldn’t) be ignored or glossed over.
ReplyDeleteI used to be a fan of this one musician, until it was revealed a few years ago that he was a serial abuser of underage girls. Being an abuser is bad enough. But what made this situation especially infuriating was the fact that he preached positive things—like racial equality and helping out your community—in public, while being a literal pedophile in his private life. Now, I no longer listen to his music or support him in any way. I can’t separate the artist from the art. I don’t think it would be fair to his victims to do that. Similarly, I don’t think it would be fair to survivors of the Holocaust to separate Heidegger the philosopher from Heidegger the Nazi supporter.
15. Frank’s fantasy indicates to me that he’s going through immense psychological stress and needs relief, not necessarily that there’s something “wrong with him” that needs to be fixed. People handle grief and loss differently, and Frank is going through a lot of both. He just spread his late wife’s ashes and is now coping with the impending death of his terminally ill adult son. Given what he said on page 56 about traveling (“...eventually you arrive—with your old self lagging behind a few hours or nights or days, and finally catching up with all the same shit on his mind—at which point all you can do is travel on to someplace else.”), it seems like Frank uses travel as a form of escape—literal and figurative—from his problems. Given what he’s dealing with, it makes sense he’d fantasize about traveling to see someone (Catherine) who makes him happy, who isn’t dying, who can take his mind off negative things, and who lives in a location that has pleasant weather. I’ve never been in Frank’s situation, so I can’t say how I would handle it. While the solutions he comes up with (running from problems rather than confronting them) don’t seem healthy, I think he’s doing the best he can given his situation.
I also prefer the philosophers who've thought a lot about human existence and have chosen NOT to affiliate with fascists.
DeleteGood insight: Frank is often tempted to run away, and he knows it; and the other, better part of him wants to stay and be sure that his son is not alone at the end... or at least no more alone than any of us ever are, when running up hard against our mortality.
3. Unlike Frank, I do believe I have "found myself." At my core, I know who I am as a person. It includes my belief system and how I treat others; my queer identity as a lesbian that took years to understand and come to terms with; my creative hobbies and academic interests. I know I've reached this point because I am comfortable with myself. There is no longing to change or be someone else. I like who I am, and that's enough for me. Unlike Frank and Paul, I do not tie my identity to my job which I think is the source of people’s unhappiness with themselves or finding themselves incomplete. Child me would not think being a secretary is what I should be as an adult and that's okay. I'm good at my job and enjoy aspects of it, but I'm not like Paul in believing I was born for this job. To me, it's just a job and I don't place too much importance on it in terms of my identity. For some people, their career is integral to their self-identity and knowing who they are. If that's the case and it works for them, then that's wonderful. For others, like myself, that's not the case and that is also great. Everyone is going to have a unique metric for how they classify finding themselves.
ReplyDelete5. To be honest, I almost skipped this question because the thought of it made me sad. But if a question like this can conjure feelings like this in me, it is worth exploring more to find out why. I don't think there truly is a way to cope with this type of grief. Losing a family member can always be hard on someone, depending on their relationship and closeness, but it's different between a parent and child. There's the expectation that your child will outlive you as the natural order.
ReplyDeleteI am childless and most likely will stay that way. However, imagining outliving my child, regardless of what age they pass away at, would be inconsolable. It's a grief I could never recover from. If I had to give a way to cope with the loss, I would say that I hope I would have my partner to rely on and not feel alone in that pain, which Frank doesn't have.
19. The way I interpret “randomness” from Frank's statement that it's a way to describe going with the flow of life. You can try and plan your day down to the minute, but life doesn't operate like that. There are factors out of our control and that's okay. A way to get through what life can offer is allowing for that randomness to come into your life. It can be good and bad, but having the flexibility to adapt will help get through it. I see this when Frank said on page 8, “In this way Paul and I have achieved a kind of complimentary tolerance between what to do and how to be – which has served us well so far.” Paul, unfortunately, is at the whims of randomness as his ALS worsens and affects his life moment to moment. So, Frank has to adjust to handle the moment and situation as it changes for the both of them.
ReplyDelete