An A.P. English Holiday Season

Some people dream of a white Christmas (or Hanukkah, Kwanza, holidays, etc.). I dream of an A.P. English Christmas.  What does this entail?  Well, there are some simple substitutions that will make your next winter break far superior.


In my family, holiday traditions are an important part of the season.  Here are some suggestions for new traditions:

Instead of singing traditional holiday carols, substitute new A.P. English ones, like "Deck the Halls with Punctuation."

Instead of building a gingerbread house, try constructing a well-written paragraph.

Instead of baking cookies for the enjoyment of family and friends, write a book.

Instead of decorating a Christmas tree or Hanukkah menorah, decorate one of your previous essays with fun new adjectives.

Most people like to celebrate the holidays with family and friends.  A true A.P. English student, however, would celebrate by just blogging about the holidays.

Instead of wearing a Christmas sweater, make a sweater with literary terms on it, like "synecdoche" or "assonance."

Weeks before the holidays begin, children begin composing their letters to Santa.  As an A.P. English student, try sending him a data sheet instead.  Surely Santa will appreciate your intense literary analysis and will reward you with better gifts (examples: a box of pens, a copy of The Namesake, a new A.P. English calendar, an autographed back brace from Ms. Serensky, etc.). 

Oh no! You forgot to get your best friend a gift?  Try giving the gift of a data sheet to complete almost entirely over winter break.  Your friend won't appreciate the gift at first, but as the due date approaches, they'll start using your gift a lot more.

So with these suggestions, instead of spending your next holiday break eating cookies and giving gifts with your friends and family, you'll be spreading A.P. English cheer.

The Birds and the Bees

This topic, though it is a major theme of the novel, has never really surfaced in our class discussions, probably because it is more than a little awkward - sex.  Well, that's not entirely true.  Sexuality was discussed just two days ago, though the person discussing failed to recognize the sexual implications of the quote - McMurphy comments that Bromden has "'growed a half a foot already'" (224).  While slightly creepy, these references are important.  Whether we have acknowledged it or not, sexual references abound in this book.  McMurphy, for example, constantly cracks sexual jokes.  Sex represents more than an outlet for humor, though - it becomes a symbol for sanity.  Unlike the other members of the ward, who have been stripped of their masculinity, McMurphy flaunts his sexuality, paralleling his sanity - he speaks at great length about many of his sexual partners, wears his Moby-Dick boxer shorts, and uses playing cards which depict fifty-two distinct sexual positions.  McMurphy's refusal to conform to society mirrors his refusal to desexualize himself.  Throughout the book, McMurphy attempts to pass on this stubborn nonconformity to the other members of the ward, and it works - he convinces Billy Bibbit to lose his virginity to Candy (though this admittedly does not end well).  As the men become more sexual, they become more sane as well.  By the end of the novel, most of the Acutes leave the hospital, free to express their newfound sexuality in the real world.  This is not to say that if you are not having sex you are insane.  But it's something you might want to think about.

We, Robots?

As we have mentioned several times in class discussions, Chief Bromden seems quite fond of comparing the patients in the ward to machines, perhaps suggesting that these patients have little control over their lives.  However, we often ignore that Bromden also makes these comparisons for the Big Nurse.  He observes at one point that she "works the hinges in her elbows and fingers" (96).  So Bromden seems to be extending this mechanical imagery to others.  This gives this imagery a different meaning - the machinery now represents all of modern society, as it is unnatural and suppresses individuality.  At first, the idea that humans are almost entirely devoid of free will seems ridiculous.  Just a few days ago, though, I read an article about using electrical impulses to stimulate certain areas of the brain, moving the subjects appendages.  The subject could not prevent themselves from moving - they were completely helpless to resist these involuntary movements.  The researcher conducting the experiment concluded that free will may not exist in the traditional sense.  As humans, we do not truly have control over our own bodies - all of our decisions and actions are a series of biochemical reactions in our brains.  Even our thoughts are primarily controlled by our subconscious - one researcher described the relationship as the conscious mind (your thoughts that you recognize) being a monkey riding a tiger of subconscious decisions and actions in progress, frantically making up stories about being in control.  Free will can still exist, but not in the sense that most of us imagine it - it is more of a perception, not a power or a driving force.  People still experience free will and sense that they are free, but they never truly act upon this free will.  They act upon the biochemical reactions in the brain, the subconscious desires that they possess.

So perhaps Bromden is closer to the truth than we initially thought.  To Bromden, "The Combine" represents society, which has sapped the individuality and natural impulses out of humankind.  Perhaps in real life, though, "The Combine" would be God (or Allah, or Buddha, or the natural selection which drives evolution, etc.) - whatever or whoever designed human behavior and cognition to be just a series of neurotransmitters and synapses.  Both Bromden's society and our all-powerful being (or evolution, if that is your cup of tea) transform humans into machines of sorts, with no real free will.  This can be either comforting or depressing, depending on your perspective.  What is certainly means is that Bromden is right - the patients in his ward have no individuality or natural instincts.  One question remains, though - do they lack free will due to society's influence on them, or because no human can possess true free will?

The Substitute Teacher from the Black Lagoon

Last Friday, every single A.P. English student walked into the room and, whether they will admit it or not, celebrated in some manner.  High fives were exchanged, people shouted in delight, and general merriment ensued - we had a substitute teacher!  But our happiness quickly turned to confusion and even despair as the class began - this substitute was... well... weird.  There is no other way to put it.  The first thing that struck me was his physical appearance - he was rather tall, with glasses, middle-parted hair, and a beard to rival that of Chase Plante.  His head was oddly shaped, with a very small chin but disproportionally large forehead and upper skull.  This gave his head the look of a balloon.  I believe it was Thomas that told him he looked like Dwight K. Schrute, of The Office fame.  This prompted the sub to begin quoting Dwight: "Bears... beets... Battlestar Galactica."  So to be honest, after a few short minutes of class, I knew this man was not cool (his name eludes me at the moment).

Then, of course, he began "teaching."  Most substitute teachers understand that they have no idea what is happening in the class they are attempting to teach, and they stay out of the way and let the class run its course.  This sub, however, seemed to think he knew a great deal about One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.  It was apparent, though, that this was not the case - he knew characters' names but next to nothing about the plot of the book and whatnot.  After each person spoke in class, he would interrupt and summarize their points - presumably to appear more intelligent.  I later learned from students in sixth period English and Words Words Words that this man had been reading the book all day (he had never read it before), and even took notes on the discussion during sixth period.  One student told me that the sub had asked for a definition of situational irony in sixth period.  So during eighth period, we were seeing the best this sub had to offer - he had studied all day but knew very little about the book, and he still attempted to discuss it with us.

Although I applaud this substitute's effort and commitment to his work, I must say that many of the students with which I spoke were quite frustrated by him.  I personally found him entertaining.  It was interesting to see essentially the polar opposite of Ms. Serensky teach our class - he was animated and actively involved in discussions, he did not seem to know very much about our book or English in general, and he had an abundance of facial hair.  Although I enjoyed this teaching style for a change, I  do not think I would like it very much long term.  I think I am actually beginning to appreciate Ms. Serensky. 

Putting the "Man" Back in "Mental"

Reading about the matriarchal society that has evolved in the hospital ward, I honestly feel ashamed for men as a gender.  How can a group of men allow women like the Big Nurse to so completely control them?  To compensate for this lack of masculine dominance, I have compiled a series of facts that comfort me and re-establish my faith in men.  Enjoy:

•  Men are more intelligent than women – men have I.Q. scores of 3.6 points higher than females, and male brains are, on average, a hundred grams heavier (and a positive correlation exists between brain size and intelligence).

• Men are also much more likely to be at the top end of intelligence – there are more men geniuses than women (where “genius” is defined as an I.Q. above 140).

• Men test better than women on mathematical aptitude tests.

•  Men are more literate than women, with 100 men considered literate for every 88 women.

• There are ten times more Nobel Prize-winning men than women.

• Women are less productive than men – women in nonagricultural industries work 35.9 hours per week versus 41.6 hours for men.

• Studies have shown that men are better at directions – they possess better spatial awareness and memory for navigation.

• Men are better at getting children to listen to them - Men use less words and more simple words in comparison to women, who like to use more complicated words, as well as more of them.  Women want to rationalize, offer direction and explanation when communicating with their children, while men tend to use few words and get to the point. 

•  Men have better distance vision and depth perception than women, and women are 78% more likely than men to become blind.

• Ironically, although women have stronger immune systems, they are more likely to contract auto-immune diseases such as Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Scleroderma and Multiple Sclerosis.

• Men are wired to understand technology better than women.  Men instinctively know how to figure out how equipment works, what it does, and what it is good for.  Women on the other hand seem to have some kind of stumbling block when it comes to handling technology. 

• Men are 30% stronger than women, in addition to being taller and heavier

• Differences in intake and delivery of oxygen translate into some aspects of performance: when a man is jogging at about 50% of his capacity, a woman will need to work at over 70% of her capacity to keep up with him.

• Women have weaker bones, and are more likely to develop osteoporosis later in life.

This is not meant to be an offensively sexist post. I merely felt humiliated for my gender due to its portrayal in this novel – all the patients in the mental hospital are men, and all the people in power are women. So I felt the need to give men some reassurance through this list of factual, scientific information praising the merits of the male gender.  I do find Kesey's decision to put women in charge of the ward interesting.  Perhaps he uses this rarity (especially in their times) to accentuate the unnatural nature of the ward, further justifying the patients' attempts at rebellion.

APEnglishleaks

Just a few days ago, I had no idea what Wikileaks was.  This fact was startling to some when I revealed it - apparently everyone knows about it.  For those of you that do not yet know, Wikileaks is international non-profit media organization that publishes confidential government documents from anonymous news sources and leaks.  Top secret government documents are all well and good, but I want to invent a Wikileaks-like website for something far more important to the everyday American - A.P. English information.

This website, called APEnglishleaks, would contain vast quantities of confidential A.P. English material.  Obviously, this would consist primarily of students' essays and data sheets.  For the benefit of all A.P. students, everyone would have to work to obtain such documents, perhaps by stealing the essay of the student next to you as papers are passed back.  Or by taking a quick digital photo of someone's journal entry.  Students could also submit leaked future essay topics or Ms. Serensky's personal emails onto APEnglishleaks.  This may involve breaking into Ms. Serensky's house, but it would be worth it - my classmates deserve this confidential information.  For some, though, even this may not be enough.  APEnglishleaks will finally become a feared yet respected source of leaked information when someone gets their hands on Thomas' diary.  This treasure trove is sure to be full of plans for A.P. English coups, assassination attempts, whining, and secret Donley cooking recipes passed down from generation to generation.  As A.P. English students, we are woefully uninformed - if people worldwide can see top secret government documents, surely we should be able to see Ms. Serensky's emails.

Bobbie Jo "The Taskmaster" Serensky

As Henry mentions in his blog, he and I engaged in a conversation about homework last night.  We expressed our mutual distaste for the inordinate amount of homework that high school students must complete.  And while this brief discussion made Henry (for some reason) imagine a duel with Ms. Serensky, it forced me to examine the place of homework in my life.  In a random sampling of students I spoke with today, we spend between two and a half to four hours on homework outside of school - this does not even account for commons periods that students can use as a study hall.  To me, it seems that this much homework would only serve to stunt the intellectual curiosity of students - with so much homework, they will become bored with academic material.  And how are kids expected to pursue their own personal academic interests outside of school with so much homework? 

So I did some research.  I found that recent studies have indicated that although homework is correlated with higher academic achievement, after ninety minutes to two hours of homework achievement actually decreases.  Schools seem to ignore this startling, yet scientifically proven, fact.  We hear constantly about how Chinese and Japanese children surpass Americans in their test scores, and these concerns have surfaced over the past five or so years.  Yet since 1981, the amount of homework per night for the average American child has increased by fifty one percent.  Teachers in many of the nations that outperform the U.S. on student achievement tests - such as Japan, Denmark and the Czech Republic - tend to assign less homework than American teachers, but instructors in low-scoring countries like Greece, Thailand and Iran tend to pile it on.  This illustrates the tenuous link between homework and students' achievement.  


How should schools remedy this situation?  The solution is not as simple as it would seem.  Teachers cannot simply be instructed to assign less homework - each one would expect the others (with far less important subjects) to reduce their homework, but would be reluctant to assign less themselves.  So although A.P. English may be a factor in this homework overload, The Taskmaster cannot solely be blamed for ruining your academic future - every teacher and administrator must be held accountable.  My plan: move all homework online.  School administrators can set a maximum homework time for each student (factoring in their age and number of academic classes).  Students then have this allotted time to spend as they please on all their homework, but at the end of this time the homework is locked - they cannot continue working on it.  If they do not complete it all, teachers will have to deal with it.  They will quickly realize that if they want their students to do their homework, they need to assign less of it.  This solution is not perfect, but I cannot think of anything better that would satisfy everyone.  Problem solved.

Ganguli Bowling?

This past Thursday, I went with some friends to the bowling alley, where we enjoyed a few games of bowling.  Not long after we arrived, several Indian families began using the lane adjacent to ours.  I was intrigued to say the least - this was an opportunity to test the stereotypes that The Namesake presented, so I spent most of the remainder of my evening creeping on this Indian group.  Here are my field notes from that fateful night:

There appeared to be several families there as a group.  But there were no women - just men and children.  So where were the women?  Are all Indian men divorced like Gogol?  Oh.  Nevermind.  The women were just getting snacks.  False alarm.  I looked at what the mothers brought for their children, hoping to catch a glimpse of some homemade Bengali snack.  Cheez Its.  Come on.  Would it kill these people to do something Indian?  It was a big group consisting of maybe twelve people, with several separate families.  Or perhaps they were all one extended family, like the Ganguli family out to bowl - I was encouraged by this culturally relevant possibility.  My hope faded quickly as the night wore on, though - they did absolutely nothing Indian.  I did not hear a word of Bengali or any other foreign language, and they spoke English well from what I could hear.  All of them wore distinctly American clothing, though some appeared to be a bit well dressed for the bowling alley.  One teenage girl did bear a striking resemblance to the young Moushumi (I caught a glimpse of a mustache), but I dismissed this as irrelevant.  They were even good at bowling, which I would consider a primarily American activity.  This family had clearly assimilated well into American society.  Or perhaps they were Indian spies intent on gathering information on American customs.  One of the children wandered over toward our lane.  I considered kidnapping him and using him as a bargaining chip with these Indian spies.  Though I would be an American hero, I decided against it considering the potential legal ramifications.  So I sank back into the shadows, bowled a cool 96, and was on my way.

Overall, this experience helped me realize that not all Indian families cling to their past like the Gangulis.  Some, like the one or ones I saw, have adapted to American society seamlessly.  Although at the time this frustrated me (I wanted them to do something stereotypically Indian), I am proud of these families.  As long as they were not actually spies, I applaud them for their ability to achieve what the Gangulis could not - feeling comfortable in America. 

Nature vs. Nurture

After reading Henry's post about Long Rice Kreger, I commented about the inevitability of Gogol's fate.  Despite this prior posting, I would like to devote an entire entry to exploring this idea.  For those who have not yet read Henry's masterpiece (and you should), it focuses on a possible child between Jillian and me.  Henry contends that this child would share many of the defining characteristics of Gogol's childhood.  However, I found myself most fascinated by the question of whether or not Gogol's parents could have averted his hatred.  Henry seems to indicate that his development was inevitable - Long Rice's childhood parallels that of Gogol, so Henry suggests that the cultural clash that Gogol experiences (as does Long Rice) affects him most profoundly.

However, I would believe that the parenting of each child has a greater impact.  This would make both Gogol and Long Rice's situations avoidable.  If, for instance, Jillian and I decided not to stress Long Rice's Asian background, he would likely grow up very differently than if we raised him in America but forced him to practice elements of Asian culture.  In Gogol's life, his parents encourage him to maintain his Indian culture, and this leads to a lot of role confusion for him - he cannot choose between the traditional Indian culture of his parents and the modern American culture he sees all around him.  The internal conflict Gogol experiences tears him apart, and he never fully recovers from this childhood trauma.  As I read about this time in Gogol's life and saw its implications later in his life, I became a bit frustrated with Gogol.  Why could he not just choose a culture and move on, or even blend them together?  Now, however, I see Gogol's dilemma from a different perspective.  Perhaps Gogol's reaction to the conflicting cultures was inevitable, but his parents could have avoided the whole situation.  They simply needed to shift the balance of cultures that Gogol had in his life, liberating him from his internal conflict.  With this in mind, Gogol does not seem to be at fault for his bitter childhood - the blames shifts more to his parents, who neglect to recognize the potential dangers of attempting to raise an Indian child in America.  Once again, Gogol's parents just have to ruin his life.

Pursuit of Happiness

As we discuss The Namesake in class, the topic inevitably seems to shift towards Gogol's happiness.  However, we always focus on certain aspects of his life that may contribute to this happiness - namely, his relationships with women, his cultural conflicts, and his parental interactions.  We seem to neglect the fact that Gogol's satisfaction need not derive from this short list of factors.  Take, for example, his job.  Why can Gogol not find fulfillment in life (the fulfillment that we so badly want him to achieve) due to his successes in the workplace?  I think he could.  I think, through success in his working life, Gogol could sort out a lot of his internal problems and lead a better life.

I recently began reading the book Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell.  This book examines the factors that contribute to high levels of success in life, as well as how that success impacts people.  For example, Gladwell looks at Olympic level sports teams - on the Canadian hockey team, an inordinate percentage of the players had birthdays between January and April.  The cutoff to play in a particular "year" of hockey falls on January first.  So children with January birthdays have an enormous advantage - as the oldest on their teams, they have an advantage in terms of size, thus they play better, join better teams, practice more, and receive better coaching.  Children with December birthdays have no hope.  Gladwell makes a similar argument for success in any field - external factors other than genetic skills or intelligence play a significant role in achievement.  He first points out the weak connections between I.Q. scores (beyond the 110-120 range) and success, and then shows the strong correlation between the affluence and cultural dynamics of a family and success.  Thus, the innate abilities one possesses only go so far - the rest depends on the individual's environment and upbringing.

Gogol obviously possesses the innate abilities that success requires.  He does well in school, attends Yale and Columbia for his higher education, and generally seems very intelligent.  So his family situation will separate him from his peers.  Unfortunately, Gogol's family moves from India to America before his birth.  This not only interferes with the family's wealth (Ashoke and Ashima could have lived comfortably for free with their parents in Calcutta) but also their culture (the conflicting cultures of America and India add a great deal of unnecessary stress to Gogol's life).  Despite this upbringing, Gogol still goes on to a fairly successful career as an architect.  However, he never really reaches his potential - he moves through the field slowly, ending the book working at a small architecture firm.  I cannot help but imagine the potential differences in Gogol's life if his family had not moved from India to the United States.  Although it meant a lot to Ashoke and Ashima, it probably hurt Gogol in the long run - with a more positive upbringing (without the cultural conflict that caused disagreements with his parents, rebelliousness in college, etc.), Gogol may have found even greater success as an architect. 

Though I cannot accurately say how such success would change his life, I can make predictions.  Success as an architect would allow Gogol to pursue his dream of having his own firm that designs buildings and homes independently.  To achieve such prosperity, his family would have had to remain in India for the aforementioned reasons (Gladwell's connection between family situation and success).  This would, in all likelihood, eliminate a great deal of stress from Gogol's life, as he would not conflicting cultures to deal with and would have fewer problems with his parents and his name (his grandmother could name him).  Overall, this adds up to a very happy, fulfilling life for Gogol.  But his parents just have to ruin it.

Would You Rather...?

After reading the majority of this book, I cannot help but imagine how I would act as Gogol.  In particular, Gogol's love life intrigues me.  Who would I pick?  Gogol finds his first real relationship with Ruth at Yale.  However, as I look back through my book, I honestly cannot find any redeeming qualities that she possesses.  It seems that the only reason they connect lies in the fact that Gogol "wishes his parents could simply accept her" (116-117).  Ruth merely represents a continuation of Gogol's rebellious streak - first the name change, now an American girlfriend.  He wants to distance himself from his family and his culture, and Gogol believes a non-Indian girlfriend accomplishes this.  I, however, have a European heritage and no desire to rebel against my parents solely to anger them, so I shall strike Ruth from the list.  Next, of course, comes Maxine.  With Maxine comes an easy, carefree lifestyle - she and Gogol seem to do nothing but shop, use the Ratliffs' lake house, eat good food, and drink expensive wine.  This sounds wonderful, so Maxine gets some bonus points.  Despite her (or her family's) wealth, Maxine remains, at heart, a selfish and superficial woman.  After the death of Ashoke separates Gogol and Maxine for several days, Maxine tells Gogol, "'I miss you, Nikhil'" (182).  She cannot even let Gogol mourn the death of  his father for a few days - she craves attention and never truly understands Gogol, and thus I will place her towards the bottom of my list (she does have money after all, so I will not remove her entirely from consideration).  Lastly comes Moushumi.  Gogol and Moushumi initially connect on seemingly every level, and she even has the approval of Gogol's parents.  The two bond over their connected childhoods, their rebellions against their culture, and their Indian families and heritage.  By all appearances, Moushumi fits the mold of a perfect wife.  Though I suppose she does cheat on Gogol with Dimitri, who "recently turned thirty-nine" and "some gray has come into [his] hair and chest" with his "stomach undeniably wide" (264, 263).  So perhaps I should also downgrade Moushumi a bit.  In the end, not one of these women seems at all fit to marry.  Even without any pictures to assess the level of attractiveness of each woman, I can honestly say that I would not come near any of them.  Although I do feel bad for Gogol in general in this novel, after looking at his ex-girlfriends and wife, I just wish he had found better women.  Perhaps in the sequel to The Namesake, Gogol will try eHarmony and finally find happiness.     

Moushumi - Selfish or Sick?

Today in class, we discussed the reader's perception of Moushumi at great length.  It seemed that, in general, people felt a great deal of animosity towards her.  However, what if some sort of compulsory force prevents her from acting in a typical manner?  What if a legitimate medical condition hinders her ability to maintain a stable relationship?  As many people know, I aspire to one day work as a doctor (this desire also inspired the title of my blog).  When I read, I often examine characters' problems from a medical standpoint.  In most books, at some point in time a character will do something that provokes the hatred of the class.  What if this action or attitude stems directly from a medical condition - something they could not voluntarily control?  Take, for instance, this case of Moushumi - the narrator comments that she wants "a clean start in a place where no one knows her" yet often she "is reminded... of why she still loves [Gogol]" (254, 248).  Lahiri contrasts Moushumi's thoughts to indirectly characterize her as both uncommitted and faithful.  Though these conflicting characterizations could serve only to enrage the reader, they may indicate the presence of a medical condition  - dissociative identities disorder, or multiple personalities.  This could explain, and perhaps even justify, some of Moushumi's erratic behavior.  Experts believe that causes of the disorder vary - they have, however, linked overwhelming stress as a child, childhood trauma, and insufficient childhood nurturing to the condition.  Although Moushumi appears to have a childhood devoid of trauma or abuse, she may think differently - she may contend that her parents neglected and abused her through the importance they placed upon their culture, a culture which Moushumi despised.  Multiple personalities could also explain many of Moushumi's behaviors as well - symptoms include depression, sudden anger without a justified cause, and a lack of intimacy in relationships.  Moushumi flashes quickly between unexplained anger and depression, particularly during her anniversary dinner with Gogol.  At first, she finds several minor inconveniences in the restaurant incredibly frustrating, and then on the way home she cries.  As for the exact nature of Moushumi's distinct personalities, she seems to possess several, but the most prominent manifest themselves in her relationships.  One alter ego remains committed to Gogol, while the other has tired of him and seeks entertainment elsewhere.  Technology and medicine, however, cannot answer the true question: if Moushumi does suffer from this condition, does it free her of responsibility for her transgressions?