Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtOXiNx4jgQ
Discussion Questions
http://www.litlovers.com/reading-guides/13-fiction/643-mudbound-jordan
1. The setting of the Mississippi Delta is intrinsic to Mudbound. Discuss the ways in which the land functions as a character in the novel and how each of the other characters relates to it.
2. Mudbound is a chorus, told in six different voices. How do the changes in perspective affect your understanding of the story? Are all six voices equally sympathetic? Reliable? Pappy is the only main character who has no narrative voice. Why do you think the author chose not to let him speak?
3. Who gets to speak and who is silent or silenced is a central theme, the silencing of Ronsel being the most literal and brutal example. Discuss the ways in which this theme plays out for the other characters. For instance, how does Laura's silence about her unhappiness on the farm affect her and her marriage? What are the consequences of Jamie's inability to speak to his family about the horrors he experienced in the war? How does speaking or not speaking confer power or take it away?
4. The story is narrated by two farmers, two wives and mothers, and two soldiers. Compare and contrast the ways in which these parallel characters, black and white, view and experience the world.
5. What is the significance of the title? In what ways are each of the characters bound—by the land, by circumstance, by tradition, by the law, by their own limitations? How much of this binding is inescapable and how much is self-imposed? Which characters are most successful in freeing themselves from what binds them?
6. All the characters are products of their time and place, and instances of racism in the book
run from Pappy’s outright bigotry to
Laura’s more subtle prejudice. Would Laura have thought of herself as
racist, and if not, why not? How do the racial views of Laura, Jamie,
Henry, and Pappy affect your sympathy for them?7. The novel deals with many thorny issues: racism, sexual politics, infidelity, war. The characters weigh in on these issues, but what about the author? Does she have a discernable perspective, and if so, how does she convey it?
8. We know very early in the book that something terrible is going to befall Ronsel. How does this sense of inevitability affect the story? Jamie makes Ronsel responsible for his own fate, saying "Maybe that's cowardly of me, making Ronsel's the trigger finger." Is it just cowardice, or is there some truth to what Jamie says? Where would you place the turning point for Ronsel? Who else is complicit in what happens to him, and why?
9. In reflecting on some of the more difficult moral choices made by the characters—Laura's decision to sleep with Jamie, Ronsel's decision to abandon Resl and return to America, Jamie's choice during the lynching scene, Florence's and Jamie's separate decisions to murder Pappy—what would you have done in those same situations? Is it even possible to know? Are there some moral positions that are absolute, or should we take into account things like time and place when making judgments?
10. How is the last chapter of Mudbound different from all the others? Why do you think the author chose to have Ronsel address you, the reader, directly? Do you believe he overcomes the formidable obstacles facing him and finds "something like happiness"? If so, why doesn't the author just say so explicitly? Would a less ambiguous ending have been more or less satisfying?
I didn't like the poem because It sounds like something we heard before. But one thing that stood out is when she said, "..stubborn compass guiding her home." The metaphor is very powerful and meaningful. But overall nothing I never heard. Lastly I like her bracelets and denim jacket.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis was an interesting piece. I found it rather powerful because she enunciated very well, and her message was clear. This poem was about her mother and the way she talked. It was powerful because it used metaphors and what not to help you visualize her mother, and it really helped describe the personality of the mother to the audience.
ReplyDeleteI liked that the message of "Accents" was both funny and deep. Denise Frohman did a very good job not only writing this piece, but also did a great job at getting the audience involved. She had a very lively stage persona and seemed to sincerely enjoy performing in front of her audience. The message of speaking your mind and being your own person was also very powerful.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the morning reflection that Saisha shared this today. Culture is a very important thing to hold on to. Although we, as Americans, are living in the same country, we should not forget our roots and where we come from. We need to remember what makes us who we are.
ReplyDeleteThe video was great in my opinion because I was able to relate to the Hispanic culture references she was making. Also, her attitude and emotion was on point and really made the audience feel her words as they flowed out with rhythm, similes, and metaphors.
ReplyDeleteThe morning reflection Saisha showed us I enjoyed very much. I loved the woman's articulation and how she would pause at certain times. I thought what she spoke about was very relatable and urban topics are good to discuss because they reach to many people. I never would've thought that you could elaborate so much on an accent but she made accents something interesting and cool to think about.
ReplyDeleteI liked the tone of voice and hyperness Denice portrayed. The simile "she holds her accent in her hands like a shotgun" was on many ingenious phrases she used. she preformed it exceptionally.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSaisha's Morning Reflection "Accents" by Denise Frohman,
ReplyDeleteI love the way other languages sound, especially Spanish and Italian. It was delightful to listen in on Giulia Perucchio talking to her parents in Italian several years ago. I love hearing bilingual students speak Spanish and then shift to English. Often I am jealous of those who are fluent in more than one language.
As a writer, the beauty of words in other languages has to be appreciated and to think of how many different languages there are in the world. I also love to read poetry in side by side translations--especially Pablo Neruda. Comparing the English translation to the original Spanish is exciting. It's an opportunity to see the creativity of the translator since some words are simply untranslatable.
The poem shows appreciation for her mother's strong accent and it's one of my favorite ones by Denice Frohman.
ReplyDeleteI liked the video. I feel that it gives us an insight about bilingual households.I liked how she said the different words that her mother changed. I liked how the speaker connected the audience, and it made the performance more enjoyable. I think this was a very powerful performance.
ReplyDeleteThe message about 'accents' in the video was very interesting. Frohman opened the audience into the perspective of an individual whom was deemed radically different from those you encounter daily. The video helped to emphasize how people tend to find comfort in their way of speech, but are often looked down, or thought differently of because of it. The connections drawn between these accents and the "properly" conceived way of speaking was exceptionally powerful, as it helped to show different forms of speech tend to be similar, yet different, such as an antagonist and protagonist.
ReplyDeleteThe poem was nice, and very clear. Shes very unique in her own way. This wasn't her best poem but it was alright. I've heard more poems from her and I was pretty impressed.
ReplyDeleteI like the way Denise was very passionate about her mother. I believe the words she used were to express that her mothers voice and accent will never be hushed but will remain strong no matter where she is.
ReplyDeleteThe slam poem Saisha presented was really good. Everything said related to my mother, and family. The poem helped us picture her mother. I also Iiked how she described everything, and it related to the Hispanic culture.
ReplyDeleteThe slam poem "Accents" written by Denise Frohman was very well written and spoke a powerful message. Language is so fascinating, how each group of people has a different tongue and puts emphasis on different parts of speech. Culture and diversity is what makes the world so interesting!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtOXiNx4jgQ
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteRadezia McCullough
Ms. Gamzon
9/16/14
1. The setting of the Mississippi Delta is intrinsic to Mudbound. Discuss the ways in which the land functions as a character in the novel and how each of the other characters relates to it.
Laura hates the land because she doesn’t share the same love of rural life as Henry. (…Looking out over the land with fierce pride and possession, and think- He’s never looked at me like that not once.” (95)
Hap and Florence relies on the land
2. Mudbound is a chorus, told in six different voices. How do the changes in perspective affect your understanding of the story? Are all six voices equally sympathetic? Reliable? Pappy is the only main character who has no narrative voice. Why do you think the author chose not to let him speak?
It adds to the story because it shows every perspective of all the characters, and allows the readers to create their own assumptions. All of the six voices aren’t sympathetic but you can relate sympathy to some of the things they go through in the story. Pappy doesn’t speak because he always speaks his views in everyone’s situation anyway.
3. Who gets to speak and who is silent or silenced is a central theme, the silencing of Ronsel being the most literal and brutal example. Discuss the ways in which this theme plays out for the other characters. For instance, how does Laura's silence about her unhappiness on the farm affect her and her marriage? What are the consequences of Jamie's inability to speak to his family about the horrors he experienced in the war? How does speaking or not speaking confer power or take it away?
Lauras silence about her unhappiness on the farm affects her and her marriage because her husband doesn’t notice how unhappy she is. She has to take on a huge responsibility trying to raise her two children. Not speaking makes a situation for a character awkward and gives another character power over the person not speaking.
Grace Keller / Karlamarie
ReplyDeleteContemporary writers
September 16, 2014
Mudbound
1. The setting of the Mississippi Delta is intrinsic to Mudbound. Discuss the ways in which the land functions as a character in the novel and how each of the other characters relates to it.
The land functions as a character in that it is where all of the characters live and base their lives off of, hence making it imperative to the plot of the story.
2. Mudbound is a chorus, told in six different voices. How do the changes in perspective affect your understanding of the story? Are all six voices equally sympathetic? Reliable? Pappy is the only main character who has no narrative voice. Why do you think the author chose not to let him speak?
The multiple perspectives help the reader understand the story better as they develop the story further which gives the reader more insight into the conflicts within it. Most of the characters are sympathetic, Laura and Henry are the most sympathetic but in different ways. Henry is very sympathetic in regard to the land and his family while Laura is sympathetic about everyone, specifically Florence and the workers. The author didn’t allow Pappy to speak because he is similar to a baseline for some of the issues within the family, his story is told within the perspectives and actions of the other characters.
3. Who gets to speak and who is silent or silenced is a central theme, the silencing of Ronsel being the most literal and brutal example. Discuss the ways in which this theme plays out for the other characters. For instance, how does Laura's silence about her unhappiness on the farm affect her and her marriage? What are the consequences of Jamie's inability to speak to his family about the horrors he experienced in the war? How does speaking or not speaking confer power or take it away?
Laura’s silence about her unhappiness in her marriage affects the relations with her husband negatively, as she does speak up for herself nor does she vocalize her needs (with the exception of the piano), which makes her resent him. Jamie never spoke about his war experiences unless he was asked which is unhealthy to do and can cause one to dwell in the past. Being silent takes away power because the person silenced is not standing up for themselves.
Jaymee Pride and Aleah Adams
ReplyDelete1.) In Mudbound, the farm and land itself functions as a character in the way that it affects the characters. Each character feels differently about the land. For example, Henry has a lot invested in the farm, it is his new found pride and joy. Whereas Laura almost resents the land, because of the pride that he takes in it, rather than towards her. “… looking out over the land with fierce pride of possession, and think, He’s never looked at me like that, not once” (95). Hap and Florence have a dependence upon the land, as it is where their means of living come from.
2.) I think that the different voices of the many characters adds to the story and shows all the possible perspectives and allows the reader to form their own. The six voices all differ and vary in degrees of sympathy. Pappy doesn’t speak because it wouldn’t advance the story, his bigoted attitude is dispersed throughout everyone’s perspectives and doesn’t go unheard.
3.) Holding back how you truly feel ultimately gives the person the other person the control and the upperhand. By Laura not voicing how she felt about the farm and their living conditions she only hurt herself and worsened her marriage. “For the children’s sakes, and for the sake of my marriage, I hid my feelings, maintaining a desperate cheerfulness” (95). If Laura would’ve spoken out about how she had felt her marriage would’ve maybe lasted and their family would’ve stayed intact.
Zoë Hodge
ReplyDeleteMs. Gamzon
1. The setting of the Mississippi Delta is intrinsic to Mudbound. Discuss the ways in which the land functions as a character in the novel and how each of the other characters relates to it.
A: The land functions as a character because it connects to each character in its own way. For instance, Henry thinks of the land as his prized possession. It is shown through Laura’s observation when she watches him looking at the field. “I would see him standing at the edge of the fields with his hands in his pockets, looking out over the land with fierce pride of possession.” Laura, on the other hand, doesn’t like the land because Henry looks at the land like it’s his prize possession, and, “He’s never looked at me like that.”
2. Mudbound is a chorus, told in six different voices. How do the changes in perspective affect your understanding of the story? Are all six voices equally sympathetic? Reliable? Pappy is the only main character who has no narrative voice. Why do you think the author chose not to let him speak?
A: The change in perspective helps us understand the story better because we can see how each character feels. Not all six voices are equally sympathetic or reliable. Henry believes that he is right for moving to the farm, but Laura doesn’t. Florence, Hap, and Ronsel’s point of view will be different from everyone else’s because they are black and living in a racist community. I think she chose not to let him speak because he already has a lot of power. His actions and thought are already shown through his words. Florence and his conversation from page 86 to 88 shows his distaste for blacks.
3. Who gets to speak and who is silent or silenced is a central theme, the silencing of Ronsel being the most literal and brutal example. Discuss the ways in which this theme plays out for the other characters. For instance, how does Laura's silence about her unhappiness on the farm affect her and her marriage? What are the consequences of Jamie's inability to speak to his family about the horrors he experienced in the war? How does speaking or not speaking confer power or take it away?
A: Laura’s silence affects her marriage greatly because the two have a lot of secrets. Their marriage is very tense. Jamie’s inability to speak to his family affects his family because he distances himself. They can’t help him if he won’t talk. Not speaking confers power because it makes the whole situation very tense.
Mudbound Questions
ReplyDelete1.
2. The story being told in different perspectives helps the reader get familiar and closer with the characters in the novel. The book takes the reader into the thoughts and minds of every character, introducing them to how they think, feel, and even gives us background information on each characters lives. The author clearly displays a distinguishing difference between characters as they are one by one introduced. Each character is involved in each other’s lives and somehow relative to each other. I think the author doesn’t let Pappy speak in his perspective because he is the main character out of them all so he is already the center of attention.
3. The silencing of a character separates them from other characters in the novel. If a character is silenced or just chooses not to speak as the others do, it creates a distant feeling between that character and the others. Also, the reader won’t be as close to that character as they would be with a character that would speak freely.
4. The story being narrated by two separate families, white and black, really help the reader understand the living conditions and setting of the novel. Blacks facing unfair treatment, feeling as though they are separated in society from others, and whites who may live the same way blacks do, but have little advantages that seem major to the blacks.
5. The title is tied into the characters destiny and where life has them going. In this time period, life was hard and Social Darwinism was at its highest. There were very few ways to be successful and you had to work very hard in order to gain some kind of respect or acknowledgement. Life was not easy, especially for black folks. Limitations such as unfair laws, treatment, and difficult circumstances would make it hard for an average black man to care for his family. Farm was what they were most commonly successful at.
6. Laura didn’t touch upon racism too much. But as the reader, we are sure that she knows racism is a major role in their time. The characters thoughts on racism isn’t really emphasized but their lives aren’t the easiest. My sympathy for them is based on the hard lives they live every day. Their family has a lot of distance that separates them, hatred, and shadiness. Some members of the family don’t act as they truly feel, if they feel hate towards somebody, they may still act nice or as if everything is okay. The reader would know this due to how the author took us into the minds of the characters.
7. The characters perspective on many of the social themes, or issues, addressed in the novel are tied into the author’s perspective on these issues as well. The author is the one writing the story, so they have all the information and knowledge of that time and what it was like to live in the time period. Now the author may tie the information into how they feel it was like to live in that time period as well as their perspective on how it was to live then as well.
8.
9. Characters in the story make difficult decisions that impact the family as a whole. For example, Ronsel’s decision to abandoned Resl and return to America. For the family, it was relatively good because they don’t like the idea of a family member going out the war because they are afraid to lose them. But for him, it was hard because he knew deep down that it was something he shouldn’t have done.
10.
1.
ReplyDeleteLaura hates the farm. She feels like there’s too much to do and it’s too hard. Farm life takes it strenuous toll on Laura’s emotions.
Henry loves the farm. When he had to move down he picked a farm to live on. He has always wanted a farm.
Pappy hates to farm, however is stuck on the farm. He can’t live on his own so he stays with his son. Buried on the farm when he dies.
Happ and his family are bound by the farming of the land. Happs wife is sure that their children, except Ronsel, will be bound by the same thing.
Jamie grew up on a farm and returns to one, on the missippi delta.
2.
The changes in voice show a more rounded representation of the situation. I don’t think pappy speaks because of how racist he is. I think his voice would be racist enough that it was overly so.
3.
Laura’s silence puts a continuous strain her marriage; Jamie’s makes it so he is closed off to the others. Silence can be power or a weakness, it depends on the situation. In Jamie’s case, I amend him. It takes extreme strength to deal with something like that on your own.
Mitchell Duncan, Austin Hammond, Jacob Gilbert-Manhoney
ReplyDelete1. Each character has a different relationship with the farm. Henry for example feels strongly about the farm because he lives on it and works hard to maintain the land. Laura; however, despises the farm because Henry dedicates so much of his time to the farm.
2. The six different perspectives allow for a more thorough telling of the story due to multiple points of views which ultimately allows for a greater understanding of the story.
3. By speaking, an individual may be able to present thoughts that may contradict or challenge the ideas of another, thus invoking power, but by not speaking, one may not be able to challenge another, and dwindles that person's power. However, not speaking enables a person to avoid an otherwise dangerous situation.
8.) This sense of inevitability affects the story by foreshadowing and that makes you even more engaged and makes you want to continue to read the story. If you know there's something to look forward too you'll want to continue to read the novel. There is some truth to what Jamie says because Ronsel could've distanced himself from Jamie and separated himself from him so they wouldn't have become so close as friends. I would place the turning point for Ronsel where he was being held by the noose and his fate was being determined.
ReplyDelete9.) I wouldn't know what to do if I was in Jamie's or Ronsel's place. If I were Laurie I would've fought my attraction towards Jamie and distanced myself from him not only to keep my family in tact but because it was morally right. However Ronsel didn't make a bad choice because he was ignorant to the fact that Resl was holding his child so of course he would return to his family.
10.) I think the author chose to have Ronsel address us because it made you end with a connected feeling towards him and the novel. It added a personal sense which allowed you to stay engaged until the bitter end.