AGENDA:
Homework for Wednesday: Read to pg. 48 in MUDBOUND
Morning Reflection:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jamila_lyiscott_3_ways_to_speak_english?language=en
Sign up for Morning Reflection
Sign out Mudbound
Go to website:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88195380
Listen to interview on NPR
Read excerpt
Interview with Hilary Jordan:
http://www.bookbrowse.com/author_interviews/full/index.cfm/author_number/1538/Hillary-Jordan
More about Mudbound:
http://www.hillaryjordan.com/books-mudbound.php
About this book
In Jordan's prize-winning debut, prejudice takes many forms, both subtle
and brutal. It is 1946, and city-bred Laura McAllan is trying to raise
her children on her husband's Mississippi Delta farm --- a place she
finds foreign and frightening. In the midst of the family's struggles,
two young men return from the war to work the land. Jamie McAllan,
Laura's brother-in-law, is everything her husband is not --- charming,
handsome, and haunted by his memories of combat. Ronsel Jackson, eldest
son of the black sharecroppers who live on the McAllan farm, has come
home with the shine of a war hero. But no matter his bravery in defense
of his country, he is still considered less than a man in the Jim Crow
South. It is the unlikely friendship of these brothers-in-arms that
drives this powerful novel to its inexorable conclusion.
The men and women of each family relate their versions of events and we are drawn into their lives as they become players in a tragedy on the grandest scale. As Barbara Kingsolver says of Hillary Jordan, "Her characters walked straight out of 1940s Mississippi and into the part of my brain where sympathy and anger and love reside, leaving my heart racing. They are with me still."
Discussion Questions
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?
"A supremely readable debut novel... Fluidly narrated by engaging characters . . . Mudbound is packed with drama. Pick it up, then pass it on."
— People, Critic’s Choice, 4-star review
"A compelling family tragedy, a confluence of romantic attraction and racial hatred that eventually falls like an avalanche... The last third of the book is downright breathless... An engaging story."
— Washington Post Book World
"In Hillary Jordan's first novel, Mudbound, the forces of change and resistance collide with terrible consequences."
— The New York Times
"Stunning... You are truly taken there by Jordan's powerful, evocative writing and complex characters."
— Boston Globe
Hillary Jordan reading first chapter of Mudbound
Follow along
WRITING:
Finish the Natalie Goldberg exercise
Print out "Why I Write" and place in envelope
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis spoken work poem was sooooo nice. I love the fact that she's never afraid she's not afraid to hide who she is because she knows where she came from and her history, "I know that I had to borrow your language because mines was stolen./ But you can’t expect me to speak your history wholly while mines is broken." She also knows which of the "three languages" to speak when and where the appropriate time is. This is a powerful poem for those who feel discouraged by people who speak proper English and make them feel less of themselves for speaking "African American Vernacular." Even thought the only reason we speak this way is because of our history just like Jamile Lyiscott said in her poem. It just evolved over the years and became normal. I like her poem because even though she speaks "three languages," she doesn't choose one to be "the proper way," she uses one of them depending on where she believes she should speak them, she doesn't hide them because they make her who she is.
ReplyDeleteThis video opened my eyes to a different perspective on language and diction. I never really realized that there could be many forms of the English language and that each ethnic group may use words and phrases in different ways. The lesson learned here is that language is used as a form of identity.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed listening to this spoken word. Her message was powerful and it made something that I never even thought about, into something that now I can't stop thinking about. I never thought about how language was versatile and anything could be considered articulate or could be considered ignorant. She describes herself as trilingual which I find to be funny because I've never heard of such a thing, but when she got into breaking it down essentially it made sense. It showed me that there is no right or wrong way to speak. We're programmed to speak a certain way during job interviews rather than if we were in school, but in reality why must the two differ?
ReplyDeleteThere's no such thing as "proper English", only regular English. People speak how they can speak. You can't judge how people pronounce things or their grammar. Yes, knowing good grammar is useful and all, but as long as you can at least understand the person, there's no need to correct them.
ReplyDeleteLanguage is perception. We can only understand what we can perceive, so if I change the way I speak for a different audience its the same as changing the language I'm speaking for a different audience. I wouldn't say there is a such thing as broken language (especially broken English) we just say it as we hear it.
ReplyDeleteThere are different ways to say the same things. There is a grammatical English but no proper way to speak it. The forms we speak in are handed down through the generations. The way we speak may not be by culture but it changes by the person. What is considered proper changes by the situation. we use street slang with our friends; text lingo when trying to put something down fast in our phones. In school we use grammatical spelling and punctuation; with our parents it's probably somewhere in between. speech is a form of free expression and there is no god or rule book that tells you that you must use one form. Proper is different in every situation but articulation stays the same.
ReplyDeleteOutstanding spoken word poem! The vibe and demeanor of the poem was powerful. The way she translates her message is also very creative. Instead of being within the boundaries of "proper" English she rebels because of the broken histore of her people which subjects her to speak patwha or Ebonics.
ReplyDeleteI find annunciation and articulating completely dependent on the speaker. It is there choice to speak it as they wish, as long as they are somewhat accurate with their words. It is also somewhat determined by region, as far as accents go. I believe that proper English is determined by the region from where the person is from or lives and, as long as you are accurate, annunciation is up to what is socially accepted. However have some courtesy when visiting other places because nobody likes to be denounced for their speech.
ReplyDeleteI liked this video. It made me question the English language and ask myself, what does it mean to speak English? English can mean different things to different people. One person's English might not be another's English. Who are we to say which is right and which is wrong?
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is any "correct" way to speak English. Every individual has their own style of speech. Even those that are here to educate us in "correct" grammar and speech stray away from what they teach. I believe that our language and society have evolved to accept several vernaculars, instead of only the intended one.
ReplyDeleteI loved the point made in the spoken word this morning. However, I do think that you have to be aware of how you speak in front of different people, but it is good to have the skill to switch your speech on command. Communication is really important and to be able to relay your message to others and how you do that is also as important. People, especially ethnic groups, trust those that are like them. If you can speak like they do and communicate, then you can reach them. I am a firm believer that its not what you say, but how you say it.
ReplyDeleteI thought that this was a really powerful poem, I also liked how the speaker showed emotion as she performed it. This slam poem was mostly about how we judge others for not using proper English. Society expects everyone to speak properly, but not everyone was taught so I really enjoyed this poem.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to denounce that there is a "correct" way to speak English. Clearly, it makes more sense to believe in the majority as opposed to the official. Despite what is told from the language's foundation, the way in which is evolves to suit the individual is where the true impact occurs. Even if this evolution deviates from what was previously accepted, how to functions in society decides how, if it all, it will be incorporated. Slang in particular is a truly effective means by which people are far easier to communicate between one another, despite its, often, lack of appropriateness.
ReplyDeleteI thought that this spoken word was amazing, and the fact that she spoke on behalf of the majority of African Americans was inspiring. Everyone isn't taught the same, they come from different backgrounds and have different roots in history. She was very intelligent and I think the fact that she could speak three languages makes her phenomenal. Theres different rules for different environments, society just talk down on people who's not proper in their eyes. Its always okay to be who you're and it seems like that's what everyone wants you to be, but how? Society is so quick to judge and if anything is ignorant , that definetly is.
ReplyDeleteJaymee, Aleah and Grace
ReplyDeleteThe many first person perspectives help to develop the story and plot and broaden the point of view and help the reader to create their own opinions.
The foreshadowing in Laura's chapter hints about major events and situations in the story. She also speaks about her marriage and how it wasn't too happy, so that may suggest that it is an abusive relationship.
Diamond and Zoë
ReplyDeleteWe feel that the mom is kind of controlling because she talks to Henry and tells him to ask Laura to marry him. We also think that the marriage won't last because they both had doubts about each other. Also because of Laura saying that after six years, she discovered the true meaning of cleave, which is to divide with a blow, as with an axe. Henry and Jamie's relationship is going to change because of Jamie and Laura's like for each other when they first met. Laura's description on page 14, "Because a negro named Ronsel Jackson shone to brightly. Because a man neglected his wife, and a father betrayed his son, and a mother exacted vengencance," foreshadows the events of the book. Laura's mother getting vengeance on Laura. The father of Henry and Jamie did something to Laura. Ronsel versus the community. Lastly, Henry neglecting Laura as a wife. The several different point of views gives the reader an inside view from different people. We are allowed a better understanding of what happened during the book. We like it because it helps us understand each person's feelings. It will enhance the plot because we know what all character's are doing. If it was only told from one person's point of view, then we wouldn't know how each character felt.