Mudbound by Hilary Jordan
AGENDA:
Homework due today: 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 Reflections
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?
"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 an early chapter of Mudbound
Follow along
Multiple Perspectives:
http://www.the-writers-craft.com/point-of-view-in-literature-perspectives.htmlObjective: Part 1 The author of this book wrote in a first person narrative. These first chapters introduce us to all the different the narrators, and we learn that this book will be told through their perspectives.
1) 1) Genre Introduction: Give a short introduction about first person narrative and other POVs. Explain what it is, how it is used, and why an author might choose this form of narrative for a story like this one.
2) Personal Reaction to Text: Read the introduction with the class. How does this kind of narration make you feel? Do you like it? Do you think it will enhance the plot? Why or why not? What do all the different viewpoints do to the narrative? Why is this not through the eyes of one main character?
3) Small Group Activity: Split the class into groups and assign each group a different form of narrative -- i.e.: third person, second person, omniscient, etc. Have each group re-write this short chapter using their assigned form of narrative. Have each group present their work. Discuss which one was the most effective. Do you think the author made the right choice? Why or why not?
Historical fiction
Objective: Part 1 "Mudbound" fits into a unique genre of literature called Historical Fiction.
1) Introduction of Genre: Introduce to the class the concept of the historical fiction style of writing. Present the pros and cons of this style of narrative and list some of the reasons why an author would choose this style to write in. Present some examples of this style from books that they have read, or will read later with the class.
2) Group Activity: Split the class into groups and assign each group a different part of these chapters. Have each group study their portion and work together to write a short response to the historical fiction style of that portion. Allow each group some time to present their prepared information.
3) Class Discussion: Read aloud with the class the part where the narrator, presents the different facts about the climate in the south at this time -- i.e.: the politics, the war, the different occupations, the crops, the weather, the relations with the north, etc. Discuss this with the class. How does this language enhance the historical fiction style of the book? How does this make this information a little more believable? Why do you think keeping this informational tone was so important to the author? What did you learn through this dialogue that helped you understand this book and setting better?
WRITING:
Finish the Natalie Goldberg exercise
Print out "Why I Write" and place in envelope
HOMEWORK: Read next "Laura" section
I really enjoyed the Ted Talk today, it really opened my eyes. I had never really thought of multilingual as something more than knowing an "actual language." It is really, as pointed out by this spoken word poem, a celebration of all types of speech that derive from culture, upbringing and location. It is these "languages" that diversify the world and they should be celebrated. I agree with what Jamilla Lysicott said in that none of these ways of speaking should be looked down on, they should be celebrated and used to their advantage. They don't make one person less than another in any regard, not any less literate, intelligent, intellectual or worthy of speaking.
ReplyDeleteJamila Lysiscott's speech about language and the way we talk, made me feel like its not bad to talk how you want. Even to British people we still talk as if we speak improper. America is a very diverse country and people come from many different backgrounds. So whose to say that the way you talk is not proper.
ReplyDeleteBased on the video about what I just watched I feel that Jamila Lyiscott was talking about how having "Proper English" isn't so special because even to the people in Britain our English is corrupted. She was talking about how she can speak 3 languages meaning that how she speaks depends on the environment that she was around. I think she was trying to say that based on the environment your around it affect how you speak.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the TED Talk helped show that the many dialects and divergences from formal English are valid. There is a growing argument that AAVE(African American Vernacular English) should be an accepted just like some other variants of the English language. This video was able to add some humor and some emotion making the argument more relatable.
ReplyDelete-Cameron Bennett
The Ted Talk "Linguistic Celebration" by Jamila Lysicott was very touching. I enjoyed how it started out light and humorous and as the talk progressed she began to shed some light on the reasoning for her 'articulation'. She also mentioned how racism is a big factor in the way she articulates.The talk showed the diversity in just one persons English and how it changed with every situation she is put in. I also liked how Lysicott added how an Americans English may not be seen as articulate to an Englishmen for example and I thought that was clever and also ironic. Overall the Ted Talk was interesting and her delivery kept me engaged.
ReplyDeleteJamila Lyiscott video really had a strong message behind it, she was pretty much trying to get the point across that the way someone speaks doesn't mean that they are not intelligent or not suitable for a certain situation. People can have different ways of speaking for different environments that they are in so they can feel more comfortable instead of feeling as if they don't belong or an outcast. I refer to this as human adaptation, we adapt to the environment that we are in to make the best out of the conditions and fit in with everything surrounding us in that environment.
ReplyDelete"3 Ways to Speak English" by Jamila Lyiscott has a powerful message about language. People are judged by how they speak and are looked down upon if they don't have proper grammar. Even if you don't pronounce words well or stutter or have an accent, people can still understand what you're saying. Language is everything in life, nobody should act different towards someone over how they use it.
ReplyDeleteIn "Linguistic Celebration," Jamila Lysicott showed the importance of knowing where you come from, and the difference between that and promoting ignorance. When she talked about how she was raised to talk, we see how someone can be teased for talking differently than their parents taught them. With humor, she showed that even the most proper American speech can be frowned at by others. Calling herself "trilingual" was actually appropriate.Overall, it was a good message and an interesting TED talk to watch.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the video was a strong point in our society that people need to listen too. The way we talk to people can have a difference. More people should talk the right way instead of talking in slang or making their own words up. People who use different languages that describe them and the environment they live in.
ReplyDeleteThe Ted Talk "Linguistic Celebration" by Jamila Lysicott was very touching. I enjoyed how it started out light and humorous and as the talk progressed she began to shed some light on the reasoning for her 'articulation'. She also mentioned how racism is a big factor in the way she articulates.The talk showed the diversity in just one persons English and how it changed with every situation she is put in. I also liked how Lysicott added how an Americans English may not be seen as articulate to an Englishmen for example and I thought that was clever and also ironic. Overall the Ted Talk was interesting and her delivery kept me engaged.
ReplyDeleteI liked the Ted Talk today because of what Jamilla Lysicott said if a person speaks a certain way that they shouldn't be looked down on and judged for it, that doesn't make them any less of a person. She was also saying depending on who you are carrying a conversation with and the environment, you speak a different way. I agree with her 100%
ReplyDeleteIn "Linguistic Celebration," Jamila Lysicott showed the importance of knowing where you come from, and the difference between that and promoting ignorance. When she talked about how she was raised to talk, we see how someone can be teased for talking differently than their parents taught them. With humor, she showed that even the most proper American speech can be frowned at by others. Calling herself "trilingual" was actually appropriate.Overall, it was a good message and an interesting TED talk to watch.
ReplyDeleteI liked the ted talk today. I thought what Jamila Lyiscott was saying was really insightful. She spoke about her background like she was not only passionate but proud of it and I like that. She gave reasons and examples which kept it interesting. She started out by talking about what her teacher commented to her so the rest of the speech seemed like she was making a point to him and everyone else who might have put her down about the ways that she talks. I agree with her point about people looking down on you because of the way you talk. Like when she talked about the British, it opened my eyes to what she was saying.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed how Lyiscott opened my eyes as multilingual as more than just learning and speaking another " actual language." I agree that speaking a different type of English should be not to be looked down on nor make the person less literate.
ReplyDelete