Week 4 Lab

 Jennifer Barnes Ted Talk:

    In writing the past two stories, I have honestly been a bit shocked by just how difficult it has been to produce something that I am moderately happy with. This, truthfully, is just a sign of my own hubris in thinking that writing stories would come naturally.... Therefore, I was really exited to see the Story Lab as an option for this week! 

    I thought that Dr. Barnes brought up a couple of good points- and some that I have been thinking about a lot over the course of the past month or so. Fictional works hold huge power over their audiences, so I think it is irresponsible act as though this were not the case. I think this is what draws me to stories that have morals. Although I think that this comes with its own problems (imposing one set of morals on situation in which those might not apply), I think that at least thinking about the morality of a story is important. 

(Morality- Perhaps Not Quite This Simple.... Source: Pixabay)

Chimamanda Adichie Ted Talk:

    I thought that Chimamanda Adichie brought up a phenomenally important point- that of properly representing people in works of literature. One question that I had, however, was just how I (fundamentally, a white, privileged person) should best go about this. She spoke about writing about her own narrative, but if I were to do the same, wouldn't I just be contributing more to the problem. At its heart, I understand that there is mostly a need for more authors of a diverse background. IN my own writing, however, would it be reasonable/OK to try to represent more diverse voices even though I cannot speak from personal experience. I imagine that any attempt would involve A LOT of thorough research. Perhaps it is not my responsibility to write diverse voices in my own stories, but to do everything in my power to make sure that other authors who are able to represent voices different from my own get the chance to be heard. Is it possible to do both?

Reading Notes: Narayan's Ramayana, Part D

Bibliography: Narayan's Ramayana. Story: "Interlude/Coronation" (Again, the link is for web research of the story, I am reading from a paper book)

Notes: When I was reading through the Interlude, I was REALLY angry with Rama. There seems to be a common theme in the Ramayana (at least Narayan's version), of victim blaming and mistrust. When tragedy befalls women, they are not welcomed back with open arms. Instead they are viewed as "impure," even if they have literally been kidnapped, tortured, or raped. Truly, its enough to make just about any woman's blood boil. 

           I was somewhat placated that the "Coronation" section of the book started off with the gods acknowledging Rama's hypocrisy. They, at least, recognized that Rama had changed. If not changed, then at least had changed his morals completely when it came to himself. I was fully expecting some sort of scene in which the gods talked to him about this change, but I was disappointed. Perhaps this is again an issue of severe abbreviation, but I thought this would be an area in which I could elaborate with a story of my own. 

           I don't really know what might cause someone to have such a reversal of character. Maybe earlier life experience that would cause such mistrust? What is the story about Rama's mother? If she were to have had an affair, this might be the reason that Rama would have one set of morals for others, but that when it comes to himself he would not be objective. Then there is the question of what the gods might say to deal with this. Perhaps they could arrange for some kind of meeting with his mother in which she were to explain the reason behind her infidelity. While I don't condone the act, I can easily come up with reasons why it might be easily explained and reasonable. Perhaps Rama hearing this might cause him to rethink his morals when it comes to Sita. 

(The Marriage of Rama and Sita. Source: Wikimedia)

Reading Notes: Narayan's Ramayana, Section C

 Bibliography: Narayan's Ramayana. Story: "Sugreeva's Story" (Again, the link is for web research of the story, I am reading from a paper book)

Notes: When reading this story, I was mostly struck by the tragedy of it. The brothers Sugreeva and Vali could have had such a chance to form a strong bond, considering that they have both undergone largely similar experiences (both being "illegitimate" sons and being both cast out and cursed by Sage Gautama), and therefore might be truly the only people in the world who could understand one another. However, as is so often the case for people who have undergone traumatic experiences in early childhood, the cycle of abuse continues (in this story, it might be more accurate to say- the "cycle of tragedy") 

            I also thought that this story cloud be easily modified to make some pretty poignant commentary on the horrors of war when veterans return home. It sounds like the two brothers actually started out by having a relatively functional relationship (the Narayan story does not really describe it, but they were at least both inhabiting the same kingdom). Vali's experiences could be modernized and related to time spent at war. The part in which he is presumed dead would not have to be changed much, but I think it would be interesting to spend most of the story dealing with the interactions that Sugreeva and Vali have after he returns. I don't know if this is merely a consequence of the severe abbreviation of the Narayan version, but I thought that a lot of the strife would have been avoided with better attempts at communication. Why couldn't Sugreeva have written Vali a letter explaining what happened once they had been separated? However, if Vali is suffering from PTSD that causes him to not trust anything that Sugreeva says (bringing the battleground and struggle for power/survival home with him) this would provide, at least to me, a better argument as to the falling out for the two brothers and also a better understanding of why Sugreeva might feel that he has no choice but to have Vali killed (though, I have to admit, I can't really think of any fundamentally good reason to commit fratricide...).

(Sugreeva challenging Vali. Source: Wikimedia)