The Bell Jar Blog 2

The Genre of The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath can be categorized as realistic fiction. The novel is about Esther Greenwood who struggles to differentiate her personal identity and society identity, along with meaning of her life, reality, and battling insanity. These are recurring issues in the lives of real people which calls the genre to exist. The events that occur could happen in real life and the characters appear realistic, but they are fictional. This genre opens up the possibility that what happens in the text could or has happened in real life. Another Genre that this novel could be categorized as is coming-of-age fiction. Esther Greenwood uses internal monologue to tell the story in reflection of her journey through young adulthood and the events that have shaped her into who she eventually becomes.

In application of the text to the genre there are forms that distinguish it. A major form that appears throughout this novel would be minor or incidental forms. The words used in figural language are what we see, as the language is not concrete but abstract, this opens up a window to the thematic dimension of the novel. One primary figural form used in the text is metaphor and simile. In Chapter 4 Esther continually uses metaphor and simile, when she goes to the movies instead of the park she says her “secret hope…died in the glass eggbeater” and gets into “a cave of a cab”(pg.41). When she begins to not feel well at the movies she decides to leave and so does her friend Betsy and she describes her “drained face floated in front of me”(pg.43). She continues in description of how she feels, “the sickness rolled…in great waves”, “limp as a wet leaf”, and “torture-chamber tiles…on all four sides closed in and squeezed me to pieces”(pg.44). There are plenty more that follow, “numb as a snowdrift”, “words bungled out thick as molasses”, “window that swam”, “left hand lay pale as a cod” and so on(pg.45). The narrator also uses many simple sentences in this chapter, “Betsy looked a fright”, “Betsy was already there”, “I listened with interest”, “I shook my head”(pg.43-47). This minor form also makes us stop and examine the text for what it is.

Another form would be Qualitative progressive which is something felt by the reader that creates a mood which carries us into another mood. In the Bell Jar this is when we encounter a mood of uncertainty. This mood is evoked when Esther Greenwood is in reflection about her life and or questioning her actions or future actions. This occur repetitively but each time under a new context. From the very beginning we are aware of this underlying uncertainty, she says “I was supposed to be having the time of my life” but she wasn’t(pg.2). In reference to her boss Jay Cee and elders she says “suddenly I didn’t think they had anything to teach me”(pg. 6).

We can predict that there will be more uncertainty as her questions prior to each are not directly answered. Esther’s uncertainty progressively becomes more clear and detailed in self reflection as her experience builds within her time in New York City. Esther says “I wondered why I couldn’t go the whole way doing what I should any more” and then seems to answer her own question as she answers  Jay Cee “I don’t really know” to what she plans to do after graduation(pg.30,32). She felt taken aback by her own answer because she realized it was true. She can’t seem to do what she should because she doesn’t know what she should do, this particular uncertainty is answered. This is only a partial answer as we are not given an answer as to why she doesn’t know what she wants. Later on in chapter seven Esther says “I thought how strange it had never occurred to me before that I was only purely happy until I was nine years old” (pg.75) This gives us the answer to why she doesn’t know what she wants but again leads to the progression of uncertainty for the answer as to why she’s not happy isn’t given.  Continuing in the chapter Esther describes her life in comparison to a fig tree. Each fig on the tree’s branches represented a possible and desirable future, “One fig was a husband and a happy home…”, “…another fig was a famous poet…a brilliant professor”,”…another fig was Europe and Africa…another fig was a pack of lovers…”(pg.77). She then tells the reader that she can’t make up her mind and choose a fig which leaves her “starving to death”(pg.77). This creates a partial answer as it is an explanation for why she is not happy, she doesn’t have a purpose to give her sustenance. What is left is  uncertainty about her future path which she it will be to late before she decides.“As I sat there…the figs began to wrinkle…they plopped to the ground at my feet”(pg.77)

The Bell Jar Blog 1

The Bell Jar is a semi-autobiographical novel by Sylvia Plath. It follows the life
of a young college student, Esther Greenwood, and she traverses the path through life as a young woman in the early 20th century.

I became attached to the writing in this book almost immediately. The narrator, Esther Greenwood, starts off with an inconsequential detail about her summer in New York City: that it was “the summer they electrocuted the Rosenbergs” (1), and that she spent an awfully great amount of her time thinking about how terrible it would be to be electrocuted. Right away, we as readers can begin to expect something off about the narrator (for who focuses so much of their mental energy wondering about electrocutions?), but for the moment it is charming or endearing; this is an interesting character whom we wish to know more about.

To be fair, electrocution really doesn’t seem pleasant.

Because of my attachment, it’s probably accurate to say that I fell into the mimetic register pretty hard. I was apprehensive of this book since I know there are a good amount of people who dislike it (something I could be projecting on the text— “reading for” proving them wrong, perhaps), but the writing in the beginning leaves me hopeful for the rest of it. At the moment, I am reading for a few things as far as I’m aware: the assignment, my own personal enjoyment and desire to experience Plath’s work, and to confirm my expectations for the book. I expect this novel to have some sort of impact on me (as someone who, granted, is easily impacted by literature), and for it to fuel some sort of dialogue about women empowerment and the injustices women face in society. These expectations are based purely on what I’ve heard about the book, and other people’s experiences reading it.

That being said, I have to fight to get past those expectations, even if they’re positive ones, and read what’s actually on the page. A good way of practicing doing that is by examining the Controlling Values at this stage in the storyline (as discussed on our class website, here). We’ve done this in our previous blog posts, in order to establish a baseline for both Animal Farm and Autobiography of a Face.

In the first quarter or so of The Bell Jar, Esther seems to simultaneously pride herself in being different from the other girls in her program, while also being slightly jealous of their easy-going lifestyle and social aptitude. She describes them as “awfully bored”, and that those who are vocal about their ennui from their glamorous lifestyles “make [her] sick” (4). In this regard, we can start to formulate the controlling value’s purpose as something like: Setting yourself apart from the norm brings you success and recognition. Esther respects the work she’s doing, and she believes that studying very hard and going the extra mile gives her more opportunities to succeed— while it also makes her very different from the girls around her.

The context to this would be: Following the expectations of others brings monotony and a loss of self. She tends to lump all of the other girls in this summer program into a one inferior category (with the exception of her wild friend, Doreen). Esther wishes to keep her personhood, and wants to stay “different” so that she can judge the actions of the other girls who go with the flow.

Pictured below is a value graph, showing how these values play out over one segment in the novel (namely, the day when Esther got food poisoning from Ladies Night in chapter 4).

 

Describing Esther in terms of these values reminds me of another literary character that I (unlike many others) hold dearly in my heart: Holden Caulfield from Catcher in the Rye. Like this interpretation of Esther, Holden is also awfully critical of others and tends to see himself as superior, but also like Esther, I believe this comes from a place of insecurity and an insatiable desire to find his place in life. Esther feels stuck between the boring lives of her “vanilla” acquaintances, and the dangerous, irresponsible behaviors of people like Doreen. She wants to succeed both socially, romantically, and professionally, but the values she has to put forth to achieve either of those things tend to clash with the other two.

 

Animal Farm 4

By Blog 4, we know that Animal Farm is a story about an animal rebellion, organized in hopes of creating a humanless utopia. In this utopia, Animal Farm, animals would be completely self-sustaining and have freedom. It’s unsurprising that this does not work out. Animal Farm, when read as a writerly reader and considering the various narration and addressee roles, offers many different layers.

Definitely not this kind of pig story.

What struck me as soon as I began reading the book, and as I mentioned in my response to Blog 3, is that Orwell calls Animal Farm a “fairy story.” Most people read this story in school at a somewhat younger age, around middle school. It makes sense, then, that this story is called a “fairy story” because it implies that this story is for a younger audience. I imagine this is an audience that is, for the most part, ignorant of the political and historical satire the story offers. As older, more educated individuals reading this story, the allegorical/satirical nature of the story is evident to us. But it’s interesting that Orwell calls it a fairy story, which opens it up to an entirely new audience, or set of addressees. Already we have two different readerly roles. As informed readers understanding Orwell’s references to and satirizing of Soviet Russia and Communism, they become part of the authorial audience as referred to by Peter Rabinowitz in Truth in Fiction.

Based on our group discussions, I’ve come up with somewhat of an analogy: Orwell is to us as the pigs are to the rest of animal farm. Orwell is, in a way, manipulative and shaping readers to be what he wants and needs for a successful, impactful story. However, this can mean many different shapes. Orwell interpellates us in one distinct way. There is a character named Napoleon. This pig’s name is a very obvious allusion to anyone who is educated in history at all. This allusion, I think, portrays Rabinowitz’s narrative audience: Most people are familiar with the name Napoleon. Whether it is conscious or subconscious, many people understand what the name implies, even without extensive knowledge of the real Napoleon’s reign. Both the real Napoleon and the pig Napoleon are guilty of tyrannical, authoritarian leadership, mass murder, The difference, however, is that Orwell’s Napoleon seems to succeed.

Me to the Napoleons.

As a group, we discussed that each character seems to represent a different kind of reader. For example, Mollie, a very vapid horse, could be analogized to a passive kind of reader who is stuck within the mimetic register. When things start getting crazy in the story and on the farm, Mollie just leaves and “none of the animals ever mentioned Mollie again” (Orwell 47). She just wasn’t on their level. Benjamin, a donkey, plays the role of a resistant reader, as he “seldom talked, and when he did, it was usually to make some cynical remark” (5). I could consider Boxer, the most loyal and hardest working horse, to be a very submissive reader, as “his two favorite maxims, ‘I will work harder’ and ‘Comrade Napoleon is always right’” (125-6).

Benjamin as a reader, probably.

He immediately accepted anything the pigs fed him. A part of Orwell’s plan I didn’t fully realize I was submitting to throughout the story was that I was, without question, accepting the fact that the animals learned to read, write, organize a military, talk, etc. These are all things that animals just do not do. This entire story would have been for naught if Orwell wasn’t able to convince me that animals are capable of doing something more than eating and existing.

The pigs as characters are also very manipulative – to both the animals and the readers. As a reader, I sometimes caught myself believing them! At one point, Snowball, the pig, becomes everyone’s scapegoat. If the windmill fell, it was Snowball’s doing. If something was missing or someone was slacking in their work, it was because of Snowball. If the pig leaders needed to divert the attentions of others from themselves, they blamed Snowball and made him the enemy. In referencing Rabinowitz again, I consider my falling into believing Napoleon and Squealer when they were blaming Snowball as my joining the ideal narrative audience. It’s interesting that the narrator of this story resides in the third person objective point of view. The narrator only relays the story, giving us no thoughts or feelings onto which we can project. I think this third person voice encourages the audience to trust what the narrator is saying, falling into the same traps the comrades of Animal Farm do. I also wonder if this doubles as a time where I’m a submissive reader: is it part of Orwell’s plan to have me fall into this trap? Maybe if I accept the role that the animals on the farm do, then I would be more likely to perceive his social commentary.

Therefore, the submissive and authentic reader for Orwell is one who accepts his tale of human-like animals, one who is knowledgeable about communism and Russian history, and one who understands the allusions to Napoleon. I think taking on this role can be quite difficult. This interpretation of Animal Farm is so widely accepted. New readers maybe trapped in going into the story only halfway there. Instead of taking on a readerly role that understands and accepts all the nuances of Orwell’s strategic work, they may just assume it’s there and not work to discover it.

“I will twerk harder.”

 

Animal Farm Blog 3

The political satire Animal Farm by George Orwell tells the story of the animals of Manor Farm rebelling and overthrowing their master, Mr. Jones the farmer. The animals take over and start Animal Farm, establishing the rules of Animalism within their new society. Determining the intertextual codes of Animal Farm will help to transform the reader into a “writerly” reader, find the meaning behind what we read as denotative, and reveal the connotative dimension of the text. As a reader begins in the denotative aspect of the text, it’s apparent that the Proairetic code of cause and effect takes place in the text’s progression of events.  For example, when Clover the horse finds out that Comrade Napoleon the boar sleeps in a bed in the farmhouse, she vaguely remembered there was a rule against this established in Animal Farm’s Seven Commandments. Muriel the goat reads the commandment painted on the barn, “No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets”, and Clover believes she’s mistaken since Napoleon was not using sheets, so it was okay (p.58). The reader knows that this is a manipulation when looking back on the actual commandment which read “No animal shall sleep in a bed”(p.22). The reader can predict from the corrupt cause of Napoleon that more commandments will be violated, and they are. When some of the animals are found guilty of being in alliance with Snowball or have done anything not in favor of Napoleon, they were killed. The animals collectively thought they remembered a commandment that forbid killing other animals, but when they read the inscription, it said “No animal shall kill any other animal without cause” (p.74). The reader once again knows this is a manipulation, as the actual commandment read “No animal shall kill any other animal” (p.22). This cause and effect continues by the readers prediction.

                                       Cause and effect prediction pattern 

The Proairetic Code opens a door to the Symbolic Code. This code creates a structured conflict, as seen in the cause and effect events between Napoleon and the animals under his rule. An underlying conflicting cause would be between the followers and the renegades. Napoleon being the latter, he betrays the founding principles of Animal Farm. The followers being the majority of the other animals on Animal Farm, they support and believe in what Animal Farm originally stood for. Another is Napoleon as the manipulator, and the other animals as the ones manipulated. Napoleon manipulates the commandments which manipulates the animals thinking. Thirdly Napoleon inflicts suffering while the other animals suffer. Napoleon makes the animals suffer under his new rules, including immediately killing those who oppose him. These are constant oppositions at play in the incidents revolving around the Seven Commandments. The reader can also decipher elements of the Hermeneutic code within this context.

                                          Napoleon inflicts suffering                                             

The proposal of the enigma happens with the first instance in which Clover is confused about her understanding of the Fourth Commandment. What follows is a request for an answer, Clover asks Muriel “…read me the Fourth Commandment. Does it not say something about never sleeping in a bed?”, then the snare occurs (p.56). Clover is deceived by the manipulation of the written commandment. This pattern of the enigma, request for an answer, and snare repeatedly happens each time Napoleon actively betrays and changes the original commandments. In chapter 8 an incident occurs when Squealer has fallen from a broken ladder in front of the barn wall where the commandments are written, besides him is white paint and a paint brush. For the majority of the animals this is but a partial answer to the enigma as they can not decipher the situation. The only one who has disclosure is Benjamin the Donkey “who nodded his muzzle with a knowing air, and seemed to understand, but would say nothing”(p.89).

Animal Farm Blog 2

Animal Farm by George Orwell is widely known as, and upon reading, immediately identifiable as a political satire. As I make my way through reading this book, I find I am largely in tune to the thematic register— acknowledging the overall themes and symbolism that are present within the text, though I do not yet know how they all tie together in the end. For a more in-depth look into the events in Animal Farm and how they relate to the different registers of reading, see our first blog for this book. The language present in the beginning of the book mirrors the vernacular of communist ideas, such as (quite plainly) the overwhelming use of calling the fellow farm animals “comrades.” Another telling line would be when Old Major is giving his speech in chapter one about initiating a rebellion against mankind, where he says “Only get rid of Man, and the produce of our labour would be our own. Almost overnight we could become rich and free”, which are some of the promises made in idealistic communism (9). So, we have the genre, which gives us the scope from which we can view this text.

If we look closer within the text, however, we can examine different forms that are utilized to shape our reading experience in different ways. Kenneth Burke describes the different aspects of form in the chapter in his book Counter Statement called “Lexicon Rhetoricae”.  Forms are conventions used to fulfill different aspects of a text that all add up to forming a certain genre. One form is the conventional form– using conventions of an understood genre and fulfilling our expectations of what should happen based on that pretense. For instance, since Animal Farm  is a political satire, we expect to see some sort of conflict within the societal system that the protagonists seek to resolve. In the text, the rebellion against Farmer Jones “was achieved much earlier and more easily than anyone has expected” (18). I feel that this is true for both the characters in the book and the reader (at least, this was the case for me). I expected the rebellion to be a major conflict in the storyline, but it happened quickly and the plot easily moved along into a different facet. When this happened, my expectations changed, as I realized the focus of the major conflict in this book was going to be something other than what I thought going in.

I don’t know, man, something seems off about these pigs……

From there on, I began to expect something to go wrong with the animals leading themselves, as would fulfill the conflictual needs to become a real social commentary/satire. That conclusion also is combined with what is called syllogistic progressive form, meaning that the plot is set up in such a way that it’s logical for the events that follow to happen. Because the rebellion happened so soon, there must be further corruption in the new form of government in order for there to still be a story. Similarly in chapter 4, we get a look at what Mr. Jones has been doing and how the news of Animal Farm has spread, so we can assume that this will lead to action on the farmers’ part– which it did. The farmers “attempt[ed] the recapture of the farm,” which led to the Battle of the Cowshed– the first purely violent defense from the animals that solidified their power and feelings of superiority under their new system (40).

An interesting thing that happened during the time of the battle gives us an example of qualitative form. Qualitive form is about the different moods that are present while reading a text, and how they change and relate to one another. During the battle, the horse Boxer’s  “very first blow took a stable-lad from Foxwood on the skull and stretched him lifeless in the mud” (42). When Boxer expresses remorse for believing he killed someone (with his eyes “full of tears”), the pig Snowball tells him not to feel remorse because all humans are better off dead, and that this was just a product of war (43). Shortly after that, it was discovered that the boy was not actually dead, and had ran off when they were investigating something else. However, despite how upset Boxer was, we did not get any internal imagery from him when they discovered that the boy was alive. It could be that after Snowball gave the order about how he should not be bothered by killing humans, it ceased to matter if the stable-lad was dead or alive: the verdict was set.

I also would like to look at the physical language used in this story. The writing in this is simplistic and straightforward, without much imagery or description. This book was written to be easily digestible, so that many could read it and understand the harsh political point that Orwell was making. The writing is similar to a fable or fairytale, and with the subject matter being strangely competent talking animals, this correlation fits. It’s interesting to consider another fable-like story about talking animals rising up against an oppressive ruler; namely, The Jungle Book.  I’m talking about the movie version that was released in 2016, where the conflict with Shere Khan is a little more dramatized and his power over the jungle is absolute. Obviously, these “texts” are very different, but the way that the jungle creatures decide to rise up against Shere Khan at the end is similar to how the farm animals take charge from Mr. Jones. There’s also similar themes in relation to man vs. animal, since the whole reason Mowgli is being hunted by Shere Khan is because he is a mancub, and man doesn’t “belong” in the jungle. This ideology that Shere Khan tries (and fails) to instill in the jungle animals is similar to what the pigs successfully instill in the farm animals; “four legs good, two legs bad” (34).

Animal Farm Blog 1

 

For the Animal Farm!

 

Animal farm is the fictional story of a group of barnyard animals who overthrow their neglectful owner, Mr. Jones, and establish their place to control the farm. Under the leadership of Napoleon and Snowball, a pair of pigs, the animals seek a future for themselves with animals being equal.

This story is a very well known piece of political satire written by George Orwell which is aimed at the rise of the Soviet Union. In his essay, Why I Write, Orwell stated that “Animal Farm was the first book in which I tried, with full consciousness of what I was doing, to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole.” That being said, I think we can analyze it more. Despite what he has said, I think Orwell could have easily slipped in other themes into the narrative along with the satire. I want to see if there are subtle ways to mix thematization with satire.

 

The Speech From the 1954 Animated Adaption

The one risk I have while going into this reading is with the mimetic register. While I should be able to keep focus, the political tones the story sets nearly pulled me onto the mimetic register. The first chapter contains a speech given by Old Major, the oldest pig at Manor Farm and the one who inspires the animals to stand up against Jones. I found myself nearly drawn into the pig’s words, which made me have to reread the chapter focusing on the theme.

 

Despite this, I couldn’t quite get a grasp of a controlling idea… That was until I began to notice a pattern with the characters. I didn’t see it until the end of chapter three, but there was something wrong with the farm animals’ mannerisms when it comes to revolution. The animals want freedom from Jones, who in a way is a guide for them. This guide oppresses them for his gains, and it leads to the animals revolting. In that context, I believe this is where we find the controlling value: Finding Freedom and Equality is finding happiness. These farm animals want a chance at happiness, and once they overthrow Jones, someone that could be considered an oppressive leader, everything seems to be looking up. As the book described it, “Everything they could see was theirs! In the ecstasy of the thought they gamboled round and round, they hurled themselves into the air in great leaps of excitement (Orwell, 20).”

 

Plotting the next revolution as you read this.

However, this is where the counter comes in. There is no freedom for those who don’t know how to use it. This would mean the counter idea would be that people need a guide to control their actions. This is shown more prominently throughout the revolution. When Old Major dies from old age, none of the barn animals step up, and it takes them a while to overthrow Jones. This happens when Napoleon and Snowball step up and leads them. When the animals run the farm, waking up the next day, they frolick… but then look at each other wondering what to do. Once again, Napoleon and Snowball bring them together to form the seven commandments. When the cows wonder what will happen to their milk? Napoleon has them focus in, saying, “The harvest is more important(23)!”

 

The animals NEED someone to lead them. They want the freedom, but truthfully don’t know what to do with it. Unfortunately, this path will probably lead to ruin, as the end of the chapter shows Squealer, another pig, putting his kind above the rest of animal kind.

Mimetically, this would either open my eyes to the corruption that’s already setting in, or would make me nod and agree with what the pig was saying. However, if you want to start thinking Thematically with this book, its best examined through the reactions rather than the actions. You’ll begin to see the strings on the puppet show that the pigs have begun.

 

Orwell, George. Animal Farm. Middletown: Brawtley, 2012. Print.

Dag, O. “George Orwell.” Why I Write. 1946 N.p., n.d. Web.

Autobiography of a Face Part 4

In this memoir Lucy Grealy tells us about her battle with cancer and it’s result, facial disfigurement. This leads her into a continuous struggle with beauty, love, and identity.

Beginning to read her memoir the readerly role I immediately fell under was one of sympathy. This poor girl, I feel sorry for her, I can’t imagine nor want to imagine my own life as her own. At this early stage in the story it is primarily Lucy the child narrating, this child does not call the addressee to be sympathetic. As a child there was an element of excitement, getting out of school, receiving attention, feeling important, and praised for bravery, for not crying. These qualities do not call for sympathy but rather empathy.

  Lack of Empathy 

Afterword taking on an empathetic role I also took on another readerly role. What I encountered was not wanting to listen to the horrors of her treatments from childhood to adulthood, because they are personally frightening to me. I was resistant to hearing every little detail of the treatments. I was resistant to being empathetic because it triggered in me a personal relational response of understanding. I wanted to avoid this empathy because of the anxiety it gave me. She does not call the audience to overshadow her story with projections of themselves.

In each role I played I had an inauthentic understanding of the role the narrator called me to take. To be sympathetic, to look away in self reflection, are surely not roles Lucy calls for her audience.

Lucy calls her audience to look past the superficial elements, her cancer, her constantly disturbed physical state. When Lucy presents longing for, and questions about beauty, love, and identity she helps us submit to the idea of her internal disfigurement rather than her physical disfigurement. Over and over Lucy presents us with her shamed identity, for example she states “…I was too horrible to look at, that I wasn’t worthy of being looked at, that my ugliness was equal to a great personal failure”(p.184)

                                Believes she’s a failure because she doesn’t have a beautiful face.

In reflection on love Lucy says “…fear kept insisting that I needed someone else’s longing to believe in that love”(p. 212). Submitting to the understanding of her internal disfigurement impacts the addressee in understanding where her identity lies, which is her face. It is the autobiography of her face, this identity that tells us it’s story and struggle for beauty. Taking the readerly role Lucy wants her audience to take enables us to uncover that her true identity is disfigured by the face, therefore it can not surface or overcome till the image is gone.

Another narrator addressee relationship that occurs is when Lucy finds people starring at her. As a teenager when she did pony parties parents would glance at her and quickly look away. She would interpellate by pausing by them, forcing them to look. She called them to see her as dangerous, that what happened to her could happen to their child. The parents as the addressee would continue to glance away and not directly communicate with her. After three years of doing her job no one ever sought to understand her, to really look at her, “they were uncomfortable because of my face”.

 

 

Autobiography of a Face part 3

Read the previous post in this project here.

Throughout Autobiography of a Face, Lucy Grealy struggles with how her sickness and subsequent disfigurement shapes her identity. One of the most perplexing aspects of Lucy’s memoir is that for most of her life, Lucy refuses to acknowledge how she really looks and therefore takes a long time to understand that she must come to terms with and accept her face.

When Lucy was young, she didn’t “hadn’t a clue how sick [she] was or what was going to happen” (43)– that the operation would leave her face permanently changed. After it happened, she quickly accepted the change because she didn’t value herself in terms of her looks. As she got older, however, the way people perceived her began to affect her more and more. When she was able to return to school for long amounts of time, she was relentlessly bullied, especially in middle school.

Using Roland Barthe’s approach of examining Intertextual Codes, we can analyze Lucy’s inability to associate herself with her own face. The predicament that young Lucy is in is already strange: a young girl in a semi-dysfunctional family who gets sick and diagnosed with Ewing’s sarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer in the lower jaw. Even as a young child before the operation, Lucy “hadn’t had a strong sense of what [she] looked like” (52). I can’t imagine many children have a good grasp on their physical identity, but even after the operation that resulted in a huge scar, Lucy “felt only proud … and eager to show it off” (52). Little did she know how much that scar would affect her entire life.

Pictured here: words of encouragement that young Lucy evidently did not need.

These statements can comprise the Thematization and the Proposal of the Enigma, according to Barthe’s hermeneutic code. The most recognizable time that Lucy starts to associate herself with how she looks is when she gets excited and hopeful at the prospect of the first reconstructive surgery “fixing” her face. This can be seen as our first Request for an Answer; in Lucy’s mind this surgery will be the answer to all her problems. She starts to care about her looks and how it relates to her identity. This hope, however, is also a Snare; the surgeries, in addition to being unsuccessful long-term, also can’t resolve Lucy’s struggle with her appearance and her self worth.

Lucy sabotages herself from true acceptance throughout her life, most notably with each time she decides to take on a new identity to make her worthy of happiness and life in general. She tries to prove her worthiness to herself by doing things like resolving not to cry at her chemotherapy appointments, forcing herself to believe in God, becoming a model student in school and a model patient while in the hospital, and finally by becoming an image of sex appeal and femininity, in order to fill the void in her heart of self worth with fleeting romantic escapades.  All of these things prevented Lucy from getting to the truth, the real answer for how to live her life. At one point, a false solution of hers was to completely resign from looking in mirrors entirely, or else learn how to look in a mirror while “staring straight through … allowing none of the reflection to get back to [her]” (222).

C’mon Mulan, it’s only makeup. You’ve got it easy.

Lucy found a Partial Answer to her enigma by way of expressing herself through writing. She discovered her talent for writing before the mirror-avoidant philosophy, but even though she discovered it in college it still carried her over later in her life when she needed it. She also developed a partial answer when she was able to make real connections to people and make true friends who helped her and saw her as a person outside of her face. However, a true Disclosure, a real conclusion to her issue didn’t happen until after her final reconstructive surgery, when she began to see herself and recognize herself as her reflection, with no feeling of shame or fear attached to it. She could be herself, interact with people, and think of herself worthy of that interaction. All of her life she had a faltering grasp of her physical and metaphorical identity and who she wanted to be, but at the end of her memoir Lucy finally could start to recognize herself as exactly who she was, and nothing more.