Concepts of Time in Novels: We are All Connected

Time is one of the main themes of Bharati Mukherjee’s Holder of the World. The ping-pong/meshing of two different times in the novel, one in the early 1990s and the other in late 1600s-early 1700s is something that I find very arresting and makes for a more compelling read. Time and history is Beigh Masters’ life work, and she is connected to Hannah Easton, Salem Bibi, even though they live(d) in completely separate times. But are their times really that separate? It relates back to what Venn is trying to achieve with his machine: “he won’t call it time-travel. Neither we, nor time, will have traveled an inch.” It seems as though Mukherjee is demystifying the idea that time is a continuous line, with its events separate--they happen and are done. We are affected and influenced by history and, in turn, affect and influence history ourselves. It pertains to the trippy idea that time is really not a constant line but that it is all at once. I guess this would relate to spaces that we talked about as well. Mukherjee is not the first author I have read to bring up aspects of time like this. As an example, one of my all-time favorite books (a series actually) is Outlander by Diana Gabaldon. I should mention, this is not the Outlander that was apparently a viking vs. aliens movie, which I was informed of awhile ago.

These books are honestly spellbinding—mix of history, romance, adventure, time travel—they are great. So, if you’re looking for summer reading…and a 7th one is coming out this Sept. I heard. But anyways! If you plan to read any of the books just take my word for it that it is relevant to what I was talking about before with history/time, and don’t read the next part of my blog because I am going to spoil a few things.

Super long story short: Claire is a nurse after WWII, just got married and is in Scotland where she goes through standing stones which send her back in time to the 1700s where she falls in love with and marries Jamie Fraser, a big rugged highlander. Trust me, it’s completely believable in the book! She knows about rebellions and Stuart's war that are going to happen and tries to change history and all that but then….she finds out she is pregnant with Jamie’s baby and goes back to the 20th century and has the baby there, where time passed normally as it did in the past (3 years I think). Throughout the books, she and her daughter travel back in time multiple times, once ending up in the present earlier than when they had left. Especially great part: the creepy lady who is getting hung for being a witch tells Claire a number (1-9-6-3) and shows Claire a small pox vaccination scar on her arm right before she dies.

These ideas of history and time bring up an awareness of how we all have the power to influence each others’ spaces in both positive and negative ways. I feel like this is an important thing that I have gotten from the class.

Needed: A Dose of Professionalism

So I’m pretty aware that most love jumping on the Rachel Maddow bandwagon, yee-hawing all the way about anything poking fun at conservatives. So, it must have just been a treat getting wind of what those crazy people were up to now. The show gave us the whole scoop, and it was a grand ol’ time, full of condescending hilarity! But I’m not really sure why it’s all so hilarious—especially when the segment we watched in class was inarguably biased and completely un-professional. I really appreciated the on-camera smirks/not-so-subtle snickering as the two contributors could barely get out the phrase “tea-bagging” (apparently for its sexual connotations?) Not that the political sway of her show is any secret, but her contributor was an absolute joke, slinging insults and bemused expressions left and right. Did any left-leaners who watched this clip take any of this into consideration? And why exactly was this particular clip shown? Was it to simply inform us of current events? If so, it seems like a horrible choice of something to be taken at face-value. Was it to show an example of a tactic? Then there should have been discussion or explanation following it.

Even if one considers the aspect of tea parties to be unproductive, what can be so funny about the overall goals/strategy? From what I have seen, it appears as if the goals are about being involved and making law-makers aware of people’s feelings on taxes and big-government. This doesn’t seem ludicrous to me in the least. Their tactic was to hold rallies, or “tea parties,” and even to send tea bags in the mail to officials. Why is it so funny that concerned people are exercising their right to “protest”? Apparently only certain group’s protests are taken seriously. Luckily, I’m sure Maddow will continue to inform us of the worthiness of similar future activism. Whew.

Another tactic of the organizers was refusing RNC Chair Michael Steele’s request to speak at a rally. A possible reason for this is something Maddow and her contributor not-so-surprisingly did not mention (must have been too busy trying to make it through the darn segment without falling over from giggles or conspiratory looks—I give them credit for a valiant effort), was that this tactic was because the tea party organizers are trying to have a more united base—without any political party backing it. Especially with the current economic rut, why is it laughable to want to be active and to try to do something that could be effective for everyone?

So long story short, Maddow is not alone when she writes off the tea parties as being ridiculous tactics, but I would beg to differ.

P.S.
Today, some students on campus went shoeless (except in Gorecki, thank God). If their overall strategy was to raise awareness for those who live without shoes, I say this was a successful tactic. However, if they were attempting to live in solidarity with the shoe-less poor, I don’t think it can really be that successful, since they will be wearing shoes tomorrow…

Harvey Milk & Spaces

Last Wednesday, I went to JEC/Prism’s showing of Milk, starring Sean Penn. I thought it was an awesome movie, and I very highly recommend it—very inspirational and thought-provoking (also, extra bonus: it confirms that James Franco still looks completely beautiful even with a mustache). It follows the last eight years of the life of Harvey Milk, America’s first openly gay man to be voted into public office. Trailer:

Space seems to play a large role in this film. At the beginning, Milk turns 40 and decides to move from NY to San Francisco with his lover (James Franco). He needs new space—he knows his life should have more of a purpose. They move into the Castro district, a supposed haven for the incoming gay population, and he starts up a camera store business. A homosexual man owning his own business space just cannot be tolerated by some of the other businesses, who outwardly express their prejudice and refuse to let Harvey be a part of a committee of neighborhood businesses. This space became the headquarters for many of the later political plans and activism.
Jane Juffer, in her section on Space, writes about single mothers pooling their resources and working together to create a safe environment for their children. In this same way, Milk mobilized the gay community to act together to create an accepting environment. He and his supporters worked for each vote when he ran, not only reaching out to homosexuals, but everyone, such as the elderly and union workers. He knew the importance of all, and encouraged every gay person to come out of the closet, telling them that if people were only aware that they knew a gay person, they would be willing to vote. He was successful on his fourth attempt, and was elected to the Board of Supervisors.

Milk also was not afraid of unknown or unwelcoming spaces. In fact, he embraced them. While his opponent avoided public debates, Milk suggested having one in Orange County, where he had virtually no supporters. Proposition 6 was at stake, a referendum that would fire all gay teachers and their supporters. Harvey Milk was most interested in creating a space that everyone could equally be a part of.

Speech excerpt: