Closing Remarks

A Jest of God concludes with the curious and ambiguous quote: “God’s mercy on reluctant jesters. God’s grace on fools. God’s pity of God” (p 209). The quote opens up many probing ideas and appears impossible to decipher. However, the following is my interpretation of the above quote.

In my opinion, Rachel Cameron, coinciding with the rest of her closing, addresses herself in this quote. She, the reluctant jester, avoids immature, irresponsible, or/and stupid actions and appears perpetually self aware of these actions; continuously worrying about what everyone thinks—including children who never truly judge only observe. She was never able to laugh at herself or enjoy the small things in life. In addition, she is a fool. A fool traditionally does not lead themselves; walking in darkness following not leading. She may be categorized as a fool through her inability to stand up for herself as well as her crippling servitude to her mother. These two lines are directed to people who share the same inabilities as well as to herself. However, the final line is addressed to God. God alone is able to have mercy and grace on such people for they are alone to themselves and to their thoughts. Additionally if one is a God fearing person then God alone bestowed these gifts of awkwardness upon them. With this idea at hand, Rachel asks God to have pity on Himself. God is an un-reluctant jester and a wise “man”. However, if God thinks that such things are funny then He alone deserves His own pity.

This is a very loose idea and I have much to play with it. But I believe that she is asking God to question Himself and His inability to be serious. However, the novel itself is trying to avoid or move away from seriousness. I believe that one must be able to laugh at oneself in order to enjoy life—But is God laughing too much?

Parallels to Salinger's Franny

I recently read JD Salinger's novel Franny and Zooey, and found Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar strinkingly similar in many ways. Salinger's novel is broken up into two sections, and Plath's novel parallels most closely with the Franny section of the novel. Franny, like Esther is what some would call a New York debutante, who is also attending an all womens college. The conflicts they experience in their heads and at school are very similar. Each women, respectively, is well known for their excellence in acadamia, though each has a sense that it will only take them so far, and is probably not their ultimate goal. Both women resent and rather dislike their Ivy League boyfriends, either out of hate for their hypocrisy and/or reasons left unknown to the readers. The detachment from weakness, in Franny's case the suicide of her older brother Seymour and in Esthers case, Buddy's illness (among other things), are both very similar. Both Salinger and Plath present these strong female characters, yet they have so many underlying weaknesses themselves just waiting to be realized.. Both women in the novels go respectively crazy from their own inner conflict, yet without really realizing it while it is happening.

I very much look foward to seeing exactly what direction Plath has taken the novel, and whether or not the ending will be at all like the ending of Franny and Zooey. Because the context of the story is a bit different, and the narration is a bit different, I feel that the endings too will also be different. However, I think the parallels in behavior and thought pattern will continue to be similar between Esther, and Salinger's Franny.

The Logistics of Insanity

Maybe it is because I saw Fight Club this past weekend, but when I started reading The Bell Jar, I could not help but feel that I was never entirely sure what was real and what was all in Esther's mind. How deluded is she - how many of the events that she describes actually happened? She talks about ordinary events - going to a luncheon, meeting with her boss - and the moments that continue to affect her after the fact, like when she saw Buddy as a hypocrite for the first time or when she decided she could not be friends with Doreen, and as a reader, I am left wondering what the truth is. 

Did these things happen in the way she describes them? Does she, like Rachel, mistakenly ascribe importance to events that are not as significant as she believes them to be? Furthermore, she lies so frequently that at first when she tells Betsy that she wants to leave the film premiere because she feels sick, I did not even begin to consider that this could be true until she begins vomiting. Even when she develops physical symptoms, I still assumed her illness to be more mental than physical until I learned that Betsy too was feeling sick. As a reader, it's somewhat disturbing to feel this at sea within a story. It seems possible that this was an intended effect to mimic the confusion Esther feels about her own life. I am curious to see whether this feeling will grow as Esther descends into madness.

I'm still not convinced it was a tumor

When Rachel goes to see Dr. Raven, she feels very nervous. She believes that she is pregnant and is afraid of being judged harshly for it. This is demonstrated through her image of the goats and sheep waiting in “death’s immigration office” for the “deputy angel allotted to the job of the initial sorting out” of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, and she frets about what Dr. Raven’s verdict will be. She elevates the stakes of judgment to the highest possible level, damnation or a “visa” to heaven being the two options, and is understandably very agitated when Dr. Raven sees her. [183]

Dr. Raven is not oblivious to her agitation, and it clues him in to Rachel’s true purpose in his office that day. She tells him immediately that she has missed her period. Dr. Raven is familiar with Rachel and her situation with her mother. He has treated both her and her mother for some time, and is probably familiar enough with May’s character by now to know that Rachel being pregnant would be unacceptable, as the reader already knows by her reaction to the case of the unwed mother of twins.

Here is where Dr. Raven may start on his script for surreptitiously providing abortions to patients in this time when it was illegal. The first thing he says is that pregnancy can be ruled out “with a sensible girl” like Rachel. He immediately tells her not to worry, that “[h]alf the people who come into [his] office are worried about a malignancy” [185]. That he would suggest she has a tumor, after being told nothing more than that she has missed her period and reading her body language, is absurd for a medical doctor. He tells her not to worry about a malignant tumor before makes any attempt to confirm a pregnancy. A pregnancy is incredibly more likely to cause her to miss her period than a possible tumor, which—she needn’t worry!—is likely not malignant. It’s much more likely that he is using code to provide Rachel with what she really came for, an abortion. And he uses a convenient code: a tumor is defined, after all, as a “growth of tissue,” which is technically also what an embryo is [OED]. Only then does he examine her, and confirms his miraculous guess that it was indeed a tumor, not an embryo, that caused her to miss her period. So, he arranges an appointment with a specialist in the city.

While it may be that she was never pregnant, I find it difficult to believe that a doctor, necessarily a man of science, would disregard Occam’s razor and suggest a tumor over a pregnancy before making any examination, unless he had an ulterior motive.

The Bell Jar

The Bell Jar has had some really interesting social interactions happen in the first seven chapters. From the power the Ladies' Day contest winners to Esther being able to watch a child birth with her medical student boy friend to the open bashing of men, there are many things that happen that I feel are somewhat ironic for the time the book was written. 

The way the Ladies' Day women are waited on hand and foot. I was somewhat taken aback by the sponsor's reaction to the girls being ill after eating crab meat at the luncheon. They were concerned the women might sue them for being poisoned but I did not realize a woman would be able to file a legitimate lawsuit in this time period. 

I found Buddy being able to bring Esther into the same room a child birth was happening in to be the most interesting part of the reading assignment. Not only did I think it was weird for a friend of a med student to be allowed to watch a stranger's birth, but the way Plath used the birth as a kind of catalyst to tell readers about the history between Buddy and Esther was creative. The way she described the pregnancy pain medication "as something a man would invent," relates to the idea she later brings up on how a woman's purity is valued more as well as looked down upon more if it is gone than a man's purity and whether or not he still has it. I thought this was an interesting way to lead up to her prior relationship with Buddy Willard. I am a bit confused as to why she still feels one day they will be married but then talks about him with so condescendingly. 

Rahcel's Reasons for Realizations

Does one change as quickly and as drastically at the age of 34 as Rachel does in A Jest of God? Although the likelihood of such a transfiguration happening at that age seemed impossible to me, Margaret Laurence may have shown me otherwise. How believable yet unbelievable this character is all at once. How one can relate to those times where we feel the world is against us, where our self-esteem is at its lowest, where everything is expected to turn out for the worse. Take these traits, fuse them into a near-middle aged and allow them to exude from her character at all times: we have Rachel Cameron. I can only speak for myself I suppose but I was completely depressed, agitated, frustrated with the mannerisms of this character. There were times when I wanted to melt into the pages and slap that girl across the face until she stood up for herself.
Back to my original question, can one really "grow-up" so quickly all at once? Well, I believe Margret Laurence accounts for this abnormality whether she means to or not. Throughout the book we are exposed to the thoughts of Rachel. We know that she hates the way she speaks to her mother, always giving in to her guilt trips. We know she hates the way she cowers at the sight of her boss, at the sight of Calla. She exposes all of her faults with her own mind, she sees them all. Because of this Rachel needs to come to less realizations; instead of a matter of learning and discovering, it is a matter of courage and motivation.
I believe that had Laurence not fabricated the story in such a way that Rachel believes she is pregnant for quite some time it would have been difficult to justify the catalysts of Rachel's demeanor change. Throughout her "believed to be" pregnancy, Rachel is forced to realize that she will no longer be able to protect everyone. There is no way for her to protect her mother if indeed she does have a child. There is no way people will believe she is the same Rachel Cameron. This 'baby' is reason to change, a reason to not care about one's appearance. Without this I believe Rachel would have continued to hide herself and her true feelings from the world without end.


---Aaron Abel

Rachel And Her Outside World

Who was she? Sometimes she was a child skipping rope. Sometimes she was a woman with a passionate hunger. And one day the woman and the child came together...

This is the tagline of the movie Rachel, Rachel. While the movie does stray from the book, my interpretation of this particular “coming-of-age“ was focused more on the reconciliation between Rachel’s exterior world and her interior world.

Toward the beginning of A Jest of God, there was a moment that struck me as odd. I spent the entire novel with this moment in the back of my mind, waiting for it to resolve itself (or at least address itself). When I had finished the story, I could see that it was indeed addressed, but instead of being direct, it took the slow and winding route.

Willard was visiting Rachel in her classroom after school and said jokingly, “That’s an enigmatic smile, Rachel. Is it the Sphinx or the Mona Lisa?” Her interior monologue is as follows: His humour. I didn’t know I was smiling. If I was, it was only out of nervousness. She replied, “I didn’t know I was smiling.”

How is it that an educated person with plenty of time on her hands would not catch a joke like that? We know that Rachel spent a good deal of her life bored and dissatisfied with her life, her town, and everyone around her. We also know that she is a daydreamer. And yet she clearly hadn’t seen a picture of two of the most famous works in the world, the Sphinx or the Mona Lisa.

Most people who are escapists tend to bury themselves in some kind of other world, be it books, music, or art. (At least this is the cliche.) Then, when said character has reached a point to forfeit longing and instead embark on his own adventure, he not only has a physical destination in mind, but a mental, emotional, and/or a spiritual one as well.

Rachel's time and attention were devoted to obsessing over those around her. Rather than rising above that and taking an interest in something outside of her immediate world, she was caught floundering in a net of self-pity and worry. In Rachel, Rachel, there is a point where Calla ridicules Rachel for always choosing vanilla ice cream. She says, "There are thirty other flavors and a flavor of the month. There are more people in this world than just you." However, in the story, Calla (nor any other guiding light) tells Rachel this--instead, she has to figure it out for herself.

It is really interesting that Laurence chose to develop a character that was not a typical escapist. As far as the outside world was concerned, Rachel didn’t know what she was heading toward, yet she chose to embrace that. She resolved to make her life her own and participate in the world around her. In a way, Rachel didn’t move from point A to point B. At age 35, Rachel had arrived at Point A.

Internal and External Barriers in Laurence's A Jest of God

In Margaret Laurence's A Jest of God, we find Rachel Cameron constantly inhibited in her thoughts and actions by a variety of forces, both internal and external, and the novel relates her development and eventual surmounting of these obstacles, at least to a degree. For this reason, much of our discussion regarding this work has emphasized its classification as a Bildungsroman, though I am tempted to disagree with this assessment, on several grounds.

First and foremost, Rachel’s personal development is strikingly marginal, at best. While she does discover her sexuality, which instills in her a modicum of assertiveness and self agency by the novel’s conclusion, she still reverts frequently to her old habits with regards to her relationships with others. She does, for instance, turn the tables with regards to her relationship with her mother, assuming her rightful status as the “parent” figure, and uses her newfound bravado to ensure her departure from Manawaka. However, she still cannot bring herself to divulge to her mother her true sentiments; she is unable, even with her newfound confidence, to relate to her mother the resentment she feels for the guilting and domineering behavior by which her actions have been restricted for so many years. Whether this is out of timidity or merely for her mother’s own sake is unclear, though it is possibly a bit of both. Likewise, in her final encounter with Willard, she finds herself unable to truly express how much she has truly hated working at the elementary school, only going so far as to say that “I’ve just lived here long enough.” (204) Rachel even acknowledges at the novel’s conclusion that, though she will force herself to exhibit less timidity in her everyday affairs, her quirks and insecurities may never disappear.

Another issue I take with the idea of A Jest of God as a strictly developmental novel is that many of the barriers impeding Rachel’s development have very little do with her person at all. For instance, with regards to her family situation and subsequently her inability to finish her college education, these strictly economic factors were arguably outside of her control. Perhaps much of Rachel’s diminished life experience could be attributed to limited opportunity; obviously her employment opportunity is limited by her lack of a college education, but considering the time and place (rural Canada in the mid- 20th century) surely her gender must have played a role as well. Much of how she is perceived by others (and likewise how she perceives others as perceiving her) comes back to her status as a single woman in her mid- 30s, undoubtedly unusual given the setting. This is certainly not lost upon Rachel—numerous time she self- consciously calls out to Nick in her mind in the midst of her pregnancy/ cancer ordeal—and in his physical presence we often find her deriving much of her inner strength and confidence from his very presence; though such sentiments seem quite antiquated in this day in age, they would not have been so uncommon in Rachel’s time.

The Jest of God and The Bell Jar

Rachel is just a figure throughout her life; throughout the book. She never expresses any personality or unique traits that define her as an individual. In a way, she serves as a background character in her life. What I mean by that is the focus of the book is mainly dialogue and observations of the people she encounters.

A very important aspect that I feel is worth mentioning is Rachel's issue with falseness. From the very beginning of the book, she hates feeling obligated to feel and say "the right things" to everyone she encounters, yet she does it because she refuses to be any other way. For example, when she allowed the children time to draw for a short period before school let out and she examined James' picture. She was very proud and really did believe that he did a splendid job. But she felt that her praise towards him was completely diminished due to the fact that she expressed the same praise to another student that did not have as good of a picture as James. She can never say how she truly feels to her mother, Calla, or Willard and in that she hides herself from her self.

The Bell Jar so far is an interesting read. I can relate to Esther in a way with the direction her life is going. She knows what she wants to do yet she’s unsure as to how her life is going to initially work out. Other than that she is very confident in herself and does not allow her life to be dictated by her fears or restrictions. I find Doreen to be a peculiar character especially for Esther. But it seems that though they are complete opposites they complement one another. The one confusion that I have is whether Doreen is passing for white or not. Esther uses many adjectives relating to Black, such as “Negress”. There is also a small passage, when she and Doreen are at Lenny Shepherd’s apartment, that gives way to the same notion; “I noticed, in the routine way you notice the color of somebody’s eyes, that Doreen’s breast had popped out of her dress and were swinging out lightly like full brown melons...”(Plath 17).

The Concept of Space in A Jest of God

Or perhaps that is too simple a description. Borders, limitations, boundaries (both internal and external), the list could continue. Regardless of how you or I might like to refer to it, I noticed that a persistent theme throughout Margaret Laurence's novel--and an obstacle that Rachel Cameron must overcome in order to complete her transition--is the concept of space, and particularly its ability to restrict. We notice this not only in terms of physical space, but in Rachel's own mental arena as well.

Rachel is a woman continually bumping into walls, some of her own creation. On a larger scale, she lives in a town that has become far too familiar and which she seems incapable of escaping from. Manawaka becomes her box, and her own home a smaller version of that box. That as a fully grown woman Rachel occupies a small space with her mother is unusual, but more importantly we notice that Rachel's home environment influences her actions and quite often regulates them. We see this in her mother, whose frequent questions about Rachel's comings and goings serves as a deterrent to Rachel's behavior as she often opts to stay in, rather than leave. Furthermore, Rachel is questioned about her own actions within the home space (where are you going dear? what are you doing dear? etc) and lives a highly monitored life. In order to reach a state of full independence, Rachel cannot be controlled or trapped by the space she exists in.

Yet another example of the idea of physical space and its influence on Rachel's transition can be seen in the transformation of her father's funeral parlor into Hector's "Japonica Chapel". Previously, Rachel received discouragement from her father when entering his workspace--it became in a way associated with the very idea of her father, but also with the notion of limitation--it became, in a way, not simply a door to a room, but a way of making Rachel's space even smaller. By transforming the chapel Hector acts as an aid to Rachel's own transformation; he destroys the barrier she had previously encountered, opening up new space for her to occupy. The statement Rachel makes ("It's evolution") is very appropriate in this sense. Not only is it an evolution of a previously off-limit space, but also an evolution of Rachel Cameron herself.

Finally we see the idea of space and its regulatory effects in Rachel Cameron herself. I refer here to Rachel's mental boundaries that she has created for herself. She does not allow herself to think certain thoughts or act in certain ways, living a painfully self-aware lifestyle that results in self-admonishment if she happens to think something crass or taboo. She limits her pleasures, her imagination, and her mind in this line of though becomes yet another box which she grudgingly inhabits. By the end of the novel, we see that she has--if not broken free of her mental space--at least extended its walls. As she states: "I do not need to know how many bones need to be broken before I can walk."

-J. Britton

Esther > Rachel

In the previous novel, I found the examination the psychological aspects of the character to be the only real point of interest - as discussed in class, nothing really happened in the novel. In The Bell Jar, however, Plath unfolds the story through series of events, skipping between time periods in Esther's life within the chapters. I find that to be a much more interesting style of writing. The sporadic unfolding of information captures my attention and keeps me curious about the characters. For example, even eighty-some odd pages after the first reference to "Buddy Willard," the reader still only has access to bits and pieces of information to use in order to attempt to string together the story of who he is and what significance he held in Esther's life.

In addition to enjoying the style in which the novel is written, I also really enjoy the character of Esther. Like Kristina, I also found myself able to relate to Esther much better than that of Rachel in A Jest of God. Perhaps it is because the struggles that Esther faces, of finding an identity and purpose for herself, are more on track with the challenges that my age would undergo, and therefore seem more “normal” than similar struggles faced by Rachel abnormally late in life.

The fact that Rachel was a “late bloomer” indicated to readers from the beginning that something was psychologically wrong. With the character of Esther, psychological dilemma is not made apparent in the beginning of the text. She is discovering the same things as Rachel attempted to discover (a sense of self, security in sexual experience, etc.), but in a manner that seems much more conventional (and therefore relatable), yet somehow more intriguing on paper. Needless to say, I am enjoying sitting along for the ride as Esther's little quirks and manner of thinking and acting are revealed as the novel progresses.

Funeral Chapel Spirits

An interesting topic came up on Thursday in my discussion group. We came to the realization that both men that operated the funeral chapel were heavy drinkers. It would seem that in order to handle this sort of job, it might be that alcohol is necessary to withstand the stress and gruesome situations of dealing with dead bodies. Yet, it doesn't seem that Hector is all that affected by the horrors of death. In fact, it's quite the opposite with him. He seems to view death in a lackadaisical sort of way where it's just a part of his business. He believes death is a natural part of life and that it's unnecessary to talk about excessively, and is happy to provide a service to the general population. Despite his view of death, the fact that Hector is still somewhat of a drunk in the novel stuck with me during the conversation. It seems to me that it is somehow necessary that after the spirits leave the bodies of the dead, those who deal with the dead often require alcoholic spirits to enter their bodies. Any thoughts? 

Canada as a Setting

After wrapping up A Jest of God, I'm curious as to whether or not anything can or should be said about the novel as a Canadian novel. Some of the thematic issues concerning Canadian literature were discussed a bit on the first day of class, and it occurred to me after Thursday's wrap-up discussion that we hadn't touched upon the "Canada effect." (Since this is a blog, am I allowed to fabricate lazy labels like that?)

Personally, I'm a little intrigued by the Canadian perspective. I frequently find it difficult to put myself in the psychological shoes of a Canadian. Strangely, I have only met a handful of Canadians--due in large part to the fact that I'm not actively involved in the entertainment industry--but occasionally there is a subtly noticeable difference: to a varying degree, Canadians will reflexively distinguish themselves as inherently different from Americans. This could be a completely presumptuous claim, and perhaps Prof. Irmscher would strongly disagree. As an example, I met a Canadian while in Europe, and at times he seemed anxious to distance himself from America--but I suppose no one would want to be associated with America in Europe. On the other hand, when I've met Canadians in the States, unless there's a strong accent, it can be difficult to make the distinction, maybe because admitting to being Canadian in the US isn't as much of an asset as it would be in Europe. Conversely, an American might try to portray to both Europeans and Canadians in their respective territories that he/she is indeed a lovable, unobjectionable Canadian.

In many cases, I think the differences are arbitrary--after, is it not just a line across the map that separates us? But in other ways, a national heritage is an indelible portion of everyone's psyche, so it must mean something, be it the values on which you were raised or simply the team you root for in the Olympics.

This is all a giant digression leading me back to my question: What makes A Jest of God Canadian? There were times while I was reading the novel that I began to imagine Manawaka as the small town in To Kill A Mockingbird, or Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha County. It could be that my mind wandered a bit too far from the pages, but I sometimes found it easy to visualize Manawaka as a small southern town in America: it's rural, sheltered, segregated, and peopled with a number of modern-era tragic characters.

So I'm hard-pressed to find exactly why this novel would be remarkably different if it was set in America as opposed to Canada. I claim cultural ignorance as my road block right now, but maybe someone can explain to me what I need to understand better about the "Canada effect."

Esther and the Future

In the first seven chapters of The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath it becomes quite clear that Esther is a very strong woman who is somewhat unsre of what she wants out of her life. Throughout the first seven chapters, Esther talks about what she is planning on doing with her life and what has previously happend with her life thus far. She talks of how when she meets with Jay Cee (her editor), she tells her that she is uncertain of the profession that she intends to pursue after college. In a way this statement is odd to Esther because she always had ideas of what she was going to do and would allow herself to believe that this is what she wanted. However, when she lets out the words "I don't know," in her boss's office, they come as a relieving shock to her. She had never actually thought that, that is what she wanted to say all along. 

For a woman her age and in the point in her life where choosing a career is important, she was completely unaware of what she really wanted to do even if she had enteretained several options. Most women, like Esther, who have a steady major, which they love, and are able to win prizes and scholoarships with it, know that, that is what they want to do with their lives. But Esther realizes that although she has thought about it, she has never really thought about what she wanted her life to be like after college was over.

Along with this idea, Esther does toy with the idea of marriage a few times in the first seven chapters. She goes back and fourth on whether or not married life would be for her or not. There are times when she does say she does not want to get married and then proceedes to elaborate on why she would not want to. She has watched women cook and clean for their husbands and that was what their lives consisted of. She does not want that, she wants her own life, with a real profession that makes her happy. In a sense the fact that Esther is unaware of what her plans are after college and the fact that she does not want to waster her days in a household show that she does indeed have a small sense of direction on what she wants to do with her life. So why does she continue to toy with the idea of being a poet, a mother, an editor? Does she really not know what she wants to do with her life or is she simply putting up a wall and not allowing herself to venture off into new terriroty like Rachel had done in A Jest of God?

Last Line in A Jest of God

After reflecting on A Jest of God, I have to come to my own conclusions concerning the last line of the book. To me it seems as though the line “God’s pity on God” is Rachel’s way of saying that there should be pity on whoever has to determine a person’s fate. For a long time, Rachel feels trapped. She feels as though everything she does will ultimately have an effect on her life and her mother’s life. She fears that the words that she speaks, the choices that she makes, and the people that she associates with all could potentially be detrimental to their fate. This thought terrifies her so much that it leaves her completely unable to do anything at all. So she stays where she is and never takes any risks or does anything to further herself in life.

As the book progresses, Rachel comes to realize that the reason for her life never expanding beyond what it always has been is simply because of her fear. She learns that she needs to take risks in order to create a life for herself that will make her happy. With this realization also comes the realization that she cannot be one hundred percent responsible for what happens to herself or what happens to her mother. That ultimately whatever is meant to happen will happen despite how careful she is. Making this realization helps Rachel learn to stop having pity for herself and actually try to create a life that she really enjoys. While having a conversation with her mother, Rachel indicates that perhaps it should just be left to God to determine what happens to them. To me it seems that the last line of the book, “God’s pity on God,” is simply showing Rachel’s transition from pitying herself to pitying the real determiner of fate.

Blog 1 Josh W.
For the most part, to me A Jest of God presents itself as a very realistic and fantastical story at the same time. From the beginning to the end, Rachel seems to channel James Thurber's Walter Mitty in that she has these daydreams and what seems to her like fantastical thoughts of leaving the town or just having something better happen for her, but at the same time, in my opinion, Rachel's fantasies almost seem to barely top normal. And this may be the most interesting theme in the book. It is not a person aspiring to great heights or bold new places, but simply a person who wishes to be out of a lowered and for the most part miserable existence and become content. The word happy is too much of a strain for this character and I believe Rachel is more interested in being able to choose her own life and accept the consequences whether they're good or bad. What we see at the beginning is a person who possibly compares herself to God in that she must take care of many people who don't even acknowledge she's there. And for most of the novel, one of these people is Rachel herself. Through the narrator and her own interior monologue, we hear a torrent of self criticisms and rules she punishes herself with. And what I just realized is that in this punishment and masochistic nature Rachel has, is also a bit of a self sacrificing and messianic personality that can be looked at from two completely opposite perspectives. And the way that each of us decides which perspective to choose is based on whether we want to believe that Rachel is telling the truth or lying when she is talking to herself. If she is telling the truth, her self sacrifice is a good and genuine thing and though she may complain (even to the extent of lying and being secretly sarcastic) Rachel keeps it all within her in order to help or keep other people happy. If she is lying, however, all her actions can be accredited to a desire to be seen as self sacrificing (even if she is the only one who thinks it) so she can feel superior to everyone else. And because of all of this, the ending leaves us asking the question of when Rachel finally does leave, are her reasons morally pure or narcissistically corrupt?

Rachel vs. Esther

Like just about everyone else that’s posted I noticed that Rachel and Esther have several similarities. Both of them are stuck in a rut basically and unsure how to get out. They also envy people who are able to do what they want without worrying about what others think of them. Esther and Rachel seem to have this need to always do what everyone else thinks is right. Rachel always listens to her mother and does the right think in society’s eyes. Esther tries to do the ‘right’ thing by gaining as many accomplishments as possible. They both seem to have a person (Nick and Doreen) that does allow them to occasionally come out of their shell and just live for a while.

I do think they are different in the fact that Esther seems to be the more ‘grown up’ one between the two. She’s had more life experiences compared to Rachel and is at least putting herself out in the world. It’s interesting that Esther doesn’t know what it is she wants. She doesn’t seem too interested in her current career field but doesn’t know what else she wants to do. Her only thought seems to be on being as perfect as she can be and getting as many accomplishments as possible. Esther relies on college as what defines her. When college is over for her she’ll have no idea what to do with her life. On the other hand Rachel knows what she wants, she wants to get out of her town and be free. It might be a vague idea but at least it’s an idea of what she wants to do. Rachel also seems to be more pessimistic compared to Esther, probably because Rachel has been in her ‘rut’ for longer than Esther and so she takes that out by pointing out everyone else’s faults. Esther seems to give a more realistic account of the people around her, granted she has her biases as well. Overall Esther seems to be more of a reliable and likeable narrator than Rachel, as least so far.

blog 1

After reading the first seven chapters of The Bell Jar, I like many other students, see many similarities between this novel and A Jest of God.  Within the first few pages of the novel, I noticed that Esther is a lot like Rachel in that she seems “stuck”. We know that Rachel is stuck just by hearing her speak about the town she has never left, the home she has lived in all her life, her virginity that she still has at 34 and the way that she describes her career as an elementary school teacher as she talks about how the children never get older but she does. Esther, while having many more accomplishments and a much more outgoing personality than Rachel still seems stuck. She has gotten far with her scholarships and drive, however she doesn’t know where she wants to go from there as she tells her boss in a meeting. ( I don’t have the book with me or I would refer to her exact words).  

                Rachel’s inability to progress in her life is largely because of her own shortcomings and lack of self confidence, however she has more external obstacles to overcome than Esther. For example, her mother who constantly nags her and uses her heart condition to keep her at home. Some of you may not agree with this, but I don’t see anything in the way of Esther’s progression other than herself.  She has been given the privilege of a free college tuition as well as an opportunity many people would love to have and she is very talented at what she does.  I do think that she has a low self confidence just as Rachel does, but does not have the external obstacles to overcome like Rachel.

                Like several other students, I did see a similarity between the relationship of Doreen and Esther and Rachel and Nick. Nick and Doreen both serve as characters that bring out some ambition and optimism out of Rachel and Esther. Rachel envies Nick for his ability to not care what others think and do basically whatever he wants. She sees him as a free spirit which she is definitely not.  Esther envies Doreen for her beauty and free spirit as well. Doreen is not afraid to stray from whatever the crowd is doing and she definitely has no problem expressing what is on her mind. At one point in the novel Rachel says something about how Esther says what is on everyone else’s mind that they would never say. (Again,if I had the novel with me I would refer to the precise quotation).

                I am excited to read the final chapters and see whether Esther actually becomes “unstuck”. I didn’t quite get the ending I was hoping for with Rachel, so maybe Esther will pull through! 

Deception in A Jest of God

As we discussed in class, the narrative of A Jest of God utilizes deception through Rachel’s perspective. But I would argue that Laurence effectively misleads the reader particularly by creating predictable consequences of Rachel’s actions that she believes have in fact occurred; Thus creating the moment of, “I knew it!” for the reader. Laurence then twists the plot again so that these outcomes prove to be false. An example of this takes place when Rachel believes that she is pregnant. There are several instances in which the story focuses around not only Rachel’s questionable means of birth control, but also her feelings on becoming pregnant with Nick’s child. I truly expected Rachel’s pregnancy to serve as the big push she needed in order to mature and take control over her life. Yet the reader discovers that it is tumor. Another significant, yet more abstract example of this revolves around Rachel’s evolution itself. In the beginning of the novel, she exists as a rather petty and self-conscious woman, whose embarrassment not only encircles her own actions and specifically thoughts, but also concerns itself with the conduct of the people who surround her. Slowly, the reader picks up on subtle actions and a decreasing amount of stream of consciousness fixed on Rachel’s own eccentricities which signal that she is becoming more comfortable with herself and those around her. An example of this is when she takes a dominant role in initiating sex with Nick. Furthermore, by the end of the novel, Rachel has molded herself into an unconventional role model. This is proven when Hector suggests that people in town believe she went to the city for an abortion, not for a legitimate procedure. Instead of insisting that this was not the case, Rachel accepts the irony of this rumor, thanks Hector, and leaves town. This shows a true and surprising change in Rachel’s character for the reader.

Some other interesting similarities/differences lie in the environments and the people that effect each character. I've only read the first two chapters, but Esther's relationship with Doreen is similar to Rachel's relationship with Nick. Nick and Doreen both embody the qualities that the narrator is lacking and envies. In addition, by the end of Chapter 2 in the Bell Jar, it seems that Esther is heading towards the same change of heart about Doreen that Rachel has for Nick. Esther seems to envy Doreen because of her confidence and beauty, but notices her reduced to a sickly helpless person. In A Jest of God Rachel similarly comes to the realization of what Nick's intentions for her really are when she discovers Nick's true intentions for how their relationship will last. Rachel admires Nick for his will power to break from his family and his courage to move to the city, but then later Rachel realizes Nick's deceit towards her about he photograph and how he only uses her for his sexual appetites.

I also think it is worth noting the similarities between Betsy and Calla. Both characters vie for the friendship of the narrator, and both narrators reject the two characters. However, Betsy is different from Calla in that Esther realizes that her personality identifies more with Betsy than Doreen. Obviously this plot direction could not happen in the case of Rachel, Nick, and Calla. Rachel identifying herself with Calla goes against Laurence's basic characterization of Rachel.

Rachel and Calla are more different than they are similar. Calla is spiritually moved by people speaking in tongues and enjoys spending time at the tabernacle, while Rachel is frightened of the speaking in tongues and can barely stand being in the Tabernacle and fears being recognized by someone she knows. Also another important set of opposing traits that would keep Rachel from envying Calla is that Calla is homosexual and Rachel is heterosexual.

Esther and her education mask

After being kind of lame and reading the first seven chapters of The Bell Jar tonight, I noticed a few differences and similarities between Rachel in A Jest of God and Esther.

While the novels are written in about the same kind of style (first-person narration, kind of random thoughts everywhere), I felt that The Bell Jar had a little more smoothness to it. I was able to understand Esther a little more than I really ever understood Rachel. I was still able to detect some similarities and differences, though. Not of just the characters, but also the writing styles as well.

The narrators are both women, although different ages, who seem to care a lot about education (Rachel as a teacher, Esther with her constant reference to her 15 years of straight A's) but also do not really know themselves. While I thought Rachel was more stream-of-consciousness when explaining her thoughts, I feel Esther provides deep accounts of past occurrences that prove her academic-like personality she uses to shield the fact she doesn't really know herself.

For example: page 40,
"I dabbled my fingers in the bowl of the warm water a Ladies' Day waitress set down in place of my two empty ice cream dishes...."
"I thought what a long way I had come."

Then Esther flashes back to the first time this happened to her, when she was young and didn't know what it meant or what to do in that situation. This is an example of many where I believe Esther thinks she has changed and grown up, partly because she has learned something new, but will soon find out that moments like this have not really prepared her for anything and that she might not be able to use her education as a mask of seeming mature and grown up.

First blog entries are due Monday, January 26...

...though you may post earlier if the spirit moves you!

Welcome to English 304

Blog Rules for 304

Welcome to your ENG-L304 course blog. Throughout this semester, this blogspace will serve as a forum for exchanging opinions about the assigned readings. You may also ask and answer questions or expand on issues we didn't cover in class. Be creative in your contributions to the site, but remember that this is a public space. Here are a few basic rules for our exchanges:

1. Postings are due Mondays by 6 p.m., unless I have announced otherwise in class. If you choose not to post by that time, you will receive a zero for that part of your assignment.

2. Postings should be 300-500 words long and respond directly to our readings in class. Please refer clearly to the text you are discussing. Your postings should be relevant and thoughtful and demonstrate that you have in fact read the assigned text or watched the movie that is the subject of your post.

3. While you are not submitting a formal response paper, please do remember that you're not leaving a message on someone's Facebook wall. Your posting must be related to our course!

4. Questions you might want to address in your posting: 1. Are there aspects of the text that we didn't cover in our class discussion? Do you have a different interpretation of the text that you didn't get a chance to articulate in class? b) What did reading the text contribute to your understanding of the topic of the course? c) How does this text relate to other readings in the course (from the week, the month before?)

5. I encourage you to respond to the postings of other members of your class. Please do so in a respectful and courteous manner, especially when you disagree with their opinion or "take" on a text. Remember that the whole class will be able to read your post (as will everyone else who happens to find this site)

7. Remember: IU's plagiarism policy applies to the postings on this site, too. If you refer to someone else's (published) reading of a text, mention this outside source. Include page number(s).