The Real and the Imagined in Drown

In Junot Diaz's novel Drown, one of the most prevalent themes throughout the book is how reality is a departure from the imagined and idealized versions created by the characters in the story.  This is true of both people and society--both serve to disappoint expectations at critical points throughout the story.

The stark contrast between the real and the imagined is best demonstrated by Yunior's and Rafa's remembrances of their father and their shining hopes for his triumphant return after he left them for America.  "Rafa used to think that he'd come in the night, like Jesus...Too real to be believed.  He'll be taller, Rafa predicted.  Northamerican food makes people that way" (Diaz, 87).  Both Rafa's and Unior's imaginings of their father, so altered by his time in America that he returns a rich, kind, heroic person despite their previous experiences with the cruel, violent, and unforgiving father they knew before, are hopes that are severely disappointed by the return of their actual father.  With regard to his personality especially, their father remains fundamentally the same:  a domineering, violent man who cheats shamelessly on his wife and continues to shame their family.

The departure of reality from its idealized version is also true of the experiences of their father, Ramon de las Casas, with American society.  He arrives in the United States with an idealized version of the country in mind, and with the intention of setting of to New York to strike it rich and fulfill the fabled American Dream.  "Nueva York was the city of jobs, the city that had first called the Cubanos and their cigar industry, then the Bootstrap Puerto Ricans and now him" (Diaz, 167).  As he pursues his new life in America, he finds himself living in a much harsher reality than he imagined, where he cannot afford rent for a place on the living room floor of an apartment at one point.  Later, when Ramon tries to start over with making an entirely new family in America, he finds that he cannot make that work either.  In some ways this is evidence for the argument that one can take the man out of the country, but you cannot take the country out of the man--Ramon still lives his life in the same way that he did in the Dominican Republic, and despite his change in situation, his hopes for a more successful life are dashed.  

In the case of Ramon de las Casas, the illusion of the American Dream is shattered; however, like Yunior and Rafa, these imaginings and desires play a crucial role in sharping their hopes for a better future altogether, which is something they cling to as a result of their broken family and impoverished lifestyle.

Perspective in Drown

I find many parallels between this course and one I am taking through the religious studies department.  This week in that class a philosophy of Slavoj Žižek was presented in which he claims there is a fundamental issue with how intellectuals go about solving problems.  This issue regards how intellectuals often neglect the fact that how society poses the problem can be a part of the problem.  He goes on to say, in a convoluted and incredibly confusing way, that a true intellectual must look at an issue in its totality in the most objective way possible.  This idea is addressed through the way Diaz compiled the short stories in Drown.    

For the large majority of the novel, the reader experiences the world solely through Yunior’s perspective.  Because of this, many of the other characters in these stories became one-dimensional in the mind of the reader.  This single dimensionality of everyone but Yunior helps Diaz convey the gender roles and the importance of masculinity in the Dominican Republic.  For example, the role of the woman is to take care of her children and keep her husband happy.  When it becomes obvious Mami has not fulfilled her role as a woman, she stops functioning properly and becomes a “volcanic” member of the household.  In addition, anyone who functions as a threat to Yunior’s family unit, or what remains of it, is also depicted as primarily evil throughout a large majority of the novel.

This one-dimensional depiction of other characters changes entirely in the final chapter Negocios.   The reader acquires insight into the situation of Yunior’s father Ramón and discovers he is not necessarily the apathetic deserter Yunior, Rafa, and Mami believe him to be.  He has made sub-par, but honest attempts at creating a life for his “original” family in the United States.  The concept of multiple perspectives is perpetuated during the scene in which Yunior goes to speak with Nilda, his father’s American wife, after his father has left the family for good.  In this scene, Diaz gets close to explicitly explaining why the novel is organized in such a way that the audience does not receive the father’s perspective until the very end, “We sat and drank and finally talked, two strangers reliving an event—a whirlwind, a comet, a war—we’d both seen but from different faraway angles” (Diaz, 207).  This moment shows Žižek’s philosophy cannot be applied to literature; there is no way in which a story can be presented purely objectively.  People’s perspectives are shaped by where they are from, the culture they exist in, the language they speak, the religions they exercise, and much more, making each person’s life an individual and unique experience.  I think we will see this idea of perspective carry over into Diaz’s later works as well. 

Class Relations in the story Boyfriend of Diaz’s Drown

As we briefly touched on in Tuesday’s class, there are many discussions of socioeconomic class divisions throughout Drown. Yunior sees other ways of life than simply the poverty-ridden Dominican/Dominican-American lifestyle in which he was raised. While I was reading, I noticed it most blatantly in some of Yunior’s comments in Boyfriend about the couple downstairs. Yunior told his friend Harold that the couple in the apartment below his was having problems – “boyfriend” left and “girlfriend” cried almost constantly. The strange part about this gossip is that Yunior found out about the couple’s breakup simply by listening through the floorboards, not by knowing them personally. He mirrored the woman’s movement and listened. He said; “I followed her into the bathroom, the two of us separated by a floor, wires and some pipes” (Diaz, 112). This stalker-like behavior is odd at first glance, but he followed her motion because he resonated with the woman’s distress, saying; “It would have broken my heart if it hadn’t been so damn familiar” (Diaz, 112). Despite their physical separation of a floor between them, Yunior empathizes with the woman in a very real way. He uses her heartbreak to reflect back on his own – with his own recent breakup with the Latina girl Loretta. This empathy cuts across class lines and bonds the two in sorrow, if only in Yunior’s mind. After talking with Harold, the author confirms the fact that the neighbors could never be friends or comfort one another in sadness because she was not of the same social class. The author put it best when saying; “Homegirl was too beautiful, too high-class for a couple of knuckleheads like us. Never saw her in a t-shirt or without jewelry… People like these were untouchables to me, raised on some other planet…” (Diaz 112).  The class divisions, visible to Yunior by simple things like wardrobe and accessories, made contact between the two classes unlikely and unreturned if it did occur. Despite these societal constraints, Yunior asked the woman up to his apartment for coffee. Though she came, it was awkward and such contact never occurred again.  Though both individuals were grieving the loss of a relationship and could have been comfort to one another, the class divisions were too great to overcome. The theme of class distinctions is seen in other aspects of Drown, but is most prevalent in Yunior’s encounter with “Girlfriend.”

Law and Order In the Jungle

The moral of all the stories in the Jungle Books is that all animals and humans must obey “The Law of the Jungle.” When humans or animals do not obey the Law of the Jungle, they are greatly looked down upon and often meet an unfortunate end. The Law states that different animals have different roles and spots on the food chain, with Man, especially the white man, at the top. In fact, “The Law of the Jungle, which never orders anything without a reason, forbids every beast to eat Man” (The Jungle Book 4).

                When Mowgli is kidnapped by the monkeys, he is aggravated that they seem to have no laws. He observes that “The monkeys called the place [where they lived] their city, and pretended to despise the Jungle-People because they lived in the forest. And yet they never knew what the buildings were made for nor how to use them…and would pretend to be men” (24). By trying to take on the role of men, the monkeys are disrupting the natural order. It is no coincidence that the monkeys are also portrayed as stupid, lazy, and quarrelsome to go along with their apparent lawlessness. With the monkeys, Kipling gives the clear message that without strict laws, a society will collapse.

                Similarly, when Mowgli is taken in by the villagers, he believes them to be as insensible and lawless as the monkeys. However, according to the narrator, “Mowgli had not the faintest idea of the difference caste makes between man and man” (34) when he helps the potter on the donkey. This is difficult to believe since Mowgli grew up learning the strict hierarchy of the jungle, and that some animals like the monkeys and jackals were considered lowly. Through this incident, Kipling is trying to show that Mowgli is more civilized than the other Indians since he wasn’t raised in their culture, but rather by wolves, but his disregard for their culture is somewhat baffling since a caste system aligns with Kipling’s values.

                When we see Mowgli again after he has grown up a bit, he and the wolves have to fight against the dholes to regain control of their jungle. The dholes’ “boast was that all jungles were their Jungle” (The Second Jungle Book 132) and they are all killed for their arrogance. The important part of the Law of the Jungle is to never infringe upon anyone else’s territory, as Shere Khan did by killing cattle, or how the humans made it nearly impossible for the seals to find safe nesting grounds.

One Snake, Two Snake, Bad Snake, Good Snake

Throughout The Jungle Book, snakes are a feared animal. The monkeys fear them because snakes “can climb as well as they can” (34). The snake scares mongoose, human and animal alike because it is cunning, quick and silent. The differentiation between snakes is derived from their interactions and motivations. While both Kaa in “Kaa’s Hunting” and Nag and Nagina in “Rikki Tikki Tavi” are well-feared snakes, what sets them apart is their alliances and how they act.

In “Kaa’s Hunting”, Kaa helps Baloo and Bagheera to rescue Mowgli. He agrees to help with the promise of goats in exchange and his hatred towards the monkeys for calling him a worm. When he reaches Mowgli and the cobras inside the ruins say “‘take him away. He dances like Mao, the Peacock. He will crush our young,’” Kaa tells them to hide while he breaks down the wall to rescue Mowgli (45). Kaa does not like the Poison snakes, “in fact he rather despised the Poison Snakes for cowards,” giving him even greater incentive to rescue Mowgli than the promise of food and revenge on the monkeys. Regardless of his motivations he is seen as good overall because he helps save Mowgli’s life.

Nag, on the other hand, is never shed in a positive light. Nag is seen as wicked from the beginning of “Rikki Tikki Tavi” because, as Rikki-Tikki points out, marks or no marks it is not right “‘for [him] to eat fledglings out of a nest’” (98). Nag shows no mercy to the birds and eats their babies, although he expects that his will be protected. Nag and “Nagina, Nag’s wicked wife” also threaten the human child, Teddy and his family (98). “Nagina was coiled up on the matting by Teddy’s chair, within easy striking distance of Teddy’s bare leg” hissing “if you move I strike and if you do not move I strike” (106). Nagina is determined to kill Teddy to avenge the death of Nag. Nag and Nagina are ruthless and aggressive, ready to kill Rikki-Tikki, the baby birds, and Teddy, who are all seen as innocent.

Not only does Kaa save a human life while Nag and Nagina endanger humans, but Kaa acts aggressive only in response to wrong-doing, whereas Nag and Nagina start trouble, painting them in a negative light. Although all three snakes are violent, their motivations are what identifies them as either bad or good. 

Politics in Dante's Inferno

When Dante first wrote Inferno he openly criticized his enemies as well as some church figures. He places many of his critics in hell as well as many other political figures. Obviously as time went on some of the references to the political figures were not as apparent to everybody. Regardless it is important to note just how important politics is in the inferno. Many of the people punished were Dante's enemies and while he punished his critics in the church he clearly had a political agenda throughout Inferno. This agenda may not have been clear at first simply because some of the references are to people from Dante’s time who we may not have known without looking up. One clear example is the people condemned to only be able to see the future and not the present. This punishment appears in both the film and the book and even references political parties.

While political punishment is clear in the book in the movie it really stands out. Many prominent political figures of the 20^th and 21^st centuries are featured in hell. The filmmaker makes a political statement much like Dante did with the first one, criticizing contemporaries. He has very similar people in hell for behaviors much like the original however he chooses to put people who are more relevant to our time. This really helps us understand the punishments and also the actions that would lead to people getting punished in hell.

Most notably he criticizes Washington, while he does mention several other leaders and dictators of other countries he is most open and the criticism is most apparent of the leadership in Washington. He even goes as far as putting a person in hell that is still alive; similar to what Dante did in the original. This is an interesting concept, especially to punish a political leader in this way. Dick Cheney, while still alive has his soul stuck in hell while a demon controls his body. He also chooses to blame groups of people in politics, specifically the lobbyists. Many people blame them for the corruption in Washington and their area of hell looks much like Capitol Hill. Why the filmmaker chose to put them in that particular scenario is interesting in and of itself but Dante chooses to punish other politicians in various other ways including presidents Nixon and Kennedy who both did various scandalous things in office.

All in all, politics play a key role in the various representations of Inferno. While Dante attacks his enemies, the filmmaker chooses to simply voice his opinions through the film. Furthermore, they both attack different groups while they have similar types of people in hell. I believe the film, a more contemporary version of the Inferno, helps us understand Dante’s political message.

Right and Wrong in Medieval Italy and Modern America

Both in Dante’s Italian poem and its American film update deal with the concept a right and wrong relative to the time periods in which they were made.  But whereas Dante looked at right and wrong from a religious-based perspective, the filmmakers look at it from more of a secular viewpoint.  More often than not, the author and the filmmakers seem to agree, but from time to time their beliefs could not be further from each other

In the poem, the deeper you go, the worse your sin was.  Sins of treachery are punished worse than sins of violence, which in turn are punished more severely than sins of lust.  At first Dante is overcome with pity for the poor souls that ended up in Hell’s outer circles; souls who had led good lives, only to incur Heavenly Vengeance for their grave mistake.  As he progresses further and further into the Inferno, Dante realizes that all these people belong here as their punishment in death fits their crime in life.

Not so in the film.  In modern times, perceptions of what is and what is not a sin have changed.  In the film’s version of Inferno, the deeper you go, you do not necessarily see a more severe punishment.  And it is at times when the poem and the film have disagreements on the severity of these punishments that we see how perceptions have changed.  Entering the third ring of the seventh circle, we meet a group of men who have to dance to house music for all eternity as a result of their homosexuality.  And while this is a grave punishment indeed, it pales in comparison to a desert of hot sand that rained fire that is found in the book.  That in today’s world, homosexuality is certainly not considered as grave an offense it was in Dante’s time.  Furthermore, we find that Hitler has ended up in the eighth circle with the astrologers rather than with the likes of Stalin and Mussolini in the seventh circle.  And while this may have been done to satisfy the filmmaker’s political agenda of comparing Reagan to Hitler, I interpreted it to mean that, once again, our definition of right and wrong concerning magicians has changed, given that Hitler’s war crimes are considered much graver than his consultation of an astrologer.

In Dante’s world, homosexuality and astrology were considered amongst the lowest of the low, as far as sins that one could commit.  And while some people today still consider homosexuality and even astrology grave sins, they have become more and more accepted over time and had Dante written his poem today, I believe he would have put these sins near the outer rims of hell or have decided not to include them at all.