Category: McCoy 203 Fall 2019

Posted on by Amanda Neri - No Comments on Who is the father?

Who is the father?

In the novel I am Not Sidney Poitier, the main character’s name is Not Sidney Poitier. Not Sidney had an interesting birth where his mother went through a hysterical pregnancy, and when he was born his mom decided to name him Not Sidney. 

While reading the novel there were a lot of times when people would look at Not Sidney weirdly upon learning his name. Then other times Not Sidney was asked if he is related to the famous Sidney Poitier. Not Sidney knew he couldn’t give the people what they want, because he can’t give the kids who make fun of his name a different name and he can’t tell the others who ask him if he is related to Sidney Poitier their answer simply because he doesn’t know. 

From reading what I have read so far in the book Not Sidney is somewhat curious as to who his father is. Not Sidney grew up with just his mom until she passed away, there was no mention what-so-ever of his father. When Not Sidney asked his mother about his father, she simply turned down his question or just changed the subject. For example, ‘“May I ask, is your father Sidney Poitier?’ ‘No.’ I answered quite definitely, but the fact of the matter is I was not quite definite; I did not know. I had no reason to suspect that Sidney Poitier was my father, but I also had no idea who my father was. I knew nothing about the man, whether he was a man or during my short years with her about him, but her answers were either so vague and confusing as to be useless or no answer at all” (84). This quote shows how Not Sidney knows absolutely nothing about his father. His mother passed away so he will never know directly from her who his father is. 

The question I have is, why exactly did Not Sidney’s mother give vague responses regarding who his father is? Is his father a bad man? Or did she simply just want him not to know for her own reasons. 

From what I have read so far Not Sidney isn’t really interested in looking into who his father is, he has never really stopped and decided to do some research or ask any questions. When Not Sidney’s mother passed away, a man named Ted Turner took Not Sidney under his roof, since Not Sidney’s mother invested a lot of money into his company. At first, I thought that Ted could be his father due to the question I had which was, why exactly did Not Sidney’s mother invest her whole savings into this one man. Reading more into the book I soon realized that my thought was just a thought. Ted didn’t seem like a man to be Not Sidney’s father. 

Ted never really took care of Not Sidney; all of his maids and teachers did. Ted hired his maids who cooked and cleaned for Not Sidney and he also hired the teacher who homeschooled Not Sidney. When Not Sidney told Ted about this teacher in his school who basically sexually harassed Not Sidney, he went to his only male figure he could ask for advice. After telling Ted the situation he asked, ‘“is that fatherly advice?’” Ted simply replied ‘“No, this is just advice from a fellow penis owner”’ (33). After these observations, I turned down my thought of Not Sidney’s father being Ted Turner. 

Since my thought of Ted Turner was turned down, I tried to think what of other male his father could be and realized that there are no other male figures that Not Sidney knows that I have brushed upon just yet. Reading over my notes to see if there were any male figures, I realized that Sidney Poitier could be one of them. Even if Not Sidney hasn’t met Sidney Poitier there could be a possibility that Sidney Poitier is the father of Not Sidney Poitier. 

Since I would need some evidence to back up my hypothesis, I had to go back into the book to see what I have read that could possibly back up my hypothesis. I found that when Not Sidney introduces himself more than half of the responses ask him if he is related to Sidney Poitier since they look alike. That got me thinking, I know that within the book there is a bunch of literary terms that Percival Everett uses. For example, he uses a lot of puns and irony throughout the novel so far. Well what if one of his examples of irony is Not Sidney being the son to Sidney Poitier. 

According to the Bedford, the definition of irony is “a contradiction or incongruity between appearance or expectation and reality. This disparity may be manifested in a variety of ways. A discrepancy may exist between what someone says and what he or she actually means, between what someone expects to happen and what really happens, or between what appears to be true and what actually is true.” Having that definition in mind it helps to form my hypothesis. As a reader and reading as far as I have at this point, I don’t know who the father of Not Sidney Poitier is, I also will not know if I am going to find out who he is. But I can have my assumptions and I believe that Percival Everett is using literary terms such as irony to express that Sidney Poitier is the father of Not Sidney Poitier.

Having all of these thoughts in the back of my head I feel as though I read the novel differently than others might. From the beginning I have been reading the novel in a different point of view, well ever-since  encountering this quote that stood out to me, “I am tall and dark and look for the world, like Mr. Sidney Poitier, something my poor disturbed and now deceased mother could not have known when I was born and named me Not Sidney Poitier” (3). This quote was said on the first page on the novel and being one of the first things I read, shapes the way I will further explore the novel. I go onto reading trying to find out who exactly Sidney Poitier is and how he relates to Not Sidney. It just seems to me that Percival Everett is leaving me on a cliffhanger. 

I don’t necessarily think that Everett is working his novel around all the literary elements he uses throughout the book. I just think that he uses them to help express what he means when he is writing. By using these elements, he helps get his point across. For example, some elements help the reader visual the text better when using elements, like Percival Everett uses irony to help express his thoughts. Everett could be using the irony to show that Not Sidney is the son of Sidney Poitier. Since Everett uses irony it helps the reader better visual the point Everett is trying to make in his novel. 

In the Bedford, there is an extended version of the word irony, within the extended version it states, “works that exhibit structural irony, the third major type of irony, contain an internal feature that creates or promotes a discrepancy that typically operates throughout the entire work. Some of the element of the work’s structure (or perhaps even its form), unrelated to the plot per se, invites the audience or reader to probe beneath surface statements or appearances.” As shown in the quote something that’s perhaps not related to the plot could be somewhat ironic in a deeper way. Not Sidney’s father isn’t a big part if at all part of the plot but a small part that could be deeper explored throughout the book. Percival Everett doesn’t come out and tell the reader who the father is so going off of the parts that I have read so far, and deeper exploring the meaning to find out the question I am further exploring. 

Other than the quote that struck me in the beginning of the book that stated how Not Sidney looked like Sidney Poitier and had his personality, there was another quote later that stood out to me. In college one of Not Sidney’s professor’s name is Percival Everett and he told Not Sidney one day after class, ‘“You know what I see when I look at you?’ ‘No.’ ‘I see Sidney Poitier.’ ‘But…’  I know, I know, you’re Not Sidney Poitier and also not Sidney Poitier but in a strange way you are Sidney Poitier as much as you’re anyone”’ (102). In this novel, as a reader we know little to no information about the famous Sidney Poitier expect for the fact that people think that Not Sidney Poitier is somehow related to Sidney Poitier. Going back to the Bedford definition again, where it said “…invites the audience or reader to probe beneath surface statements or appearances.” that just makes me think that somehow Percival Everett is throwing these little hints to the reader suggesting that Not Sidney really is the son of Sidney Poitier, and he is suggesting this using his irony of making the reader go deeper into what they already know from the reading.

Having all these observations, and suspects I have for who really is Not Sidney’s father, I have realized that it has changed the way I read the novel. Since I am so wrapped up into figuring out who the father is, even if it’s not a big part of the plot, I read the novel in a different point of view then someone who isn’t too wrapped up in knowing who it is. I find myself wrapped up into trying to find the deeper meaning in certain things that might just give me a clue one who the father is. The quotes that seem to jump out at me someway in my mind related to Not Sidney and something to do with who his father really is.           

Knowing I am reading this way I feel as I miss so many deeper parts of the book, and I am missing the important meanings because I am so wrapped up into figuring out the question I have had since the beginning of the book. I am reading the book trying to figure out if my thought process is correct. I go into it with the observations I have hoping to find something ironic that could tie into what I believe is happening.

From what I have read and from my understanding of the novel so far, I don’t necessarily believe that Pericaval Everett is trying to tell the reader that there is a correct thought process to understanding his novel. I believe that since there are many different approaches to portraying the book, and I know personally I took the approach of trying to find the deeper meaning and figuring out who Not Sidney’s father is by trying to deeper explore Everett’s work and his use of irony. 

Posted on by Hailey Cullen - No Comments on Don’t Stereotype My Dionysus

Don’t Stereotype My Dionysus

Don’t Stereotype My Dionysus!

In my previous blog post, I discussed some discrepancies between the Bacchae and Frenzy’s version of Dionysus. My primary focus was Dionysus’ complicated identity and desire for belonging. I want to utilize this post to delve further into Dionysus’ character in Frenzy, and explore why Percival Everett wrote the character this way.

The Dionysus in Frenzy is a god with an intricate history. He isn’t accepted by humans or the other gods due to his unusual birth out of Zeus’ leg. This lack of belonging leads to Dionysus making odd choices that are uncharacteristic of the typical Greek god archetype.

A recurring example of this is Dionysus attempt at sleeping. Despite his lack of need for it, he feigns sleep every night by mirroring his human followers’ actions. Dionysus’ companion, Vlepo, notices this and realizes that he is, in fact, not truly asleep but pretending, “my master had somehow found that quasi sleep again…” (Everett, 140). When I read this passage, I interpreted Dionysus to be interested in human characteristics and possibly trying to fit in among his followers. This, again, emphasizes his want for acceptance, whether it be in the god or human world. I also found it unusual for a Greek god to be so absorbed in human behavior when, traditionally, humans are disposable to the gods.

 Dionysus’ amusement with sleep stuck out to me as a curious attribute of Frenzy’s Dionysus. It is a character trait that is also not mentioned in The Bacchae. So why is Dionysus’ mimicking sleep so important that it needs to be included several times in Frenzy?

One can look at the original Bacchae for evidence behind Everett’s decisions in developing Dionysus as a character this way. The Bacchae is a classic and old Greek tragedy. Being this ancient, many of its characters are archetypic. The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms defines archetype as “the original model from which something is developed or made…” (Murfin, Ray, 24). Based on the Bedford’s definition, it makes sense that an original Greek play written in 405 BC would include some of the infant models for characters used today. However, these character archetypes are basic and one-dimensional, often depicting characters as people with only one goal or emotion. This creates an improbable and frankly, boring character.

Dionysus for example, is vengeful against Pentheus’ town because of their lack in belief in him as a god, so he plots the town’s demise. This is an understandable viewpoint for a Greek god except that it is the only one we see Dionysus having in the Bacchae. This is not a realistic interpretation of any character even if the character is a god. It is also a stereotypical goal as Greek gods are normally portrayed as self-absorbed and power-hungry individuals. Perhaps this is because the Bacchae was one of the initial Greek tragedies and it represents an archetype for later Greek plays and stories.

I think that Everett noted the Bacchae’s quintessential characters and believed they could be perceived as stereotypical and uninteresting for modern audiences to read. So, he created a dynamic Dionysus that is much more complex of a character than the original. His Dionysus is not so much arrogant as one might assume a Greek god to be, but fascinated by his human followers which we can see by his imitation of them sleeping. We can also see this different depiction in Everett’s Dionysus with his urge to belong in the world as I looked at with my last blog post. This way, Frenzy’s Dionysus is not an archetype but a realistic illustration of what a Greek god could be.

This discussion of Everett’s choice to disregard the stereotypical archetype Greek god for Dionysus’ character in Frenzy reminds me of our first class in English 203 this year. Dr. McCoy pulled up a twitter photo with the caption “suspicious pants” above a photo of khakis hanging over the back of a chair. I’m assuming the photo and caption are supposed to be humorous as the pockets look like two eyes squinting suspiciously. Dr. McCoy separated us into groups to examine how we interpreted the epigraph. I explained to my group that I saw the pants as having eyes squinting menacingly at someone doing a suspicious act. In that way, they were suspicious of someone. I expected most people in my group to have seen the same thing as I did. However, Sarah, a member of my group, quickly pointed out that she saw the pants as looking suspicious themselves.

These differences in opinion lead to a larger class discussion of divergence in perceptions among humans. I thought of this experience when thinking about the possible reasons for Everett creating such a convoluted character of Dionysus in Frenzy. Perhaps Everett wants to show his readers that no character is completely as one perceives them and that can’t be represented with the simple archetypes from the Bacchae. For example, one might believe Dionysus in Frenzy to be a stereotypical Greek god who is longing for revenge, when in actuality, he may be a character who is lost and looking for acceptance just as any human can be.

I enjoyed reading Frenzy more than the Bacchae because of the in-depth characters I could relate to. Archetypes serve a purpose as templates for future roles but they are difficult to impart upon modern readers as memorable and engaging characters. Everett avoids these archetypes and in doing so, creates an expansive character that readers can contemplate in more ways than one.

Posted on by Ashley Kupiec - No Comments on “The Ship” (and Not Sidney?) are Not Themselves Today

“The Ship” (and Not Sidney?) are Not Themselves Today

During our class period on Friday, it became Susanna’s job to yell “The ship!” every time the philosophical problem of Theseus’ ship was applicable to some aspect of Percival Everett’s I Am Not Sidney Poitier. Indeed, Susanna said this on multiple occasions (and with amazing delivery!) throughout our discussion. In particular, I would like to examine how this pesky problem applies to the formation of Not Sidney Poitier’s identity in the novel.

Continue reading
Posted on by Leila Sassouni - No Comments on Sarcasm as a Tool

Sarcasm as a Tool

Percival Everett’s novel I Am Not Sidney Poitier, uncovers the story of an African American boy Not Sidney who is raised during a time of racism. He is raised before 1954 since segregation was declared unconstitutional during that year, according to the Brown versus Board of Education case in 1954. While he is initially uneducated about racial distinctions between Caucasians and African Americans, one of Not Sidney’s household teachers, Betty, aids him in understanding that these two groups of people are not considered equal under the law. Betty helps arm Not Sidney with sarcasm to distract him from the distinctions and slurs directed towards him on the basis of his color.

Everett integrates sarcastic humor into the personality of his main protagonist. Sarcasm, according to Ross Murfin and Supryia M. Ray’s The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms, is defined as “intentional derision through cutting humor or wit, often directed at another person and designed to hurt or ridicule… [it] involves verbal irony” (392). This is the quality that Not Sidney uses most often as a strategy to distract himself from the racist remarks said about him.

In order to help build his thick skin, Betty educates Not Sidney. She is his teacher at home and is described as a “raving socialist” who is fond of him (9). This quality means that she believes all people should be considered equal under the law. She also calls herself “big boned” (9). While she teaches Not Sidney about “the fall of the Roman empire and about how the British lost their empire”, she also helps him understand the inequality of American democracy so that he be aware and understand his place in society (9).

Not Sidney summarizes all of the information she has told him previously, mentioning, “She taught me that America preached freedom yet would not allow anyone to be different” (9). While Betty may have previously told Not Sidney this, because of his young age, he may not have been able to apply the message to his own life. In a later conversation, Betty speaks about a white man Ted Turner, saying, “That man is the devil. You be careful around that white man, and around whitey in general” (10).

She explicitly tells Not Sidney that he must take precautions around Turner, because of the color of his skin. This is the first time Not Sidney is told to look at a person on the basis of their race, rather than solely by their personality.

Innocently, Not Sidney asks, “Why do you say he’s the devil?” to which she responds “young brother, young brother, you have no idea. Money be green, we be black, and the devil be white. That’s all we know and all we need to know” (10). She separates the African American community from success as she pinpoints money. She then separates her own community as she herself, makes the distinction between Caucasians and African Americans. “The devil be white” is essentially her way of emphasizing that all Caucasians at the time are considered evil people who will cause harm and discriminate against minority groups.

Cleverly, Not Sidney tells her “I just don’t see why him being white makes him the devil. My mother liked him. My mother was smarter than you. I like him. And he likes you” (11). The sarcasm used early in his sentence serves as a mechanism to prevent his categorization into a racially distinct category when he says his mother liked Turner and that his mother was smarter than Betty. In other words, Not Sidney humorously follows his mother’s influence in saying that simply because she liked him, he likes Turner too. Even while he had good intentions in his response, his humor offends Betty’s intellect in the process.

While Not Sidney finds it challenging to wrap his head around the idea that such racial barriers exist, had Betty not stated this complicated relationship, Not Sidney would have continued to be unaware of existing boundaries between himself and other majorities of people.

Especially in the school setting, when he is assaulted by his teacher, Not Sidney uses his humorous nature to explain to the Superintendent Dr. Gunther that he was assaulted, while insulting his teacher in the process. He says “I decided not to beat around the bush, but dove straight into it, to offer the shock of it. ‘She drove me to her tacky house, got on her knee-socked knees, and gave me what I have since learned is called a blowjob… And, to tell the truth, she wasn’t very good at it. I don’t think it’s supposed to hurt’” (42).

Despite Not Sidney’s attempts to seek help from his Superintendent, he is aware that people do not believe his story, yet he explains it in more of a light-hearted manner. This sarcastic, light-heartedness helps him in two distinct ways. This speaking manner first softens the figurative bruising he receives since people do not believe him, but instead laugh at him. Also, this serves as his coping mechanism through times when he encounters racial barriers.

Without the education Betty instills in Not Sidney, he would not be as knowledgeable of existing racial distinctions, nor would he know how to handle or conduct himself.

Posted on by Elizabeth Roos - No Comments on Dionysos the Author and Vlepo the Reader

Dionysos the Author and Vlepo the Reader

While reading Frenzy by Percival Everett, I found myself paying close attention to the relationship that Everett depicts between the central characters of Dionysos and Vlepo. Among the many additions that Everett made to the original story of The Bacchae, Vlepo was perhaps the largest—the reader now had an entire character written in first-person to empathize with and live vicariously through in order to experience the story more deeply than reading it in the original Greek verse-form. And perhaps it was from this acknowledgement that I ended up at the idea that perhaps Vlepo was meant to represent a reader-like form, a spectator. And if Vlepo was meant to represent the “Reader” so-to-speak, that would have to make Dionysos the “Author,” or the active to Vlepo’s passive, the all-knowing to Vlepo’s unknowing—wouldn’t it?

Regardless of whether or not this was Everett’s intent for the interpretation of these two characters, the symbolism of Vlepo the Reader and Dionysos the Author makes some sense. Throughout the entirety of the novel the characters of Vlepo and Dionysos are engaged in an exchange of question and answer. Whether it be in the presence of other characters, or in between scenes depicting the story of The Bacchae or other Greek myths, Dionysos and Vlepo are questioning each other and their reasons for existence. The first of these exchanges can be observed on page nine: 

“It makes very little difference where my fetus found completion, Vlepo,’” Dionysos said to me. “It matters only that I am.” He paused and regarded me. “I am here not simply because rumors spread by Kadmos through his daughters about my being a false god and no son of Zeus, but because—” He paused and held his forehead in his hand. “Can apathy produce an honest request?”

“I don’t know,” I said. I did not understand the question.

“I am a god, Vlepo, but I will die. That makes me different from other gods.”

Already the characters of Dionysos and Vlepo are untied from the plot that they were considered a part of. Where in The Bacchae Dionysos was the god whose purpose was to teach a lesson to the wrongful Pentheus, he is now a tool that Everett uses to question the meanings of life and existence. Dionysos is lost in a sort of blasé humor, uncaring about the world he populates, and though he searches for meaning, he ultimately accepts his fate, and is killed by Vlepo. And though Vlepo was not originally in The Bacchae, and thus no comparison can be drawn, he is as untied to the plot of the novel as he is tied to Dionysos—together they float from scene to scene, asking questions that seemingly have no true answer. 

It is with this in mind that I assign the roles of Author and Reader to Dionysos and Vlepo. Thought this is not all that they are or all they can be interpreted to be, I believe they fit into these roles—or archetypes—because of the way Everett writes them and how much agency he gives them to question and think deeply throughout the novel. With all the questioning about existence and life, Dionysos also utilizes Vlepo to look into the heads of other characters. He seemingly “throws” Vlepo to see what goes on inside the minds of mortals. The first of these is the mind of Semele, which occurs on page 14: “I saw into the head of Semele, gazing deep into a well of light: Love is devouring. It eats me hourly. Like poetry, death holds no sway over love. I hate myself because I can find no power to love more than I do…”  The dialogue continues, and usually these passages where Vlepo gazes into a mortal’s mind lasts for a single long paragraph, until he is pulled out again.

How do these excerpts serve the idea that Dionysos is representative of the Author and Vlepo the Reader? To begin, Dionysos is directing Vlepo. He is the one who throws Vlepo into the minds of different characters, each with their own viewpoints and each taking part in their own stories. Throughout the novel, Vlepo looks into the minds of Semele, Kadmos, Pentheus, Agave, Tiresias, Eurydice, Orpheus, Sibyl, Ariadne, Theseus, the Minotaur, and Lykurgos. Each time, Vlepo gets to witness the internal dialogues of the characters and what they are experiencing at that moment in their stories. Like a reader who reads what an author writes, Vlepo is witnessing the thoughts and emotions of mortals and, though these mortals were not fashioned by Dionysos, it was Dionysos who directed Vlepo to those characters’ thoughts.

It is an analogy that perhaps does not line up perfectly, but it is an analogy that I believe has some importance when interpreting Everett’s work of Frenzy. The novel is an incredibly introspective work, and it focuses more on character and how their emotions and thoughts make up who they are than plot and a chronological timeline, and therefore I believe that this type of interpretation is fitting for the ideas that Everett pursues. Before I conclude, I would like to point out one more observation: at the end of Frenzy, Vlepo has perhaps the most agency he’s ever had throughout the entire novel. While before he had been a mere tool of Dionysos, he now takes action, and slays the god where he sleeps. For some reason, I could not stop thinking about the idea of “the death of the author” here. The idea that, after a work is complete, the author’s original intention makes no difference; it is what the reader does with it that gives the piece true meaning. If my analogy stands, then Dionysos’s death by Vlepo’s hand is the literal death of the author. And, like the reader finally finishing the novel Frenzy, Vlepo is left alone—to do what he will with the knowledge he’s gained.

Posted on by Hannah Smith - No Comments on Canon and its Application in Harry Potter and the Cursed Child

Canon and its Application in Harry Potter and the Cursed Child

A few weeks back, we were asked to read the introduction to Literary Analysis the basics by Celena Kusch. When I read this, I remember stopping when I got to the word “canonical.” Me being the huge Harry Potter nerd thought about how books can be seen as canon to a series. For those who don’t understand the Harry Potter connection, there is a big debate over whether or not the Cursed Child is seen as canon. Now I am probably the only one who thinks this funny that the literary definition is about religious books, where we now use it when discussing Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. 

Though the application of the word has expanded over the years, I think it’s important to consider how subjective the word canon is. The literary definition states whether or not a book has “importance, influence, brilliance, and exemplary qualities,” which cannot be measured (7). How can you compare writing and decide what is of value and what’s not? You can break down conventions, or use of literary devices, but these are mostly used for educational purposes. Over the years, what was seen as important has shifted; this makes it hard to distinguish what is still important to us today. For instance, literature written by minorities were often ignored throughout history, but that doesn’t make them not important to us today. 

About whether something is canon to a series has a slightly different meaning. According to Wikipedia, canon in fiction “is the material accepted as officially part of the story in the fictional universe of that story. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction.” This definition seems to leave nothing up to interpretation, but I see some issues. What defines “officially accepted?” Is it what the author says or is it the reader’s opinion that matters? This might seem like an obvious answer, but when it comes to the Cursed Child is a slippery slope.

For those who aren’t familiar with the Harry Potter series, it follows a boy from the ages of 11 to 17 and his experiences with a new, magical world, and his past. At the end of the series, we are given an epilogue, wrapping up the story with each of the characters and their families. This is where the Cursed Child starts. It continues with the children of the characters and if you don’t want spoilers, stop reading now. The son of Harry and Ginny, Albus, goes to travel through time with the son of Draco, Scorpius, to save Cedric. They end up succeeding and Voldemort comes back with his daughter at his side. 

Now that you have both definitions of canon and how it changes throughout history and the basic plot, we can go into whether it can be considered canon. Now Super Carlin Brothers uploaded a video where J discusses how it shouldn’t be canon, even though J.K. Rowling tweeted otherwise. I happen to agree with the points he made. The two major plot holes in the cursed child are seen with the time turner and how it works. In the canon book series, Rowling sets up a method for time travel that doesn’t leave loose ends. In this system, you can’t constantly meddle with time because a new timeline isn’t made with each attempt. Harry and Hermoine stay on the same timeline throughout their mission to save Buckbeak and Sirius. Everything they do already happened in the past. This makes it so you cant constantly change what has happened, which doesn’t leave readers with questions like why don’t you go back in time and kill Voldemort. This was a smart writing move that didn’t make her past work irrelevant as the Cursed Child did. The Cursed Child takes the one timeline rule and throws it out the window. Scorpius and Albus create several timelines throughout the cursed child, all of which have some problems that I will get into later. This creation of timelines completely disregards the canon books, which means that it cant possibly canon. How can something canon contradict itself? 

Another major problem with the time turners is one of the final timelines. When Albus disappears, Scorpius decides that Harry must’ve died because Cedric killed Neville so the snake is still alive. This causes Harry to die in the battle, but that just doesn’t make sense. These events don’t necessarily correlate. Yes, Neville did kill the snake which made it possible for Voldemort to die, but Voldemort not dying doesn’t guarantee Harry’s death. As J explained, it just means that Voldemort doesn’t die. Harry would still be the master of the elder wand, causing Voldemort to kill Snape. But in this timeline, Snape survives somehow and Harry dies. This not only doesn’t make sense but also underminds the final book of the series. 

Other smaller flaws in the Cursed Child include, but aren’t limited to the changing of Cedric’s character to make him a Deatheater, Voldemort day existing despite the fear of his name, Voldemort having a baby with Bellatrix, and the fact that Hermoine and Ron would’ve never fallen in love if it wasn’t for jealously. I particularly have a problem with Voldemort having a baby. For someone who we were constantly told can’t love to have a child just seems far fetched. Not only that, Bellatrix was never pregnant in any of the books. This could be explained by her not showing yet, but wouldn’t make sense due to her constant appearances and time in Azkaban. We see her at the end of the fifth book, shortly after being freed from Azkaban in the battle at the Ministry of Magic. We then see her in the summertime at the beginning of the sixth book going to talk to snape without a baby. She is then seen at the top of the belltower, again without any sign of a baby. We then see her in a meeting with Voldemort at the beginning of the seventh book and again in Malfoy Manor in the middle of the book and finally dies at the end. This doesn’t give her enough time to get knocked up and then give birth. Not only this, her daughter is never mentioned on the Pottermore page section dedicated to her. If these books were considered canon, there would be mention of the characters in the official site for all things Harry Potter. This website can be considered canon in some aspects including the character bio mentioned and other articles written by J.K. Rowling herself. 

But not everything that comes from J.K. Rowling can be considered canon. She has mentioned things in interviews that go against the series, and are not canon. These things are just as informal as a tweet, which is the only leg the cursed child has to stand on. This is why it is clear that there is no way the Cursed Child can be canon without undermining the whole series. 

Posted on by Ashley Kupiec - No Comments on When the Ruler Can’t Understand the Ruled

When the Ruler Can’t Understand the Ruled

While reading Frenzy, I frequently found myself exclaiming the age-old complaint of “That’s not fair!” Injustice seems to run rampant in the novel, and I can’t seem to resolve this with the usual justification of “Well, life’s not fair.” In our class discussions, I kept coming back to the disconnect between the rulers and the ruled as an explanation for this unfairness; how can a god, who lacks the propensity for human feeling, control the lives of mortals with any semblance of justice?

Continue Reading
Posted on by Leila Sassouni - No Comments on Survival and Power

Survival and Power

Since Monday’s class, I have felt mind-boggled. I have felt this way because of a quote from our assigned Frenzy reading. In the beginning of Percival Everett’s novel Frenzy, Dionysos tells Vlepo that he is “a god, Vlepo, but [he] will die. That makes [him] different from other gods” which is both peculiar and fascinating (9).

Dionysos is a Greek god who is highly manipulative, is known for being the god of intoxication and love and is extremely insecure. His father is the Greek god Zeus, and his mother is the goddess Semele. He is Vlepo’s master, which means he controls Vlepo.

Vlepo is essentially a spirit who is referred to as representing “the human middle” (49). He is ordered around by Dionysos. Two of the powers that Dionysos has over Vlepo is that he can force Vlepo to read people’s thoughts and then report back to him. As an example, Vlepo recalls “I saw into the head of Semele, gazing deep into a well of light: Love is devouring. It eats me hourly. Like poetry, death holds no sway over love…” (14). Even while Vlepo constantly assists Dionysos, he is rarely thanked for his work. Doing such analyses on people is extremely tiring for Vlepo. He often feels rage and says he is “furious with [Dionysos], wanted to kill him, but was immediately afraid of having thought that” (70).

After thinking more about what Dionysos told Vlepo about not being like other gods, I thought quite a bit. I realized through my thought process that in general, a god cannot die but can only be cut up into smaller fragments. This makes Dionysos special in this case since he can actually die.  

In class last Monday, McCoy instructed us to form groups in order to discuss the conclusion of the Frenzy reading. My mind was immediately drawn towards Vlepo. While in our groups, I told my peers that I felt bad for him since he was bossed around by his master Dionysos. He essentially had no voice and was belittled. My group members each agreed with my point, admitting that they too, also felt bad for Vlepo.

We began to brainstorm reasons why we think Dionysos is so cruel towards Vlepo. Is it because Dionysos has this godly power? Is it because he is Zeus’ son? Is it because he is simply inconsiderate and fails to validate other people’s feelings?

Through both the brainstorming questions we created, and through my personal interpretation of the text, I arrived at my own inference. Dionysos says he is a god who is unlike other gods since he is able to die. Maybe the reason he needs Vlepo is because otherwise another person can quite literally kill him. Therefore, he is scared to put himself at that risk.

The reason why I believe Vlepo is essentially Dionysos’ savior and stops him from dying is because he puts Vlepo into the uncomfortable situations. Vlepo is the one who reads the minds of other individuals who do not favor Dionysos. He serves as the interpreter and narrator of the entire reading where he provides the reader the context of what is happening, but at the same time is also reporting considerably crucial information to his master.

To support this, there is the relationship between Dionysos and a woman whose name is Agave. Agave does not like Zeus, Dionysos’s father. The reason for this dislike is because Agave was previously jealous of her sister Semele, who was in a romantic relationship with Zeus and created Dionysos as a result of that. With her frustration, Agave questions Dionysos’ role as a god. This leads to Dionysos who punishes Agave for such thoughts. Using his powers, Dionysos sends Vlepo to read the thoughts of Agave.

“Dionysos put me upon the head of Agave. The window into her thinking was buried beneath her gray hairs, but I found stable footing and observed. The flesh of the animal will give me life, its blood will give me clear dreams of coming life or death and regained time, the gnawing on its bones will harden me for the war ahead… how we thrive away from those rodents called men!” (43-44).

While Dionysos knows Agave does not like him, Vlepo’s mind reading offers him extended information that can be used against her. He knows that she questions his godly role, but now he also knows that she views men as “rodents”. He can use her thoughts in order to manipulate her, to threaten her, or to weaken her; her words essentially work against her. This in turn helps Dionysos because if for any reason Vlepo reads the mind of someone who explicitly states hating Dionysos or wanting to cause him physical harm, Vlepo can inform him. This both increases Dionysos’ chances of survival and helps him assert his power as a god.

Both survival and assertion of power are two distinct features of Dionysos that he uses to distinguish himself as a god. Without both his distinct qualities and Vlepo, he would likely die because of another god who kills him. Therefore, the crucial role Vlepo serves in Frenzy is what keeps his master alive.

Posted on by Hailey Cullen - No Comments on Dionysus was Bacchus

Dionysus was Bacchus

One may find Euripides’ The Bacchae to be an entertaining play, however, I consider it to be insufficient in exploring its characters, especially with the main role of Dionysus. From my limited experience with Greek mythology, there is often a recurring plot line involving unknowing mortals getting caught up in a god’s spiteful plan. This common model matches Dionysus’ appearance in The Bacchae. Granted the play was written with the intention of having actors perform it live, I found the development of Dionysus’ character and storyline lackluster.

Dionysus is first introduced in the Bacchae as a god who seeks revenge on his mother’s city that refuses to recognize him as a god. This is fairly simple characterization for Greek gods as their reputations often include a quick temper and conceited personality. Dionysus remains virtually static throughout the play, with these characteristics. He slyly plots against the doubting King Pentheus, and tricks him into dressing as a woman “Let me see you as a woman, a maenad, a Bacchant on your way to spy…” (Euripides, 151) Thus, leading the king to be attacked by the Bacchant women. Dionysus is likely an interesting character to watch performed on stage, but is a stagnant character on paper.

This could not be less true for Dionysus’ character in Percival Everett’s adaptation of the tragedy in Frenzy. Frenzy begins with listing the various names that Dionysus has, “Dionysus was Bakkos was Ikkahos was Bromius…” (Everett, 1). This invites the reader to immediately note the many layers of the god. This complex characterization continues throughout the book showing unexpected aspects of Dionysus’ character.

Dionysus is one of the twelve Olympians, although his bizarre birth causes him to be seen as an outsider amongst the other gods. The Bacchae mentions that Dionysus had to be sewn into Zeus’ thigh as his mother was killed while she was still pregnant, but Frenzy delves more into detail. Frenzy utilizes new character, Vlepo, to convey Dionysus’ beginning. Vlepo, who serves as his master’s eyes, is shown how Dionysus’ mother, Semele, is tricked by her lover Zeus’ jealous wife Hera and is violently killed, “On the bench where Semele had sat was a pile of ashes…” (Everett, 16). Not only does Frenzy create more detail in recounting the event, it also gives the reader insight about Dionysus’ mother in the process. Frenzy characterizes Semele as a stunningly beautiful and sweet woman. She is innocent—she has never seen her lover in full form and is easily tricked by Hera to do so. By describing his mother and emphasizing the rough start he had entering the world, Frenzy offers more depth to Dionysus’ character.

Dionysus’ morality in Frenzy contrasts with the original character in the Bacchae as well. In Frenzy, Dionysus isn’t portrayed as a villain seeking revenge. It’s as if he returns to Semele’s town to connect with his origin, rather than wreak havoc on the town’s disbelieving people. He still influences the women of the town to escape to the mountains, yet he seems uninterested in their obsession of him. He seems dissatisfied with being a god, yet unable to be truly human or possess human characteristics. He is looking for something to complete him and for what is up to the reader’s interpretation.

 I believe Dionysus wants a place to belong.

This craving stems from his coming from both human and Olympian worlds. In Frenzy, Dionysus and Vlepo venture to the underworld to find Semele. Since he bribes the Queen of the Underworld, Persephone, Dionysus is able to locate his mother and bring her back to the living. The issue does not resolve so easily, however, as his mother struggles to recognize Dionysus as her son, “…my eyes have no memory, my heart possess no recollection… My son? You might as well be a column of rising smoke before me.” (Everett, 25) Semele was killed before she was able to give birth to Dionysus, explaining her lack of familiarity with him. Dionysus gives his mother with a new name to protect from Hera’s further wrath, and leaves her in the hands of the goddess Hestia. I assume that Dionysus wanted to set his mother free, expecting to find a piece of himself with her, the same way that adopted children yearn to know their birth parents as if it will give them a glimpse into their identity. However, Dionysus quickly realizes that she cannot give him the belonging that he wants.

Dionysus is a much more complex character in Frenzy than in The Bacchae. In my opinion, this allows for the reader to better understand the actions of Dionysus. I have found that I appreciate Frenzy’s Dionysus more than the original because I can relate to his very human emotion of wanting acceptance.

I am glad to have read The Bacchae, but I am even more glad to have read the expanded version, Frenzy. With Dionysus’ character being more detailed and easier to relate to, I am more interested in the story line. Frenzy adds and changes aspects of the original but all to magnify the original timeless tragedy.