Tuesday, July 31, 2018

295 Blog Post- Autumn Love


When we discussed Autumn by Ali Smith, one of the things we spent a decent amount of time talking about was the relationship between Daniel and Elisabeth, and therefore also between Elisabeth and her mother and how Wendy seemed to fit into the story herself. It seemed to be somewhat popular opinion that Daniel and Elisabeth’s relationship was, if not weird, then at least unhealthy to the extent that it grew to in Elisabeth’s later years. Of course, this makes sense and any mother, like Wendy, would be concerned for their daughter, and of course it wasn’t in Elisabeth’s best interest to continue in this relationship that she was using as a crutch to avoid real, and promising romantic relationships.
            That being said, I would like to play devil’s advocate for a little while and explore the other side of the coin. If you look at it from a different perspective, what Daniel and Elisabeth share is what everyone searches for, it’s even referred to in the book, “The lifelong friends, he said. We sometimes wait a lifetime for them” (52). I know that this friendship morphs into a romantic attachment in Elisabeth’s mind, but that happens as a result of their friendship, a friendship which never goes away even as things, time, they all change. The age distance and the fact that Daniel has no romantic interest in Elisabeth of course muddy the waters a bit, but it’s not always necessary for your feelings to be reciprocated in order to validate them. Elisabeth may very well be using her feelings for Daniel as a shield to stave off ever having to enter into an adult relationship with someone her own age, with bigger stakes, but she also might just genuinely love Daniel (whatever kind of love that is) and feel uninterested in getting to know anyone who doesn’t make her feel just as strongly which is also completely valid and plausible. There are so many different kinds of love, and Elisabeth and Daniel most assuredly feel some kind of it for each other, and feeling love for anyone in any form can make lesser feelings with lesser people who you have a lesser connection with disappointing and unexciting.
            I think one of the most touching lines in the book is about falling in love with the way someone sees the world. That’s the love that Daniel and Elisabeth share, despite the confusion, the miscommunication, the age gap and every other reason to come up with for why they are inappropriate or unhealthy. Daniel fell in love with Elisabeth’s curiosity and open, innocent spirit, while Elisabeth fell in love with Daniel because of his whimsical, and creative approach that makes anything and everything feel understandable, and his endless fountain of information that never runs dry or dull. They form this deep connection of mind and soul rather than brain and body that truly stands the test of time. It has to be one of the most innocent kinds of love: to simply want to absorb someone’s outlook and be around them because the world can be a different place when you’re together. Here lies the fundamental misunderstanding with Wendy when she forbids Elisabeth to see Daniel, and when she thinks it’s weird that they enjoy spending time together. Elisabeth’s mother is a fairly complex character, but she’s also one who is pretty much stuck in who she is and what she believes, and once she believes that Elisabeth and Daniel have an inappropriate relationship it becomes impossible to make her see otherwise.
            The most difficult part of their relationship to defend is Elisabeth’s undying devotion to Daniel while he is literally dying. Not that her loyalty and concern isn’t heartwarming in a sense, but she takes it to such great lengths it becomes almost verging on the unsettling if seen through a different lens. Elisabeth’s attachment is one of those in which context is a big part of whether or not it’s time to call the police. If Daniel, for instance, did not reciprocate any feelings for her whatsoever, her decision to impersonate his granddaughter in the hospital, and make decisions on his behalf would be something people definitely go to jail for. But it’s not creepy because Daniel loves her too, and he’s connected to her too, and even though he doesn’t talk about it and she doesn’t really show up in his thoughts, she is the person he asks for, and she is the person he’s happy to see during the few brief moments of consciousness and clarity he has left. So in this perspective, it’s actually not really fair to say their relationship is one-sided, or unhealthy, or inappropriate because for whatever it is, it’s an enduring lifelong love and friendship, and putting everything else aside, that’s what everyone searches sometimes their whole lives for, and few are lucky enough to find, so shouldn’t anyone hold on to something like that if they do find regardless of what form it takes?

295 Textual Analysis Final- The Emperor's Babe


Hierarchy of Tongues: Language and Status in The Emperor’s Babe


            Bernadine Evaristo’s The Emperor’s Babe begins with an epigraph by Oscar Wilde: “The one duty we owe to history is to rewrite it.” Though the novel is undeniably focused on refiguring the history of the Roman empire, it does much of this through the refiguring of language. By examining the interplay of Latin and English in the book, we can also examine how language—and the cultural expectations that come with it—acts as both a marker and an enforcer of status within Roman Londinium. Evaristo’s protagonist, Zuleika, is circumscribed by the tongue of Empire, kept oppressed by it while also only gaining status through it, and only by rebelling against the linguistic and cultural framework of Rome does she find fulfillment.

            The book’s very first poem puts the focus on Zuleika’s relationship to language, specifically her struggles with Latin as they relate to her marriage. The poem is titled “Amo Amas Amat,” drawn from midway through, when Zuleika “was sent off for decorum classes,/learned how to talk, eat, fart,/how to get my amo amas amat right, and ditch/my second-generation plebby creole,” (Evaristo 4). The Latin here serves two-fold. “Amo amas amat” is the beginning of the conjugation for the Latin verb amare, or to love. Therefore, the title translates as “I love, You love, He/She loves[1].” Not only is this one of the first verbs many Latin students learn—including Zuleika, it would seem—but it also hints at the book’s larger narrative. Zuleika may have learned from her tutor how to get her forms of love right grammatically, but she certainly did not learn how to sort out love itself. However, even her grammatical lessons seem not to have stuck. The same poem ends with the line, “Solitudoh, solitudee, solitudargh!” (Evaristo 5). While at first glance this seems to be another list of Latin conjugations, it is not. Indeed, it does not seem to mean anything at all in Latin. It is as if Zuleika has tried to treat the word solitudonem as a verb and then conjugate it, only to grow so frustrated as to finish the final one not with a Latin verb ending but with an onomatopoetic cry of anguish. Indeed, the entire line becomes a sort of onomatopoeia, conveying Zuleika’s frustration with the solitudonem her marriage has brought her not through its definition or denotational meaning, but through its form. It resembles proper Latin, but only enough to get her meaning across to an audience that does not actually speak Latin—or at least an audience engaging with the text primarily through a language that is not Latin. It is Latin constructed by a non-native speaker of Latin for non-native speakers of Latin.

            This disconnect between Zuleika and her Latin raises the question of why she uses the language at all, and the answer lies with power. Though the story takes place in what is now London, and few of the characters are actually from Rome, the dominant culture in Zuleika’s Londinium is distinctly Roman, and as such, Latin is the language of power. Just as Rome has colonized the land of Londinium, it has colonized the language of its people, tying their cultural fluency and position to linguistic fluency. The use of Latin is a status symbol, one Zuleika uses to assert her dominance over less fluent characters like Valeria and Aemelia, whose Latin is even worse than hers and whose speech she calls “vulgar babble” (Evaristo 55). Yet Zuleika’s speech is deemed little better, called “second-generation plebby creole,” (Evaristo 4). This is a distinctly loaded term, and perhaps the best illustration of how Zuleika is seen by Roman society. The label of “second-generation” is accurate, certainly, but here it becomes a pejorative term, full of the same sort of anti-immigrant xenophobia that plagues London today as much as third century Londinium. “Plebby,” too, is a term with significance both modern and Classical. Literally, it refers to Zuleika’s status as a plebeian, the Roman class of commoners. However, the term “pleb” is still used today in England as an insult to denote those of the working class. Finally, “creole” has a distinctly double meaning. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it is used in linguistics to mean “a language that has developed from the mixing of two or more parent languages and has come to be the first language of a community, typically arising as the result of contact between the language of a dominant group (historically often a European colonizer) and that (or those) of a subordinate group (often the colonized people, or a slave population),” (“Creole, n. and adj.”). Thus, the language Zuleika speaks is in fact a creole, in that it likely combines elements of Latin, as the dominant language, with elements of local languages that have been subjugated under Latin. However, it also means “[a] person of black African descent born in the Caribbean or mainland Americas, esp. as opposed to one recently arrived from Africa,” (“Creole, n. and adj.”) Though she was born in Londinium and not the Caribbean, there is a certain parallel between Zuleika—the child of two members of an African diaspora who have settled on an island colonized by a white empire—and the children of African parents born later in the Caribbean. And so, Zuleika certainly speaks a creole, but she also is a creole. In a sense, she is the language she speaks, a language that Rome belittles.

            This makes it all the more interesting that she in turn belittles the speech of her maids, going so far as to render it in a semi-phonetic transcription of their dialect. She calls their speech “vulgar,” and it is vulgar, at least in the sense that it is the common tongue instead of Latin. But just as “creole” is applied to both describe and disparage Zuleika’s speech, she uses “vulgar,” with all its connotations of uncleanly and uncouth behavior, to belittle the speech of her maids. Her slaves. If Zuleika is and speaks a creole, then her slaves must both be and speak something worse if she is to maintain power over them. They must be something vulgar. In a land where speaking the language of Empire grants one access to better opportunities—as surely it does, for Zuleika can only marry once her Latin has been perfected, and her poetry only matters to the canon if it follows proper Roman literary traditions—the hierarchies of language are also fundamental hierarchies of power. Zuleika, who speaks the tongue of Londinium, is oppressed by those who speak the tongue of Rome, and she in turn oppresses those who speak the tongue of the Britons.

            This linguistic oppression is mirrored throughout the book by more overt displays. Despite being the child of Sudanese refugees living at the farthest reaches of the Empire, Zuleika is expected to adhere not to Sudanese cultural norms, nor to British ones, but to Roman ones. She is expected to gain status for herself and her family through marriage to a Roman nobleman, and within that marriage she is expected to behave like a proper Roman wife. Though Felix marries her specifically because she does not resemble the Roman women available to him, calling them “simpering debutantes,” he then turns around and pays to have Zuleika educated specifically to make her more like those very noblewomen (Evaristo 16). This illustrates quite clearly the double-standard that Felix—and by extension the rest of Roman culture—holds Zuleika to. They praise her for her beauty, often linking it specifically to her race and exoticizing her endlessly, and yet she is expected to wear wigs or false hair and makeup to lighten her skin, making her look more like a Roman woman (Evaristo 27). Felix marries her for her youth—she is a literal child, after all—but forces her to perform the sexual and social roles of a grown woman. Just as women of color often are in Western culture today, Zuleika is fetishized at an appallingly young age for not conforming to white beauty standards, and then promptly expected to work to better conform to those same standards. Even her poetry must be mediated through Rome. Her tutor insists that before she can write her own work, she must learn the canon by wrote. The problem with this, as Zuleika points out, is that the canon Theodorus is offering does not reflect her experiences. (Evaristo 83-84) It is written by and for people who fit the Roman mold, something Zuleika cannot and will not do.

            There is, however, resistance to the power structures of Rome, both linguistic and physical. Venus, in particular, seems to represent much of that resistance in Zuleika’s life. She is a quintessentially queer character, not only in her gender identity, but in her queering of societally enforced norms. Like drag queens and many trans women today, Venus performs hyperfemininity in a society that expects her to be masculine. While it remains unclear whether this is a performance in the sense that “Venus” is a persona—à la modern drag queens—or merely performative in the sense of performative gender, it is undoubtedly deliberate and undoubtedly rebellious. She adheres to all the beauty standards that Rome expects Zuleika to—face-paint, high heels, fancy gowns—and yet in doing so, she subverts them. Venus takes the story of Hadrian, one of Rome’s great emperors, and focuses not on the conquest or the state-building, but on Hadrian’s same-sex relationship (Evaristo 122-123). She takes a tale of Roman glory and turns it on its head by pointing to what was already there but what many would rather not see. Similarly, by simply existing as a visibly queer individual who refuses to conform, Venus points to the nonconforming elements of Roman Londinium as a whole. And indeed, her performance is not restricted to gender or sex. She affects a Cockney accent and even Cockney rhyming slang, such as when she offers to “ball-of-chalk you home, darling,” despite actually being from a wealthy family in Camulodunum (Evaristo 44) (Evaristo 46). Not only does Venus reject the gender she was assigned at birth, she rejects the status symbol that Latin and cultivated speech represent in Londinium. Instead of asserting social dominance by peppering her speech with Latin words and phrases, the way Zuleika often does, Venus uses distinctly British slang. And yet, despite all this—or perhaps because of it—Venus is also tremendously successful in defining her own destiny. She is wealthy enough to own a club, she has enough cultural influence to gather an audience for Zuleika’s poetry reading/orgy, and every indication at the end of the book points to Venus having finally found the great love she was looking for. Even her name is a way of thumbing her nose at Rome. She takes the name of the goddess of love, Rome’s most profound symbol of female sensuality, and uses it for her own singular name. This is an especially rebellious gesture in a culture that used women’s family names in place of personal ones, as it casts off the names of her relatives and takes instead a name she has chosen to be hers. It signals how she has cut ties entirely with her family and fashioned herself into an irrepressible—and perhaps even blasphemous—symbol of femininity. She is self-made in every sense of the word. If anyone in the book has found a way to exist within Roman colonial culture while also subverting it, it is Venus.

            It is, perhaps, Venus’s influence that leads to Zuleika’s own subversive tendencies. For all Felix’s insistence that she remain a chaste, dutiful wife, she takes a lover. For all her lessons in deportment, she still uses much of the slang from her youth. And for all her tutor’s insistence on Classical canon, she writes to us not in hendecasyllables or in Latin, but in English free verse. Even the pressure to gain status through rich, Roman men is subverted. Zuleika certainly manages to associate herself with a powerful figure in Roman society—the Emperor, no less—but the man himself is fundamentally not Roman. Zuleika’s great love is just as much an immigrant as her parents, and his language reflects this. Severus’s first quoted word in the book, “Aiwa,” is not in Latin but in Arabic, (Evaristo 140). He even mentions how he “was ridiculed on arrival in Eternal City/because of his thick African accent,” (Evaristo 144). Zuleika finds true happiness only in the arms of a man who, like herself, has had to force himself to fit the mold of Roman citizen in order to advance, and yet also one who still does not fit that mold. Unfortunately, the Roman order quickly reasserts itself. As soon as Severus is dead, Zuleika finds herself once again trapped in her old life, and then finally murdered for her transgressions against the role she has been assigned. It is Felix—perpetually the stand-in for repressive Roman culture—that kills her, in the end. And yet, though Zuleika goes quietly to her death, she goes—at least in some small way—on her own terms. The collection’s penultimate poem, “Vade in Pace (Go in Peace)” sees Zuleika take control of her death the way she so rarely could control her life. She asks Alba to bury her, embracing the only female solidarity and friendship that she has had from her very beginning, without the intervention of Rome, and she asks to be buried not with the slap of a Roman woman or the wig she wears in “A Quiet Bedtime Voice,” but with an afro pick and braids, both of which signify embracing her African heritage. What’s more, in her final moments Zuleika seems to cast off the linguistic yoke of Latin. “Vade in Pace (Go in Peace)” contains almost no Latin. There is the title, of course, and the title of the poem she speaks for Alba, “‘Mors Certa, Hora Incerta,’/ ‘Death Certain, Hour Uncertain,’” (Evaristo 248). However, both of these titles are glossed within the text, changing the Latin from a status symbol accessible only to those with command of the language into something legible to everyone in Zuleika’s society. The only word of untranslated Latin in the poem’s eight pages is “arsenicum,” the poison that Felix has Tranio slip her, (Evaristo 243). Thus, Latin is literally transformed from something that signaled power into something that signals only death. Zuleika even makes a move back towards the improper Latin—the “plebby creole”—of her youth, bastardizing vice versa into the much more Venusian “vicky versa,” (Evaristo 248).

            This book begins with Zuleika trapped within a framework of language and cultural expectations designed to keep her rigidly in her place, but it does not remain there. Though perhaps she can only gain power through linguistic and cultural fluency, that power is never enough to protect her, nor enough to make the Romans around her see her as one of them. It is, perhaps for this reason that Zuleika sets aside Latin at the end of the story and gains something else: legacy. For it is only by working against the frameworks that she has been confined to that she finds not only the love of an Emperor, but an audience for her thoughts. After all, this book is not in Latin, but English. In the end, Zuleika takes control of her history by rewriting it in a language that does not need Rome to act as intercessor.






Works Cited

"Creole, n. and adj." OED Online, Oxford University Press, June 2018, www.oed.com/view/Entry/44229. Accessed 20 June 2018.

Evaristo, Bernardine. The Emperor's Babe. Penguin Books, 2004.

Wong, Jennifer. Personal interview. 20 Jun. 2018.



[1] All Latin translations were done with the help of Jennifer Wong.

295 Textual Analysis Final



Turner

            David Dabydeen’s Turner is a response to J.M.W. Turner’s Slave Ship (Slavers Throwing Overboard the Dead and Dying, Typhoon Coming On). The painting utilizes sharp reds and oranges to depict a rocky sea, where a slave ship sails in the background and drowning slaves tossed overboard bob in the foreground. Turner’s painting has been crowned by art critic John Ruskin “the noblest [sea] certainly ever painted by man” (Dabydeen, 7). It is remembered as a beautifully tragic depiction of a typhoon, Turner reaching genius through his composition of color and tone. The painting’s representation of a slave ship with slaves sentenced to death by storm is ultimately disregarded. In response, Dabydeen sought to illustrate the existence of the overboard slave. His work here pulls the drowning slave out from under the surf and illustrates his life. Dabydeen utilizes a fictional biography to illuminate the effects of enslavement both individually and generationally. 
The subject of Dabydeen’s narrative poem is a man who was tossed off a slave ship to die. For centuries, this drowning man had been lost at sea, reflecting how artists and art critics have so often neglected the voices of slaves throughout history (Dabydeen, 7). At the beginning of our narrative, the man has only vague memories from his former life. To make up for lost memories, he has taken to inventing his own world, naming the people and creatures around him from his own imagination. The man is startled by a crash, what he comes to realize is a stillborn child. This discovery breaks the surface of his repressed memories, bringing his time on the slave ship back to him like a flood. The way Dabydeen depicts their meeting sheds light onto the infant’s literary purpose. The child materializes to him, breaking the water, “salt splash burning [his] eyes/ Awake” (Dabydeen, 17). From their very first encounter, the infant made the man’s past transparent and unmistakable. From then on, the memories of his past on the slave ship were unavoidable.
            The drowned man remembers more and more of his time on the slave ship. Most notably, he recalls a white man, the ship’s owner named Turner. Dabydeen paints the slave owner as manipulative, pedophilic, and greedy. His first-hand account contrasts the more common picture of history taught today. Modern renderings of slavery often forget the more gruesome reality represented through this work, choosing instead to remember slave owners as normal people, even good people, who just happened to own slaves. Dabydeen challenges this notion. One excerpt from the text stands out as a clear depiction of what Turner was to this drowned man:

As he gives us sweets and a ladle from a barrel
Of shada juice. Five of us hold his hand,
Each takes a finger, like jenti cubs…
As he leads us
To the ship. Why is my mother screaming…
And where is my father?
Why does Turner forbid her to touch us? …
Why are all the elders in chains?” (Dabydeen, 14).

Here, the man walks back through memories of his childhood. He recalls Turner as nurturing, even maternal, taking their hands like a mother protecting its cubs. His judgement of Turner was distorted with naivety, but the man’s mother understood the reality of the situation. She screamed as Turner interacted with the children, foreseeing that his innocence was not the extent of his character. Turner separated the drowned man from his mother and father, and held the elders in chains. There is a distinct disconnect between the way Turner treats the children and their older family members. He is able to manipulate the children into trusting him, and they even begin competing for his approval. The boys on the ship race to be the first to polish Turner’s boots, striving to be deemed “most faithful” (Dabydeen, 14). Turner uses their devotion to his advantage. His position of absolute power allows him to defile the children in whatever way he wants, often “beneath him/ Breathless with pain, wanting to remove his hook/ Implanted in our flesh” (Dabydeen, 40). Though the speaker was blind to it at first, Turner was not an innocent man. The audience learns through recalled memories the gravity of this situation.
            After ruminating on his memories, the speaker comes to realize how Turner manipulated him. The span of his impact can be looked at in two categories: affecting reality and affecting his imagined refuge. Though he once was naïve to see Turner’s manipulative ploys, he grows to understand the slave owner’s true impact on both of his worlds.
The enslaved man first recognizes Turner’s impact on his physical life. He hears the stillborn baby crying “N----r,” categorizing him from “some hoard of superior knowledge – guarding a lore buried by priests, philosophers, fugitives” (Dabydeen, 31). This states that the child has learned to name this man from a reserve of ideals passed on from past peoples. It has been taught how to categorize a black person, and does so through a cruel racial slur. Hearing this, the man acknowledges that his people’s oppression has been guarded among generations. The stillborn, with exactly zero life experience, still identifies him as a “n----r”, proving the man’s understanding of the world as a culturally structured system. Turner’s impact on this man’s life reflects a generational impression on society.  
Even in the construction of an imagined world, Turner’s impact is inescapable. The man states that in his imagination, he names all the things he can no longer see. The words he uses are such his own mind and those that “Turner primed in [his] mouth” (Dabydeen, 19). His imagined world included foliage, birds, and fruit, a land filled with artists and visionaries. But Turner destroyed even that for him, “vandalized [it] with a great sweep of his sword” (Dabydeen, 33). He was able to taint even the imagined parts of the speaker’s life. The text depicts how Turner forced himself onto the children, all the while obsessing that they repeat his language back to them. He would whisper we desire you, we love you, we forgive you, and blessed, angelic, and sublime, until the children repeated them, trancelike, back to him (Dabydeen, 40). His persistence and force engrained his rhetoric into the children’s minds, penetrating their worldviews for their entire lives. Even after our protagonist suppressed his memories of the ship for many years, the specifics of Turner’s vocabulary come alive again. He had effectively been brainwashed into believing along the same lines as Turner without much question. The specifics of Turner’s derogatory language infested the man’s subconscious, affecting his imaginary world as well as his physical one.
            The man notes that, even after the ocean had bleached the “sin” from his skin, the stillborn that appeared to him was able to recognize it at once. In turn, after distinguishing the man’s perceived wickedness, the stillborn turns in on itself, “sensing its own deformity” (Dabydeen, 31). The infant here serves as a modern example of rhetoric in today’s society. From a traditional upkeep of immoral values, the infant learned that black was to be hated. “A lore buried by priests, philosophers, and fugitives” suggests that individuals of all classes subscribed to the idea of white dominance. Dabydeen illustrates this mindset as such an integral aspect of society that a half-born infant would yield to the rhetoric. The stillborn has internalized an innate hatred of blackness from even before birth. It isn’t until the infant verbalizes this hatred that it realizes the world’s hatred is directed at himself. It immediately learned a hatred of blackness, only later discovering that this hatred was therefore pointed openly at him. Dabydeen comments on how the man attempts to make a new, imagined life for himself. However, neither the stillborn nor the slave can escape from Turner’s “language and imagery,” forced to navigate the gravity of this generational influence (Dabydeen, 8). 
            The man sought to create a new world for the stillborn, but found it impossible to escape history. Before the child appeared, the man had pushed out all memories of the slave ship (Dabydeen, 17). He then began imagining what life was like in those forgotten years, forming words and names for the images he had forgotten of his childhood. Once the newborn appeared to him, the memories of the ship flooded back (Dabydeen, 21). He saw the newborn as a miracle, an answer to “a longed-for gift of motherhood” (Dabydeen, 9). The child introduced a new realm of identities for the drowned slave. He takes on a maternal role, wishing he was able to nourish the child with breastmilk (Dabydeen, 21). The lines separating gender roles and identities become blurred, the child’s existence bringing the drowned man a novel sense of self. In return, the speaker wished to invent a better future for the child. He acknowledged the memories the stillborn’s presence resurfaced, but chose instead to counter those ideas, inventing a new world for and with the child. He had already created names for birds and fruits in his imagined world, and yearned to “begin anew in the sea,” with new ideas and values. However, the stillborn could not transition out of its gripped mindset. The man states that his face is “rooted in the ground of memory, a ground stampeded by herds of foreign men” who destroy the land before them (Dabydeen, 41). The impact of an entire people’s enslavement was engrained on this stillborn child even before it saw life. Though the man attempted to make a new life for his fostered child, there was little he could do to reteach the inherent ways of the world, especially in regards to perception of self.
            Dabydeen’s commentary on institutionalized racism comes to fruition through the fictional voice of an often submerged reality. The enslaved man, pushed overboard by his slave owner, effectively pushes away any memories of the slave ship. Until a child floats up to him in middle of the sea, all cognition of that trauma has been forgotten. The man had instead, cultivated an imagined reality far away from the actuality of institutional racism and slavery. However, the stillborn child that appeared to him was the switch that flooded all the memories back. The realization of all that had happened on that ship urged the man to foster a better life for this infant, the man’s maternal instincts heightening. But the stillborn personified the prevalence of black hatred, squirming at the man’s and its own “obscenity.” Both the enslaved man and the stillborn child learned to identify precisely how Turner believed them. The slave owner, through his manipulation and execution of power, enforced his beliefs and superiority on the submerged man. The stillborn serves to personify the generational impact of oppression and enslavement, as realized through Dabydeen’s careful imagination of existent life.




Works Cited

Dabydeen, David. Turner. Peepal Tree Press Ltd, 2010.




310 Blog Post 4- Summary of the Play-Going

Now that we have officially seen all of the official plays for the course, I can’t help but arrange a hierarchy of sorts ...