Reader Confusion=Mystery in Jan-Philipp Sendker's storytelling

In The Art of Hearing Heartbeats, storytelling is a repeated motif. U Ba is telling a story to Julia, but the author Jan-Philipp Sendker is also telling a story to us as the readers through his novel. Because stories tend to be more captivating and entertaining when there is an element of surprise, Jan-Philipp Sendker keeps us on the same level of information as U Ba keeps Julia; there is an intentional lack of dramatic irony and the audience is as surprised as her. We only know as much as Julia knows as we are learning about her dad through U Ba’s storytelling and outspoken descriptions of him. Jan-Philipp Sendker’s style in the novel as being slightly secretive and subtle makes us experience the same feeling of confusion that Julia feels about her father’s history. The author is able to make his novel a storytelling experience for the readers through situational irony through lack of mentioning names of mysterious characters, repetitions and similarities, and tricky foreshadow.

When being told a story, it is important to remember who is who by taking account of important characters’ names so that the audience can make connections. However, Jan-Philipp Sendker withholds mentioning two important character’s names, Julia’s dad and the astronomer. Because of Julia’s dad’s hidden identity, I was left trying to guess which character in U Ba’s story he might have been. At first I thought that Julia’s father might be Khin Maung because his characterization, “He was a quiet individual…She had never seen him cross, angry, or agitated. Even joy and satisfaction were barely perceptible…A smile flitting across his face was all he would reveal of his emotions.” (Sendker 56) matched that of her father, who was also passive, quiet, indifferent, and was always smiling. With this thought, I began thinking and trying to find evidence about how Julia’s father could be Khin, such that Mi Mi, his Burmese love interest, could be short for Mya Mya, and his reluctance to talk about his past to Judith could come from the fact that he was married and with a child once, but my theory soon crashed when Khin died in the story and the repetition in character type became a father-son similarity rather than a hint on Julia’s dad’s name. The astronomer was also not referred to by name, and similarities with him and U Ba lead me to believe they too could be the same person as well. U Ba is introspective, wise, and seemingly all knowing as he can predict what Julia is thinking, “You must be asking yourself how on earth I know your name when we have never met before…I know your name even as I know the hour of your birth.” (5). He was also revered and respectable, displayed by the waiter in the teahouse “’U Ba’s friends are our guests,’ he said, bowing.”(9). These character traits are repeated in the astronomer as he  was also respected by the whole village as an authoritative and intelligent figure, and also seemed all-knowing. “The old one looked at the slate, which revealed to him all the secrets of the universe. It was the book of life and death, the book of love. He could have told the parents what else he saw, the exceptional capacities this child would develop, the magic and power latent in this individual, and the gift of love.”(58). It would make sense, as U Ba and the astronomer were both very old, wise, both touched by the power of love, both knew Tin, and both knew the hour of childrens’ births (as U Ba knew Julia’s), but as it has not been stated yet, it is only a possibility that Sendker may have provided to increase confusion for the reader. Sendker also provides an outlet for reader confusion through foreshadowing, such as when Julia refuses to believe her father could be Tin Win because he was not blind, and if he was as a child he would have told her family, but U Ba questions this, foreshadowing that Tin Win truly is Julia’s father. This subtle foreshadowing of knowledge is hardly an answer and very discrete, contributing to the confusion. The Art of Hearing Heartbeats is a wonderfully captivating novel so far as the story is unraveling, and these stylistic elements that Jan-Philipp Sendker added create an overall sense of mystery that keep the story of Tin Win fascinating.

Blog #2: Darkness in Winesburg, Ohio

I would like to touch upon one question from the Socratic Seminar that second period did not discuss because I thought it was interesting and full of depth. Question 1 asks to analyze a repeated word throughout the novel and I chose darkness. The word “darkness” was repeated in “Hands”, “Paper Pills”, “Mother”, “Nobody Knows”, “Adventure”, “Respectability”, “Tandy”, “The Strength of God”, “The Teacher”, “Loneliness”, “An Awakening”, and “Sophistication”. I found that when the word was used, it was usually used as a location, so really the repetition was of the group of words “in the darkness”. Darkness was used throughout the novel as a motif representing privacy. It is important to indicate privacy in the novel because since Winesburg is such a small town, there is a lack of privacy. In general, when we are in private, we are able to be the truest form of ourselves because there are no people around with preconceived notions or judgments to make us feel like we must act and conform with a certain definition of ourselves. In Winesburg, Ohio, Sherwood Anderson commonly begins characterizing a new character with a description of their physical appearance, usually bluntly calling them ugly or attractive. Anderson’s use of physical description of a character as one of the first things he mentions about them represents the town’s point of view on the citizens and the importance they put on appearance. Appearance becomes a connotation for characters in Winesburg, such as Wash William’s connection between his ugliness and his alienation and Kate Swift’s sexual appearance in “The Strength of God” matching up with her lustfulness in “The Teacher”. The motif of darkness is important because since it represents privacy, it is often in the darkness that characters are able to be a different form of themselves that is not determined by others because one- They are in the dark so appearances cannot be seen and taken into account of their character and two- the dark is opposite of light so characters may come across as a dichotomy. One character where this analysis of darkness can be seen is Wash Williams. As Wash Williams was telling George his history, “in the gathering darkness, he could no longer see the purple, bloated face and the burning eyes, a curios fancy came to him…In the darkness the young reporter found himself imagining that he sat on the railroad ties beside a comely young man with black hair and black shining eyes. There was something almost beautiful in the voice of Wash Williams, the hideous, telling his story of hate.” (106). Only in the darkness did Wash have a type of beauty to him because instead of his appearance, it was his story that was the most defining aspect of his character at that moment. A similar scene is with Wing Biddlebaum where “In the darkness he could not see the hands and they became quiet.” which is significant because he was always ostracized as an odd character because of his weirdly expressive hands, but in privacy in the darkness he could be something more than just weird because of his hands (14).  In “An Awakening” George Willard was able to reassess himself as a different person than he was before while he was in the darkness because in his privacy he reflected on how he acted like a different, inauthentic person around the influence of others (166-168).

The repetition of the word “darkness” throughout Winesburg, Ohio makes darkness an important motif representing privacy. The privacy of the characters when they are “in the darkness” is reflected in how their characterization becomes different and much more genuine when they are not surrounded by the judgment of others because their appearance cannot be seen. Whenever a character is in the darkness, they are either alone or with George Willard, which is still a private situation because as a reporter George only listens to what the characters have to say and does not comment. Other situations when characters are in the darkness but their characterization is not changing, they are still engaging in actions that are meant to be private and kept from the knowledge of the small town, such as when Elizabeth Willard had thoughts of killing her husband, when the dark girl from “Paper Pills” was raped or engaged in sex, and probably the best example of private actions in the darkness, when George Willard had sex with Louise Trunnion and nobody was meant to know. 

Francesca Rossi August Blog Post

Connecting characters from The Bonesetter’s Daughter and A Streetcar Named Desire

                During our class discussion/fishbowl activity on The Bonesetter’s Daughter, the topic of Ruth’s character came up that I would like to discuss. Many people in the class were describing that they did not like Ruth’s character because she was “annoying”. I think that many people had this perception about Ruth because the point of view of the novel allowed the reader to know her thought processes especially when it came to her conflict with her mom. At the same time, there was dramatic irony because the reader was also exposed to LuLing’s point of view and we, as the audience, were able to gain appreciation for LuLing because of her history and the struggles that she had to overcome before Ruth was able to respect her mother in this way. This had the effect of making Ruth seem like an inconsiderate person. Personally, I was not aggravated with Ruth’s character because I could see where she was coming from and was able to connect her characterization with that of Stella from A Streetcar Named Desire.

I think that these two characters are very similar in that they can both be characterized as people-pleaser types and can tend to be pushovers because they have both had to deal with very outspoken, opinionated, and just generally intense close relatives. Ruth’s people-pleaser tendency can be noted throughout the novel with her interactions with many characters including her mother. Gideon pin points Ruth’s flaw by telling her that she was “accommodating” and “willing to bend over backward” for others, while trying to make this character trait seem positive by saying “They walk all over you, and you just take it. You’re easy.” (Tan 45). Ruth seems to have developed this aspect about herself by growing up with a very critical Chinese mother. She recalls this when learning about her mother’s disease thinking “That was how her mother had always been, difficult, oppressive, and odd.” (Tan 59). Evidence of how she developed this submission to her mother coming from a type of fear of her can be noted when Ruth was a young girl and injured herself on the slide by being rebellious and dangerous as her mother advised her not to be. Ruth was immediately scared that her mother would humiliate her and be infuriated by her actions, even though LuLing did the opposite. This preconceived idea about her mother being extremely critical led Ruth to play the part of a very obedient girl, in a way pleasing her mother, just so that she would not be yelled at. As this submissive behavior became a part of her character and her relationships with others, Ruth felt the need to blame her mother for being so strict and “unloving” to her. This is very relatable because it is a normal thought that you can be the hardest on those who you are closest too because you believe that they have a strong enough relationship with them (like one of a mother and daughter) that they will not be hurt by you throwing all your anger towards them. This relates to the theme, Often times we are harshest on those we love the most, which can be seen throughout the novel. As for A Streetcar Named Desire, Stella’s pleaser ways can be seen as her just wanting to maintain peace when introducing Blanche to Stanley. She recognizes the skepticism that they both have towards each other and tries to vanquish them by making excuses for them to make them seem more appealing towards the other. When Blanche complains of Stanley’s lack of wealth, Stella emphasizes their love for each other, relinquishing Blanche’s argument because love trumps all. When Stanley complains of Blanche’s excessively showy belongings, Stella reveals that her gemstones are actually rhinestones, revealing that her sister is quite normal after all. This need that Stella has to maintain peace through her way of pleasing people can be seen when she tells her sister, “You never did give me a chance to say much, Blanche. So I just got in the habit of being quiet around you.” (Williams 13).  Here, just like Ruth was influenced by LuLing’s intense personality, the reader can decipher that Stella’s submissive personality came from her being used to being overcome by her outspoken sister. 

Hi Ms. Wren, this is Francesca Rossi.