American Literature

The Boston Tea Party is considered to be an iconic act of defiance of the American colonists against the oppressive authority of the British. On December 16, 1773, a band of Bostonians disguised themselves as Mohawk Indians and raided three ships that were full of tea crates at the Boston harbor and dumped hundreds of the crates into the sea. It is generally thought that when the British raised the price of tea, many Americans were outraged and there were widespread protests, the Boston Tea Party being one of the more dramatic ones. But the real story behind this famous event in the American struggle for independence is rather different.

Essentially, the Boston Tea Party occurred not because the British hiked the price of tea, but because the tea prices were lowered by the British East India Company and this was affecting the profits of American merchants. It was not so much a patriotic action as it was an act motivated by commercial interests of the patriots who would have lost a good deal of money if loads of cheap British tea were dumped into the markets of American colonies. Furthermore it was not a spontaneous act of rebellion as is generally thought but an operation planned well ahead. Although this event fortuitously rose to great historical prominence, it was not such a unique, landmark event as it is generally depicted to be. There were tea protests both before and after the Boston event at many places New York harbor, Philadelphia, Greenwich in Connecticut, Charleston in South Carolina  all the main tea markets. In Annapolis of Maryland, a more dramatic one took place when an entire ship was put to fire (Ayres, 208).

The great conflict over tea began when the British East India Company originally increased its prices to make up for the tax increases imposed by the British government. In the years leading up to the American Revolution, the issue of tax increasingly became a source of great friction between the ruling British and the colonial Americans. Taxation was, albeit indirectly, one of the major reasons for the uprising of the colonies. Americans were technically regarded as English citizens, and they were proud and content to be so for a long time. However, the colonists were not allowed to vote and did not have any representation in the British Parliament. Now, the money that was spent by the British government, over the years, in developing and protecting the 13 colonies went on piling up and in order to offset these expenses the British parliament began to levy increased taxation on the colonies.

The colonists were not against the increased taxation, but they demanded that they have representation in the British Parliament so that they could be sure that the revenues from the taxes were spent justifiably. No taxation without representation was their slogan. Therefore at issue was not taxation per se, but the authority of a British Parliament  devoid of elected American leaders  over the American colonies. The colonists were asked to pay extra for all sorts of things like stamps, sugar and so on. Though such taxation could be considered exorbitant, Americans would still have had no problem with it if they had the confidence that the extra money they were paying was being put to use in an accountable manner. But this did not happen. Americans therefore took a stand that they could be taxed only by Americans, in the colonial assemblies.

Friction between Americans and the British government erupted in regard to the Stamp Act and it was repealed in 1765. But fearing that it was ceding to too much power to the Americans, the British Parliament grew stubborn and passed a Declaratory Act in 1766 which asserted the absolute right of the Parliament to legislate for the colonies as it deemed fit. Immediately thereafter, the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767 began imposing a series of new taxes, including on tea.

Americans led by a group of patriots called Whigs began organizing a spate of protests and boycotts. Merchants formed into coalitions and abided by a non-importation agreement, while in the colonies toward north they tried to import tea from Canada. Abstaining from British tea became a gesture of patriotism among the colonists. Smuggling was afoot in the major centers such as New York and Philadelphia, while British dutied tea too continued to be imported. Finally, in 1770, the British Parliament yielded to the pressure of American protests and repealed the Townshend taxes  except for the tea tax.  The tea tax was retained by the British as a matter o f principle, so that they do not appear as if they were completely yielding to the demanding of the colonists. The British wanted to assert their authority to some extent or other.

As a result, the black market for tea continued to thrive in the colonies. Americans were smuggling in tea from the Netherlands and were selling it at much cheaper prices in comparison to British tea. Even some of the notable names of American Independence struggle were possibly involved in this illicit trade.

As Americans increasingly went for the contraband tea, it severely dented the revenues of East India Company. At one stage, there was seven year supply of tea lying in the warehouses of the Company. At this point the British government intervened and introduced the Tea Act of 1773 in a bid to save the floundering East India Company. The Act granted official monopoly to the Company to import and sell tea in the colonies. More importantly, the British government made an arrangement which allowed the Company to sell tea to the colonists at prices lower than those of the smuggled varieties.

The crucial point here is that the tea taxes were retained by the British mainly as a symbolic gesture of authority, and not to draw revenues. The new arrangement in the framework of the Tea Act allowed the East India Company to keep the prices lower even after the addition of taxes. This meant that 1) the British need not step back on the issue of tea tax, 2) the East India Company is in a competitive position to sell tea, and 3) the American consumer should be happy buying legal tea at affordable prices. Every one stood to gain  except for the traders who dealt in the smuggled tea and making quick money. These merchants and the leaders associated with them spearheaded the movement against the large influx of East India Companys tea into the colonies, under various pretexts. One of the chief pretexts was that if monopoly could be imposed on sale of tea, it could be imposed on various other products as well. Yet another argument was that the British were stubbornly retaining the taxes even if they did not stand to benefit from them in any way, just as a matter of principle, and therefore they ought to be opposed too as a matter of principle. Lowering of the tea prices was actually seen as a bribe or reward for the colonists in return for their willingness to be taxed. Earlier on, the colonists were opposing the taxes on a matter of principle  no taxation without representation. Now if they started paying taxes willingly by buying the cheap tea, they could appear soft and opportunistic. Although these are rather legitimate concerns and fears, they were fanned by the smuggled tea merchants who are the only group who stood to lose financially by the Tea Act. The colonists felt that they were being manipulated by the British, but they were also being manipulated by their own black marketers who organized numerous protests. Much brouhaha was created in especially in the colony of Massachusetts.  

In late November, 1773 the Companys vessel Dartmouth arrived in Boston harbor carrying a huge cargo of Darjeeling tea (U-S-History.com). Activists led by Samuel Adams were keen to send away these ships. These people participated in agitations and threatened violence if Dartmouth did not return to England. However, Governor Thomas Hutchinson was equally adamant on not yielding to the demands of the radicals. Meanwhile, two more Companys vessels landed at the Boston harbor carrying large consignments of tea. The consignments of the three ships had to be officially taxed on or before December 16, after which they could be released into the markets. All this time, Samuel Adams and others was holding public meetings and inciting the masses to join in bigger rallies.

On December 16, a crowd of 8,000  about half the population of Boston  showed up at Adams anti-tea rally. During this gathering, Adams received the word that the cargo vessels would be unloaded soon. As Adams meeting was going on, simultaneously another meeting was arranged at the home of Boston merchant Benjamin Edes. Some 50 men in addition to several leaders of the local chapter of Committee of Correspondence were present at the meeting. They were getting ready to carry out an assault on the tea ships. Before they set out on their mission, however, they drank strong rum concoctions to their hearts fill. As Adams led his crowd to the wharf, the men from the Edes party too arrived there and boarded the ships to the cheers of the crowds, while the British onlookers stood staring helplessly. It took over three hours for the intruders and a number of other activists who joined them to dump the tea cargoes overboard.
  The British officials in England were particularly outraged by this act. Additional troops were stationed in Boston. The harbor was closed. Until Bostonians compensated for the tea that had been destroyed, many new restrictions limiting self-rule in Boston would be in place.

The Boston Tea Party would not have had so much significance for American history, if not for the strong retaliatory measures it provoked from the British. The British reaction ended by intensifying the colonial rebellion and led to the inevitable armed conflict.

American literature has changed and evolved from the early colonial days to develop characteristics that are unique and which identify it from other literary works. Several writers have contributed to the development of American literature. Some of these writers immigrated into the United States and their works were accepted into the American literary canon. Some of the notable foreign born American writers include Vladimir Nabokov, Isaac Bashevis Singer, and Czes aw Mi osz (CzesBaw MiBosz).

Vladimir Nabokov was born in Russia in 1899 and moved to the United States in 1940 together with his family. Nabokov produced both fiction and non-fiction works including novels, short stories, drama, poetry, and some translations. Among his works is his 13th novel titled Pnin published in 1957 and built around the life of a Russian professor who moves into the US as a refugee and the challenges that the professor encounters in a new world (Boyd 271-287).

Isaac Singer was a Jewish American author born in Poland and was the 1978 Nobel Prize winner in literature. Among his many collections is Gimpel the Fool and other Stories published in 1960. It has twelve short stories with a mix of contemporary and folk legend aspects and heavily based on Jewish life in Poland (Kirkus).

Born in 1911 Poland, CzesBaw MiBosz became an American citizen in 1970. MiBosz is known for his poetry, essays, prose, and translations. He was the Nobel Prize winner in 1980 for his literary works. His A Magic Mountain poem reflects his personal experiences of living in Berkeley, CA (Kirkus).

The three writers have received various recognitions for their contribution to the American literature. Each of the writers has written about his life experiences in the US depicting the differences and the challenges of adapting to a new world.

Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but thats no matter--tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther.... And one fine morning So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

All of us have dreams, but not all of us have the capacity to turn our dreams into reality. Alexander the Great had a dream to conqueror the world  one which he could fulfill, and therefore he has come to be known as the Great. Jay Gatsby, on the other hand, did not have a great and ambitious dream, he was by no means a world conqueror though perhaps he could have been one. His aspirations were much more modest. Like a typical enterprising young man of a progressive society, Gatsby simply wanted to become rich and live the good life. He succeeds in achieving his dream at a very young age, rather like Alexander. And again like the great world conqueror, Gatsby too dies young. Since Gatsby achieved his dreams, he too is great in a way. Author F Scott Fitzgerald, however, did not really want to convey the greatness of Gatsby through his novel but the emptiness of pursuing the American dream, especially when the pursuit is carried out by resorting to unfair or illegal means.

The stories of both Alexander and Gatsby show the futility of it all in the end. Legend goes that when Alexander was about to die, he told his caretakers to keep both his empty hands hanging out of the casket so that the world could see that he was not carrying anything with him to the grave. Alexander was a kind of criminal, he had to kill thousands of innocent people by way of realizing his ambitions. Gatsby too is possibly a criminal, although the nature of his underworld activities is not confirmed by indulging in bootlegging and other criminal activities, he may have brought sorrow and ruin to many families. However, just like Alexander he has no interest in the moral side of his actions. Gatsby seems to be essentially concerned only with his wealth, power and position in the society, besides the woman he loves. He is on the track of rising fast in his stature in the society and claiming for himself all the privileges of the aristocrats, but his premature death puts an end to his ambitions as well as to his love. For Gatsby, the great American dream has been realized too soon, but it is also all over all too soon, as the great achiever sinks back into oblivion.

Gatsby somehow formed a very grandiose conception of his destiny, one which is the polar opposite of his actual origins. At a very young age, Gatsby became a man on a mission, we can even call it a divine mission. The allusions that Carraway, the narrator of the story and Gatsbys friend, makes about Jesus Christ while outlining Gatsbys past are not very concealed. Like Alexander or Jesus Christ or some other great figure of history, Gatsbys mind was made up at an early stage in his adolescence. He knew he was born to fulfill some great destiny and realize some great dream. However, unlike these towering personalities of history, Gatsby was not concerned with the wider world. Jesus wanted to save the whole mankind from sin, Alexander wanted to conqueror the whole earth and unite humanity under the banner of Greek civilization. Gatsby had high ambitions but he did not have noble purposes such as those which motivated many great personalities in history. Jesus became the Christ, Alexander became the Great, and Gatsby too was made into a great by the author of the story, but there is something very ironical about Gatsbys greatness.

This is so because Gatsbys dreams did not have a wider scope to them. Certain thoughts never occurred to him, thoughts such as how to make the country wealthier and how to contribute to the progress of humanity. For a person to have this kind of deep concern with something much bigger than himself or his own life is an essential requisite of greatness, and Gatsby did not possess this quality at all. This is the fundamental flaw of his character, and this is a basic deficiency in the so-called American dream itself. Gatsby eventually realizes the American dream, for all practical purposes his tragedy is not that he did not realize the American dream, Gatsbys tragedy arises from the fact that the American dream itself is deeply flawed. Fitzgeralds novel is obviously a critique of the American dream, and not a championing of it.

Gatsby had the intelligence and imagination to see that life is meant for some greater purpose. He never could imagine himself doing some regular job and leading a mediocre existence. But he did not have the vision to see himself as being a part of the greater humanity and as a part of the long history of humanity. Jesus, Alexander and other great persons of history could do this, but such a conception was something simply beyond the mental reach of Gatsby. We must always keep in mind that Gatsby is simply a representative of the American dream, and therefore the deficiencies in Gatsby are deficiencies in the American dream and the whole way of life it stood for.

The fundamental fault of Gatsby is, to use Carraways phrase, his overwhelming self-absorption  and this is the fault of the 1920s as such, the decade in which the novel was set. This is the fault with the American dream itself it provides a lot of fuel, drive, ambition, but it does not provide a greater vision and a greater arena in which to play out the ambition. This is the reason why America is a great country, and yet it could not fulfill the real potential of its greatness.

If we look at Gatsbys character closely, he is an achiever, not an enjoyer. For example, he keeps throwing most lavish parties, but these parties are not meant for fun and enjoyment for himself. They are not ends in themselves, they are simply means to elevate his status in society, and to attract the attention of Daisy who is now married to another man. A majority of men live for the sake of experiencing pleasure and happiness for themselves. We can regard such people as consumers, they believe in taking as much enjoyment as possible from life. But Gatsby is not a consumer, he is a producer. A producer lives for creating something and achieving something. All the great people of the world have emerged only from this latter category, a consumer-type can never be great. Gatsby had so much potential to produce something, to contribute something to the world, however he did not have the vision to understand his possible role in the world.

For so many years, he simply wanted to be wealthy and pass off for an aristocrat and he wanted the girl he is fixated upon. And now he had them both. It is true that Daisy was still wavering, and seemed to favor her husband over Gatsby. But this was really a temporary hitch, the girl was now practically his. And even if this was not so, Gatsby may have begun to see that Daisy was not worth craving for. Either way, deep down Gatsby did not have a strong reason to live further. Therefore he was promptly killed. He died a glory-less and pointless death, shot by a cuckolded husband who was acting under a misapprehension. He is hardly mourned for and nobody misses him much.

The greatness of Gatsby is that he could achieve and live the American dream, even if only for a brief period, and even if only by illegal means. But what is tragic about him is that he could not see beyond the American dream, he was simply stuck there. Gatsby may have resorted to various illegal activities in order to become rich quickly, but he is not really a criminal, just in the way Alexander was not a sadistic monster. Alexander killed innocent people only when it served some purpose, and not simply for the pleasure of doing so. Similarly, Gatsby took to the route of crime only because he had no alternative to realize the American dream. Once he made himself wealthy, however, he could have harnessed his genius and used his wealth for positive purposes which could have benefitted himself and the society. However, contributing to society is not part of the American dream.

People may or may not contribute to the society in realizing the American dream, the concept of American dream does not lay any stress on altruistic or noble values. Some people invent things and become rich and realize the American dream, some others steal and become rich and realize the American dream. As a concept, the American dream is neutral about the means employed, fair or foul the end becomes all important. This is the problem with it. And once the riches are achieved, what further The American dream does not have an answer. Jay Gatsby simply squanders his money, sinks into decadence, wastes his life in trivial pursuits, and dies. His death may have been an accident, but he really did not have a reason to live further. Great men live for a dream, and Gatsby did not have any dream anymore.

Gatsbys father regrets that had his son lived, he would have been a really great man If hed of lived hed of been a great man. A man like James J. Hill. Hed of helped build up the country. But perhaps his father is mistaken. Or perhaps Gatsby could have changed himself and his ways of thinking had he lived, and then worked to create something which made a difference to the world. We cannot say for sure. We can only be certain that Gatsby had greatness in him, but failed to bring it out in any good measure. Amassing so much wealth, even if only through illegal means, is a feat in itself but it does not equate to greatness. Gatsby realized the American dream, but missed true greatness.

Literary theory in a strict sense is the systematic study of the nature of Literature o Literatureliterature and of the methods for analyzing literature. However literary scholarship since the nineteenth century often includes in addition to, or even instead of literary theory in the strict sense considering intellectual history, moral philosophy, social prophecy, and other interdisciplinary themes which are of relevance to the way humans interpret meaning. In the Humanitieshumanities, the latter style of scholarship is often called simply theory. As a consequence, the word theory has become an umbrella term for a variety of scholarly approaches to reading texts. Most of these approaches are informed by various strands of Continental philosophycultural philosophy. Nevertheless this approach renders a new dimension to the texts. However before plunging into the thematic journey of the texts it is quite evident to put forward certain aspects from the genres of cultural discourses under which these texts are to be discussed upon.

Postmodernism is a complicated term, or set of ideas, one that has only emerged as an area of academic study since the mid-1980s. Postmodernism is hard to define, because it is a concept that appears in a wide variety of disciplines or areas of study, including art, architecture, music, film, literature, sociology, communications, fashion, and technology. Its hard to locate it temporally or historically, because it is not clear exactly when postmodernism begins. Perhaps the easiest way to start thinking about postmodernism is by thinking about modernism, the movement from which postmodernism seems to grow or emerge. Everything that the modernists had thus championed was turned on its head. While the modernist seeks order, organization, objective reasoning and the very foundations of the truth of life the post-modernist accepted anarchy, subjectivity, and a complete rejection of abstract truth. To the post-modernists, the world created by humans can only be self-referential and thus can only be understood through the analysis of self-reference. The text in post-modernism thus allowed for the opening of the text to interpretation emphasizing the importance of the reader, viewer, and audience in their own subjective readings of the text. In modernism this was not the case. The reader was irrelevant and was not dependent to the meaning of a text since it existed in and for itself. The meaning was thus independent of interpretation. Through its emphasis on subjectivity however, post-modernist thought allows the reader to reconstitute the text on every reading.
Literary theories, cultural discourses are intangible orders, which can not be perceived as numeric units. They are rather psychological or philosophical outlooks which govern the rationalities of human senses and society.

It is our society that is incorporated in literature. As our society in certain cultural discourse, is being fragmented into two divisions the male and the female. Hence to subvert the male discourse an alternative cultural discourse has been ratified, which is known as Feminism. However there is no unified body of knowledge that may be labeled feminism. Even if one uses the term in the plural one cannot do justice to all the different strands and ways of thinking that the term encompasses.Panja, 2002, 59 In a simple understanding it can be said that feminism is the alter ego or rather a strong voice embodied by women in order to ratify and justify their social conditions. The most straightforward definition of feminism says that is a movement for social, cultural, political and economic equality of men and women. It is a campaign against gender inequalities and it strives for equal rights for women. Feminism can be also defined as the right to enough information available to every single woman so that she can make a choice to live a life which is not discriminatory and which works within the principles of social, cultural, political and economic equality and independence. Feminism can be also defined as a global phenomenon which addresses various issues related to women across the world in a specific manner as applicable to a particular culture or society. Though the issues related to feminism may differ for different societies and culture but they are broadly tied together with the underlying philosophy of achieving equality of gender in every sphere of life. So feminism cannot be tied to any narrow definitions based on a particular class, race or religion.

Beloved by Toni Morrison and Don Quixote Which was a Dream, by Kathy Acker both these books are of twentieth century. In these books both the author tried to uphold the current prevailing conditions of the society where women are the sufferer in a world of male rather mannerism of the society. Both of these writers raised their voice in order to subvert the society rules and to make a separate world of their own, far away from every kinds of social, cultural, racial and gender oppression. Making a separate world with such a society has been an ideology of what Virginia Woolf tried to justify in her book A room of ones own. In contrast to the pragmatic approach taken by liberal feminism, radical feminism aimed to reshape society and restructure its institutions, which they saw as inherently patriarchal. Providing the core theory for modern feminism, radicals argued that womens subservient role in society was too closely woven into the social fabric to be unraveled without a revolutionary revamping of society.

When hearing about Toni Morrisons novel Beloved, one thinks for Sure it is another story about a slaves life. This is of course, exactly right. Beloved does tell the tales of many slaves. It tells of whippings, rape, hard work, and escape. But, while portraying this historical story of enslavement and black culture, Morrison also tells the personal tales of a few very strong female slaves. Morrisons novel focuses mainly on the female characters, Sethe, Baby Suggs, Beloved, and their relationships. If one defines feminism, as a major movement in western thinking since the 1960s, which puts particular emphasis upon the importance of womens experiences. Beloved can be seen as a feminist novel. One of the primary themes of Beloved is the issue of race and effects of slavery. Much of the novel focuses on a community of ex-slaves and how they manage to get on track with their lives. The novel questions, through the eyes of schoolteacher, what the difference is between a man and an animal. In its vivid portrayal of the Negro community, complete with their desires and troubles, the novel shows that a colored man is like any other man. The novel also addresses the concern of whether it is better to endure the injustices of an unfeeling people or to fight against them. Closely tied to the theme of race is that of the past. Each of the characters had endured a furious past, complete with the worst horrors imaginable. Sethe has been raped and forced to murder, Paul D has been imprisoned in a cube in a ditch, Stamp Paid was forced to give his wife away to be a sex toy, and the list goes on and on. Many of these men and women have chosen, like Sethe and Paul D, to repress the past. Others worked actively against it, like Stamp Paid.

However, no sort of resolution occurs for any of the characters until each learns to accept and deal with the past (which is very alive in the present). Only then can a future be found. Another theme in Beloved is that of the banality of evil. Slavery is not just an institution it is a philosophy and mindset which is far-reaching in its consequences. The Garners treated their slaves well, and consequently were respected by such people as Sethe and Paul D. Moral ambiguity, of course, plays a large role in the novel. The question of the murder was right or wrong, crops up many times in the book. The answer finally reached is that it was the right thing to do, but Sethe didnt have the right to do it. Had she not murdered Beloved, she and all the children would have been sold back into slavery. Yet, when she committed the murder, she was shunned by an entire community and placed at the mercy of a vengeful spirit. The concept of family also pervades the novel. Most of the slaves have been torn apart from their families at an early age, and there is little hope in discovering what is left of their families. The consequences of this type of separation can be seen in Sethe, who is possessive of her children, and Paul D, who is determined not to love anything too much.

Very few readers will miss the experimental structure of Beloved. It is not a linear tale, told from beginning to end. It is a story encompassing levels of past, from the slave ship to Sweet home, as well as the present. Sometimes the past is told in flashbacks, sometimes in stories, and sometimes it is plainly told, as if it were happening in the present. The novel is, in essence, written in fragments, pieces shattered and left for the reader to place together. The juxtaposition of past with present serves to reinforce the idea that the past is alive in the present, and by giving us fragments to work with Morrison melds the entire story into one un-separable piece to be gazed at. Apart from this Morrison has designed certain symbolism which clearly shows the depiction of the character in the story. Such as, Instead of using the words remember and forget, Sethe uses the words rememory- I used to think it was my rememory . . . .

But its not. Places, places are still there. If a house burns down, its gone, but the place-the picture of it-stays, and not just in my rememory, but out there, in the world. Morrison, 1987, 36 (Both a noun and a verb here) and disremember. To Sethe, the past is alive in the present, and thus the word remember is substituted with the more organic rememory, reminding us that everything is held in memory. Similarly, the word forget lacks the conscious effort that the characters must employ to commit such an act. Thus, they disremember things, with the implication that they force them to the back of their minds. Morrisons investments in agency, presence, and the resurrection of authentic history, seem to make the novel incompatible with poststructuralist ideas at the root of postmodernism. Morrison herself has spoken out against a postmodernism that she associates with Jamesons terms. However, Morrisons treatment of history bears some similarity to Hutcheons postmodern historiographic meta-fiction, but her relationship to this discourse is affected by her aim to write black-topic texts. Morrison acknowledges that history is always fictional, always a representation, yet she is also committed to the project of recording African American history in order to heal her readers. Instead of playful exercise in deconstructing history, Morrisons Beloved, attempts to affect the contemporary world of the real. While the novel should not simply be assimilated into the canon of postmodernism, Morrisons work should be recognized as contributing a fresh voice to the debates about postmodern history, a voice that challenges the centrism and elitism of much of postmodern theory. Beloved reminds us that history is not over for African Americans, who are still struggling to write the genealogies of their people and to keep a historical consciousness alive.

A controversial avant-garde writer and cult figure of the punk movement, Kathy Acker is considered among the most significant proponents of radical feminism and the postmodern literary aesthetic. Associated with the discordant, irreverent music of punk rock, Ackers iconoclastic meta-fiction, a chaotic amalgam of extreme profanity, violence, graphic sex, autobiography, fragmented narrative, and plagiarized texts rejects conventional morality and traditional modes of literary expression. Ackers Don Quixote Which was a Dream (1986), feature female protagonists whose psychosexual misadventures, involving rape, incest, suicide, and abortion, underscore their individual struggles to discover meaning and identity in deconstructed patriarchal language and sexual masochism. A well-versed literary theorist and sophisticated experimenter, Ackers provocative fiction offers a serious challenge to established literary forms and the possibility of human understanding in a nihilistic, de-centered world. In Don Quixote Which was a Dream, Kathy Acker obsessively confronts the problematic of the interface between sexuality and power, and her persistence contradicts the apparent nihilism of her findings. She also uses radical narrative methods that locate the trauma of this confrontation in the form of the text itself. In this book, physical pain produces delirium through which the narrator gains access to the truths underlying her experiences in a series of deluded and delusional cultures. Moving through worlds where cultural horrors are visited on the body and learning from the saints who passionately embrace such experiences, she finds an identity in the momentary conjunction of passion and death. The intensity of her masochistic climaxes burns up the duality of gender. Consequently, it is paradoxically through the body that Ackers narrator escapes the biological femaleness that always threatens to engulf her.

What may be at once the most conventional and the most transgressive of the many strange narratives contained in this book, recounting of a fragmented love story. Or perhaps it might be more accurate to say that it performs a postmortem on one, as befits a tale that begins with an abortion. But who are the lovers The novels characters change name and form as they momentarily inhabit the large number of texts that Acker plagiarizes. For instance, the convergence of Lulu, Pygmalion, Wuthering Heights, Paradise Lost, Godzilla, Waiting for Godot, and Don Quixote repeatedly transforms the protagonist so that she may speak disruptively from within numerous discourses. However, two characters remain, if not stable or consistent, at least identifiable as the main actors in the novel Don Quixote and St Simeon. His omnipresence in the novel acts as the catalyst for the novels meditations on love and sadomasochism. Don Quixotes First Battle against America begins with her recognition that she cannot own anything. Her recognition that she cannot possess even her slave, her dog is gradually transformed from a source of tragedy to a source of joy, as it helps her to let go of a too constricting understand of love as an exchange in which whatever one invests must be paid back by the other. Archaic saintly practices oppose the current fusion, in the name of sanity, of capitalist, religious, and feminist values like those argued for in Dworkins Pornography Men Possessing Women where the regulation of sexual expression is urged in order that women may own themselves. Again Don Quixotes concern with the politics of its times is obvious.

The novel is not only filled with commentary on contemporary issues such as the rise of multinational corporations, environmental pollution, and the nuclear arms race. Acker marks Cervantess Don Quixote as the pretext, in both senses of the word, for her novel. But considering other versions of Quixotes story that directly precede hers helps illuminate how she situates her tale in relation to contemporary political debates. It is difficult to say whether Ackers Don Quixote was directly influenced by Foucaults discussion of the book in Madness and Civilization, as she left no doubt of her interest in his work. In Madness and Civilization, Foucault posits an opposition between art and psychology. Foucault reads literary texts not as affirming psychologys vision of human thought, emotion, and behavior, but as calling it into question. He sees the transgressive writings of authors like Artaud as especially apt to serve this function. Yet it is in the name of feminism and demonized sexualities that Butler, along with other less famous and influential theorists, calls for the augmentation of Foucauldian theory with psychoanalytic concepts. Examining Ackers readings of Foucault on madness and Don Quixote reveals the complexity of her opposition to psychoanalysis as generative of the master narrative of sexuality and gender identification, and thus offers a defense of the antip sychoanalytic Foucauldian method.

It is not only Toni Morrison and Kathy Acker who raises their voices in order to restore a proper order within the society, through the cultural discourse of feminism and postmodernism. Cultural discourse is not only applicable in literary genre it is applicable to any from of art. Hence we can find an adaptation incorporating the vocative voice of feminism and postmodernism in movie like Paris Is Burning, by Jennie Livingston.

Paris is Burning by Jennnie Livingston deals with the culture of drag in New York in the 1980s,  which was shown in the Ball competitions wherein men who impersonate, or better yet try to live as women walks and are judged based on their dancing ability, the beauty of their dresses and the authenticity of their impersonation. Each contestant represents a specific house and whenever they win their respective houses gain a legendary status. The film was presented by showing alternate footages between the ball competition and interviews with the contestants.

Although a very notable film, Paris is Burning is also highly criticized especially by feminists. In watching the film, you will see how the contestants try to portray how women look like basing on stereotypical identities or those greatly based on what men would like in a woman physically, making her the subject of desire. It failed to show the other characteristics and essence of women such as their social roles, the drags just focused on the aspects that perpetuate mens hierarchy.

It further undermines women by interpreting that being a woman makes one powerless which manifested in one of the interviews wherein one of the drags say that he will never become a woman because having the female genitalia does not necessarily mean that life would be great. Thus, many saw that this film as a mocking or women.

On the other hand, the film succeeded in the presentation of yet another marginalized culture which is that of the gay. It was able to put their character at the centre of the film and elaborated on their culture. It was able to shed light on the often misunderstood third gender and was able to present their side of the story. Then again, as was said earlier, it was done so by challenging the essence of women, which would make us think if it was able to resolve any issues at all. Thus we ask, was the film really an exposure of the drag culture or a celebration of the patriarchal society.

Societys views on conventional roles of women when it comes to preparing and serving food have shifted, more than they have changed over the last twenty years.  Women have been raised to prepare meals for their families, and to ensure that all have been served the meal before preparing their own plate.

More women are employed and seeking careers other than the role of homemaker.  While there are still children to be raised and fed, the markets are filled with new foods being produced which target families with working moms.  These new foods typically have everything included for a complete and nutritious meal, only needing to add meat.  They can be found in your grocers freezer.

If you would have told society fifty years ago that men would be responsible for preparing and cooking their own meals and that women were going to be less than enthusiastic about hanging out in a kitchen, cooking a meal, and serving the meal to their family, you would have been viewed as mentally incapacitated.   The womans role as homemaker was thought to be necessary in finding balance between men and women.
The increase over the years of women taking on careers caused an even greater upset to that balance.  This was a great opportunity to the food industry as it ensured women could still prepare and serve food at home.  This makes women feel better about them-selves, in not feeling as if they are neglecting their families for their own selfish gain.  Food markets have established the convenience of easy preparation after a hard days work, which restores balance in having a meal to eat, but not healthy eating by itself.  Men also benefit from todays types of meals that can be prepared in as little as 5  10 minutes from start to finish.

This is a long way from the days of old when everything we ate was made from scratch.  Fresh baked bread, cake, and pie.  Homemade egg noodles and biscuits.  More people are taking vitamins and supplements as a response to contemporary eating habits due to the lack of proper dietary consumption with the shift in conventional meal preparation and serving by women.

Packaged foods or dining out is the wave of the times as everyone is too busy to eat properly.  It is much more convenient to grab something to eat at a nearby restaurant, or store deli, and let us not forget McDonalds, Burger King, and Arbys, to name a few fast food restaurants.  

Conventionally it was the woman who made sure that meals were nutritious and that the helpings placed on a plate were of an amount that would be satisfactory in meeting daily requirements for vitamins, and minerals.  It was how society deemed the roles of women in being the weaker of the sexes yet the more organized in facilitating home life, with a husband, and children.  The era of male chauvinism was born.

With contemporary shifting, women had come to terms with their sexuality, and the want of a career.  This caused an upset in societys patterns that over time would prove not to be the last.  The word oppression would come to be used many times in the years to come, as both women, and blacks would seek equality in being human.  During these times, there was a change in the way men viewed food.  Most acclimated to the patterns set by the woman, whether dating them or being married.  Many learned to cook for them-selves and some turned out to have quite a talent for cooking.  An interesting fact is there are quite a few men who tend to lean toward gourmet cooking vs. comfort food.  Men found out they enjoyed cooking, and women found out they enjoyed sports, besides many other changes that occurred in the roles of men and women.

The downfall to this age of contemporary eating habits is that focus on dietary substance took a backseat to the busy hustle and bustle of everyday life.  People were being so pushed by life that it was expressed there was not enough time to eat right.  For those who would claim to have the time, they would complain that food prices, especially fresh fruits and vegetables were too expensive, and this made eating right impossibility.

Some things remain the same as in romantic dinners.  This conventional practice is still alive and thriving.  The only difference is that more couples go out for a romantic dinner vs. those who prepare it at home.  This has nothing to do with the food, which would have been made at home.  The reason is more to the factor of doing something together in spending quality time, and in proving that the man has a chivalrous nature and cares enough to shoulder the expense.  In this manner the conventional way of courting has not changed much today.

Women are obsessed with body image.  This fact has increased over time.  Technology is so advanced that a woman can have any type of body she chooses.   Both men and women alike can now gorge them-selves if they want to, knowing that if they become obese, they can opt for liposuction.  The same holds true for men.   It would seem that more men, than women, actually love the art of preparing meals, and as far as serving food, there is a higher impact of men serving foods in a restaurant than there are women.

The trends involving eating have a lot to do with weight, and health.  There are health conscious individuals who refrain from any junk food in their diets.  The age of juicers, and smoothies were born as individuals felt compelled to eat healthy and stay healthy.  This motivation was driven by the awareness that women were no longer chained to their kitchens, resulting in a need for men to branch out and explore all of their nutrition possibilities.

Women having shaken off the chains of primarily being homemakers and in doing this they have become even more concerned with their weight.  They feel that a conventional home cooked meal is the road to obesity.  The truth is that dining out packs on the pounds.  Dining out and a decrease or lack of exercise.  This is another trend, men and women alike are joining health clubs, going to the gym and working out in order to stay fit.

Commercials on television remind women that they are overweight, and need to do something about it, while other commercials tempt and tantalize.  Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers are well known companies that promise weight loss.   These two programs are not cheap, with Jenny Craig requiring large sign up fees upfront.   Weight Watchers is not any cheaper however, they do allow low monthly payments.

An old quote the way to a mans heart is through his stomach (Popik, 2009) This saying was a motivator for women to prepare and serve food to their potential mates.  This conventional way of thinking has crossed over into a contemporary outlook, yet, it is not said as often as it once was.  In fact, women worry that they may not be able to prepare an adequate meal.  This may be due to the decrease of women who find time to cook these days.

Conventional ways of eating for women in alignment with contemporary society have invoked feelings of guilt.  Guilt at not feeding families right, guilt of overeating, and then again, not eating at all in keeping up with fashion and in being conscious of how much one weighs.  It is all about image these days and the same holds true for men.  Many will forego meals in an effort to stay thin.

Lost are the ways of practicality in bestowing good eating habits on our young.  Many youth are overweight a product of bad eating habits.  This new age of dealing with hunger is not a healthy answer for what is viewed as lifes ups, and downs.  Young women are obsessing over being thin, as they develop eating disorders such as Bulimia, and Anorexia.  Again, it is about body image, except for those with these types of disorders they envision that they are obese and stress over losing the weight.  Ultimately, they starve themselves, damaging their hearts and other organs.  Many lose their lives in this battle (Bordo 191)

In conclusion
Conventional times were built on the family unit.  Men and women had designated roles.  Women were considered the weaker of the sexes and it was thought (by men) they were better suited to keep house, cook, and tend to the children.  Men considered this type of lifestyle easy, and a way of living women could do easily.  So began a lifelong endurance of being a type of indentured slave for many women.  Also began the existence of stereotyping.

The world has come a long way in looking at the roles of men and women.  The mighty efforts brought forth by women evoked a change in, and put a stop to, what was considered male chauvinism.  Men could not understand why women complained about their role in society. Women were taking a stand in being able to express them-selves.  They had hopes and dreams that they wanted to pursue, and so, womens liberation came into being (German 1994)

The days of conventional family units, which produced well-fed, healthy individuals were gone.  The contemporary ways of families consist of many failed marriages, affecting both men and women.  Children are probably hardest hit when changes in society occur.  The eating habits of most are inadequate and the fear of gaining weight has caused even more problems when it comes to proper diets.  Not only for women, but for men as well.

The novel Passing by Nella Larsen explores the issue of race through elegant and brilliant plotting depicting a psychologically touching portrait of arousing extremity in the early American society. Larsen portrayal of the society stuck between desire and reason is captivating and quite sensitive on the issue of racial interaction. With its setting in society that upheld slavery, Passing explores the extreme ends, which in the early American society social construction of a particular race as superior and the other as inferior. The white people had the superiority complex that pushed them to viewing blacks as the other and forced them into inhuman slavery. Larsens Passing ultimately speaks volumes of the aspirations of the blacks in crossing the racial line the society had socially drawn among the races (Larsen, 32).

Through her characterization and setting, Larsen is able to bring out the social construction of race in entertaining and educated format in which race, class distinction, and identity themes are interplayed. The novel highlights Nella Larsen as outstanding African American literary writer and a modernist. The novel connects with historical accounts in American history on racial relations. The novel explores the effects of racial construction on a person on emotional, psychological, and physical level. Clare went on to say, Still, its his own business. If he gets along better by turning.., (Larsen 37). Larsen depicts the theme of racial identity using the two women characters, which represent African American in which one character totally has abandoned her roots for the white culture. This alienation of self connects with negative social values in the society, awakening several aspects of racial status.

The development of racial identity is more amplified among the ethnic minority groups with the resultant manifestations of racism being observed in several social places resulting to stereotypes. Larsen also explores the issue of self worth among the African Americans and how it relates to their evaluation of racial status. One crucial aspect here is discovery of personal identity and appreciation by the social group one belongs. Personality of majority of the minority groups connotes the deep seated bias that characterizes the broad aspect of racial identity. Personality is therefore configured along class, gender, sexuality, and race. Larsen belabours expounding the scintillating relationship that comes afore before a black individual can pass for white (Larsen 29). Through the eyes of Larsen the readers come to terms with a world in which people relate mutually regarding their skin and they also perceive others on their bodies  sensitive society. Therefore, people relive in a society in which each experience is shaped and shaded with major emphasis the peoples skin color. Adoption of a new identity by a black individual, therefore, entails embracing of the white culture despite their African heritage and incorporating American values held by the whites even though segregation persist after grasping the values of the whites.

The novel unravels a dramatic twist to the telling of the reality of the American culture that Larsen depicts where a person received or was denied privileges because of the tone of the skin. Skin color had impact upon the black people who undertook to endure the rite of passage to pass as white though the African heritage innateness remained intact. The perception is derived from the racial diversity that met early relations between the blacks and whites. Being Black was viewed as an obstacle to be endured and was greeted with outright verdict by the white majority in order to place them to their right social status, lifestyle and attitude of the contiguous society  noble savage to those aped the culture of the whites like Clare. The simulation of the book by the adoption of the main character to undergo the passing successfully as white race though not to imply she belonged to that race. This aspect depicts the social construction of the culture of the whites as the mainstream whereas that of the African Americans as the other  quite removed from what the society construct as the ideal (Larsen 49).

Larsen delves deep into history to shore up the various critical concerns that characterized the social divide experienced in the construction of the American society. Discrimination was the undefined code that propped up racial indulgence from either side of both whites and blacks. It may be, Rene dear, it may just be, that, after all, your way may be the wiser and infinitely happier one (Larsen 47). The allegiance of women to their race heralds an unlikely scenario, which is socially constructed, imposing a rather oppressive responsibility to race thus the aspect of escapism. The price for non-allegiance by some of the women resulted to labeling and complete abandonment as well as withdrawing of support for their race. Passing was perceived by the blacks as deserting of ones roots, which resulted to severe repercussions on the one hand. In Johnsons review of Larsens works, the main character in the novel, Irene, exemplifies the case of those caught between being who they are or aping the culture refered as the culture constructed by the society as mainstream. The desperation to belong to the superior race could not be any more deafening in order to enjoy the benefits of crossing the color line (Larsen 62).

Even after the era of slavery, crossing the color line meant great deal of achievement to the individual in gaining illusionary identity diversion. Severe punishment awaited those who tried to cross but failed, receiving brutal beating or even death by lynching because of their race. Although passing has after that been relegated to history, the undying effects sprout just about anywhere. Johnsons book confirms the issue of color to infect the whole of the American society. A critical example thus stated It was, she cried silently, enough to suffer as a woman, as an individual, on ones own account, without having to suffer for the race as well. It was a brutality, and undeserved, (Larsen 98). However, there exists the irony of difficulty in passing for either sides of the racial divide. Larsen (10) says, She was caught between two allegiances, different, yet the same. Herself. Her race. Race Nothing, she imagined, was ever more completely sardonic. The analysis of Larsens works outlines a never-ending struggle to liberate both blacks and whites from their own imperfections hewn in stereotyping of race.

In conclusion, Passing by Nella Larsen is undeniably a masterpiece of psychological plight of African Americans in the American society. The characters clearly depict the manifestation of a society that denies a person acceptance simply because he or she is of different race. That characters live on the fringes of race, traversing or passing is a clear indication of a society of tense racial relations. This presents the mobility of identities covering the whole racial divide and serves to destabilize notions of race and of raced spaces. The American society as Larsen successfully presents it shows the historical racial relations and how many people especially the blacks where treated by the whites in inhumane manner leading to psychological and social bankruptcy.