Ah, but the Wikipedia entry doesn't even mention the Valdez play, and too-much-time dude does.
Which led me to look at the Wikipedia entry for Valdez himself, and I must say that it's both lame and outdated. Josefina Lopez gets 2 lines as "an American writer," with no mention of Simply Maria or her screenwriting work.
Which simply means that there aren't enough knowledgeable people on this subject who make time for communal encyclopedia-writing.
I think that Wikipedia usually represents the consensus consciousness of the American psyche so it's understandable (however unfortunate) that Valdez and many other Chic Lit authors/subjects are under-represented as their overall message has been largely ignored or obfuscated by traditional American society.
Hm, I thought that wikipedia was able to be edited often by just about anyone? I find it interesting then that there are barely any pages for the authors that Kristen suggested.
And Graham, I really agree with your comments about Chicano lit authors being ignored by the general American consensus. It's a shame that we can't do more promoting or make more people aware to this - and other forms of literature - that are overlooked so often.
I have to say that I was a little surprised that Wikipedia didn't mention too much about the Valdez play, but the website did refer to the Humphrey Bogart movie :-) I was wondering what people think about the references to Television (and the whole TV studio set up) in the Valdez play and if/how this ties into the historical context of the oh so famous phrase "I don't have to show you any stinking badges," that has been used in so many movies. I personally always like when I learn that certain phrases or topics are mentioned in various works (whether literature or film) throughout time. It's nice to be able to relate something in history to the present time.
Laura - Yeah, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and everyone, which is a reason a lot of people discredit its usage as a source. I love it though, such a great idea - communal knowledge. Of course, many topics of apparent interest go unnoticed in our society - par for the course really.
Andrea - Looks like your doing my work for me, thanks for that. Pretty good question about Valdez's play - something I plan on elaborating on later when I post my questions for Wednesday's virtual class. The whole TV studio set up initially confused the heck out of me, but maybe it was an inference to TV's pervasive mentality: how so many Americans rely on what the TV delivers in cogent, packaged type characters as being reality rather than to educate themselves about each other on a more humanistic, personal level. Damn I should have saved that nugget for later.
Alright here are my questions for Wednesday's virtual class, I guess I'll just plop them in this thread since we have a nice little discourse going anyways. Most of these questions are questions that still confuse me with the text of Valdez's "...Badges" or just talking points that I think might help me feign intelligence and understanding of the text.
First, what's the deal with Valdez's format? I was/am confused as to whether I was supposed to become attached to these characters or if they were characters acting out these characters for the supposed TV sitcom? There was a director, but now there isn't. The police are outside, but then the main characters seem to ignore it...?
If the set of the play is a TV studio, then why don't these characters ever break out of character? I was under the impression, until act 2 scene 3, that this household melodrama was "real" in the sense that I was supposed to believe that the characters were acting out their real lives, not acting out acting. Halfway through this play, with all the drama, I was totally oblivious that Valdez notified the reader on the first page that there was a DIRECTOR and that the "play" was being "filmed".
Second, drawing more on Andrea's comment, what can we guess is Valdez's motivation for setting this play on a TV set, when he could have seemingly done this play as in the traditional format of the audience (the reader) maintaining their suspension of disbelief that the characters are as real as any characters in a play are? To me, the play's overall message was muddled by it's confusing storytelling device.
Third, am I to assume or believe that the DIRECTOR is, literally, Sonny? If so how are they talking to each other? Is this a mechanism Valdez uses to insinuate that everyone has two sides, their stereotypical "as seen by society" side and their real, more soulful side? Or is the 'Sonny' in the TV show simply an actor acting out the DIRECTOR's (real Sonny) "real-life" script? (likely) Or am I to believe that Sonny is a literal schizophrenic? (less likely) Or that Sonny has a twin brother that looks and sounds like him and that also directs him in his TV pilot? (least likely/joke)
Lastly, the Epilogue gives us the ridiculously stereotypical flying sombrero ending, a replicate of the one discussed by Buddy and Connie in the beginning. The DIRECTOR explains that "The only latins our audiences care about are those who dance and sing and stamp their feet... And say funny things, crossover value!" which is clearly (?) the overall message. So the whole spaceship thing was an obvious reference that America likes its characters packaged and tidy, with predictable behaviors and circumstance? Is this "play" just a satire on American predictabilities and racial/cultural stereotypes, or something profoundly deeper which I am completely missing? I have a sneaking suspicion that I really missed the boat on this one and that there's some obvious ideal that I totally missed.
*** EDIT
I went through the text again, trying to grasp the hidden knowledge that precludes me, and what can I say... I'm just bloody stumped! Sonny seems surprised when he hears the canned laughter? When are these characters IN character or out? Which part am I supposed to believe is "real" and which "acting"? Does it matter?
i think that the reason the characters never break out of character is because they can't. i think that people who are racist or prejudice often think that those who they dislike can just stop being "like that" whenever they want to. That they can just like, snap out of it, and act like "eveyone else". therefore i believe that it is symbolic that the characters don't break character, because it shows that they are not just fluid steretypes but actual people. and as for sonny being the director, it feels like he is the most uncomfortable and ashamed of his race and will do anything to break it or push the stereotypical limits. therefore, he has to direct everyone else so that he feels like he is in control. just some thoughts
I'm not sure that I completely grasped what Valdez was trying to do with the whole tv taping set-up but this is what I got from it--
there's a good quote by SONNY on pg. 199 that shows the relationship between the two types of reality that readers are seeing-a reality (TV SHOW) where these characters think they're living a pretty well-off "Americanized" middle class family life(nuclear family: both parents as actors in Hollywood business, daughter's a pediatrician, son is a prodigy in Harvard Law School) vs. the reality that only Sonny seems to know is there (denying one's roots/IDENTITY in return for assimilation/ACCEPTANCE-his parents ACT OUT the sterotyped roles that their fellow Latina/o emigrant community have to face in real life, the sister denying her parents in order to achieve her 'American' success story of becoming a doctor-married to an English professor, and Sonny going through this same process of having to deny so much in order to be okay with where he is at but stopping short of doing that.) In this quote Sonny says a few important things- SONNY: "Which reality?...You can almost imagine a studio audience out there...sitting, watching, waiting to laugh at this cheap imitation of Anglo life."
Pg. 207 SONNY:"Do you know how many times I've denied you?...You see, in order to ACT TRULY AMERICAN, you have to kill your parents..."
Being that this play is supposed to take place in 1985, we are witnessing the issues that Chicana/os were going through in their transition to the world of higher education and "professional" careers while their parents did what they had to in order to help them get there.
Like Aurora was saying, I think that them not breaking out of character is that they are stuck where they are. Buddy and Connie are able to live the "American Dream" with their surburban house, a pool and able to provide their children a good education. However, they are only able to pay for this by playing their stereotypical roles in Hollywood. They have to play the gardener and the maid or some revolutionary and whore. It is just interesting to me that they have become so successful by playing the roles that society already sees them as.
Valdez's format for "I Don't Have to Show You No Stinking Badges!" is definitely more complex than some of his earlier work, like his Actos.
In "I Don't Have to Show You No Stinking Badges!" Valdez plays with reality. At the end of the play he has his audience questioning, "Is what I saw really real, or what is it exactly that I just finished seeing?"
Valdez likes to play with his audience's perceptions of reality. He likes to blur the lines of reality in his work. I was left to ponder many questions about who was really who, after reading "Los Vendidos", as well.
I have come to think of Valdez as a kind of "coyote". In many cultures, the coyote is full of wisdom, but does not necessarily share his wisdom with others in a straightforward way. He prefers playing tricks and pranks on others. To me, Valdez is definitely playing the part of the coyote through "Badges".
In response to Laura's comments on Sonny's troubles at Harvard i think it is important to look at what Valdez is drawing attention to in terms of the repressive nature of institutions like Harvard. Sonny, as a child of upwardly mobile parents who have worked their way up from the poverty of East LA, is experiencing inner conflicts between the two worlds he has been exposed to. In the sequence where Sonny acts out in search of his Latino masculinity, Valdez is exposing the psychological effects of assimilation into an alien culture, one that does not embrace diversity and multi-culturalism. Sonny is regressing into a role which he could have played had it not been for his parents success.
In terms of the 'American Dream', i think Buddy is the character who most embraces this life-style- he is fiercly proud of his achivements despite all that was working against him. The tragic irony is that he has reached this position at the expense of his culture and community as he has been playing roles which depict them as criminals and animals-something that Sonny then tries to make a reality through his uncharacteristic behaviour.
Valdez seems to play with the differences between dreams and realities: most notably, the American Dream, personal aspiration/dreams, fantasy, and when Sonny has his breakdown, a total disconnect with reality. I'm not sure if Valdez is making a pointed commentary on the variations between reality, fantasy and beyond. Perhaps he is exploring different manifestations of class-related fantasies in the American cultural consciousness. It's interesting how reality becomes completely warped in Act II, and then Valdez neatly closes the epilogue with the clicheed "happily ever after" fantasy, with the exception of Sonny's unusual mode of transportation. Valdez is definitely toying with his readers -- I think Sara's insight of Valdez as coyote is right on.
Isabelle's brings up an interesting point about the costs associated with fulfilling the American Dream. Valdez is saying that Chicanos must sacrifice their culture in order to succeed. I found it interesting when Sonny described his Harvard roommate (tall, blonde white guy). Sonny described him as a role model, which I would interpret as his vision of the American Dream. But to fulfill this role, he had to give up his roots. When the roommate killed himself, it caused Sonny to question his identity and purpose. So he went home, got in touch with his "roots", the cholo character, and eventually shot himself (i think). So the American Dream (illusion) killed himself, and the "authentic" Sonny killed himself.
As for the Tv episode format, having the monitors on stage for the audience to see helps to break down the "fourth wall". And the switch between reality and acting seems to throw into question the validity of the particular identities portrayed by the characters. So, as a lot of people have said, it makes the reader wonder what is real and what is fake. The epilogue suggests that the previous scenes were all an act. There is a certain amount of irony in these actors-playing-actors.
First, sorry for the late post--I was under the weather yesterday due to a flu shot :(
Secondly, in regards to Wikipedia, I think the professor is right in how she describes it, and many people have a better view of it than they should; Wikipedia can be updated at any time by anyone it seems. Wikiepia is the perfect example of why professors are getting more and more weary of internet resources--you can't trust what's out there. That's just my two cents on Wikipedia--you're better off looking somewhere else, unless you want a reference that has nothing to do with any of your academic work. I still think it's important that Carissa showed us the link to let us know just how "updated" Wikipedia is.
I guess my comment relates somewhat to everyone's discussion about the American dream, or rather, about what America is. It also relates to generation gaps, especially between parents and child. I can see this a lot in Sonny's mistreatment of his parents, their money, and how he puts them down for their work. It also really stood out to me when he corrects Connie's English, which I think has a lot to do with race. This is hard to explain without talking it out, but, from my experience, many "Americanized," educated children who are not white will put their less Americanized parents down simply because they are less Americanized. The Americanized child tries to escape the identity his or her parents give him or her (race), possibly due to racism, and goes against his or her parents' non-American ways to go with the flow and show that they are more American. I see this a lot, and I see it in Sonny. I don't know if that made sense, but if anyone finds it to be worth it, I can try to explain this better/elaborate in class.
As Laura pointed out, Sonny breaks out of the role that his parents have staged for him, in many ways he serves as an opposing/antagonist figure in the “staging” of a negotiated American dream. Buddy and Connie’s “American Dream” is a middle-class suburban existence that affords them tangible Americaness, while Sonny, at least in my reading of his role, embodies the position of the “Chicano” who is far removed from the idealized, conformist successes of his parents.
Kakshi, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Wikipedia. I don't know why I'm so fervent about this or feel like I have to argue about it, but I dislike the mentality that Wikipedia cannot be trusted merely because anyone and everyone can edit it. Go look at a popular article that you are well-versed in and you'll probably see that it correctly mirrors your understanding. The only times when articles are erroneous is when people vandalize them, which is usually corrected soon thereafter by some trusty wikipedian. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a popular idea or event on there that is erroneous. Obviously, many noteworthy articles are omitted, which is not as much an insult to Wikipedia's legitimacy but more a reflection of where we place our emphasis as a society.
The notion that "you can't trust what's on the internet," in my opinion, is hogwash. I don't know how our government instilled that in our heads but bravo to them and their propaganda department. Any rational mind should be able to adequately differentiate between what is factual and what is obvious bullhonky.
Concerning the Valdez text: I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one perplexed with his delivery/message . You could gather, from the title alone, that it's a straightforward satire about the media's stereotypical portrayal of minorities but I think we've all realized that there are some underlying themes that are not readily obvious and therefore open to interpretation.
I though that the ending was inconclusive, which is a very Valdez, but in this play it was a lot worse. I don't care for it, the imaginary realism of the dream sequence was almost redundant. There are many good messages that are brought forth through this play that are cluttered by the imaginary realism of this play. It was almost frustrating and killed some of my interest in this play. I get the message its presence is only heightened by the phrase, but why the dream. It almost discredits Valdez points, buy making it fantasy. A lot of things are resolved in our dreams at things are heightened as we read in Simply Maria, but the lines were made clear at the end. Valdez doesn't make these lines clear which takes away from the message. It's almost subliminal except that it isn't. I suppose by know you realize i did care for the play and find it problematic in its form which takes away from the message.
19 comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinking_badges
Ah, but the Wikipedia entry doesn't even mention the Valdez play, and too-much-time dude does.
Which led me to look at the Wikipedia entry for Valdez himself, and I must say that it's both lame and outdated. Josefina Lopez gets 2 lines as "an American writer," with no mention of Simply Maria or her screenwriting work.
Which simply means that there aren't enough knowledgeable people on this subject who make time for communal encyclopedia-writing.
ChicLiteras, a la lucha! (wo)man the barricades!
I think that Wikipedia usually represents the consensus consciousness of the American psyche so it's understandable (however unfortunate) that Valdez and many other Chic Lit authors/subjects are under-represented as their overall message has been largely ignored or obfuscated by traditional American society.
Hm, I thought that wikipedia was able to be edited often by just about anyone? I find it interesting then that there are barely any pages for the authors that Kristen suggested.
And Graham, I really agree with your comments about Chicano lit authors being ignored by the general American consensus. It's a shame that we can't do more promoting or make more people aware to this - and other forms of literature - that are overlooked so often.
I have to say that I was a little surprised that Wikipedia didn't mention too much about the Valdez play, but the website did refer to the Humphrey Bogart movie :-) I was wondering what people think about the references to Television (and the whole TV studio set up) in the Valdez play and if/how this ties into the historical context of the oh so famous phrase "I don't have to show you any stinking badges," that has been used in so many movies. I personally always like when I learn that certain phrases or topics are mentioned in various works (whether literature or film) throughout time. It's nice to be able to relate something in history to the present time.
Laura - Yeah, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and everyone, which is a reason a lot of people discredit its usage as a source. I love it though, such a great idea - communal knowledge. Of course, many topics of apparent interest go unnoticed in our society - par for the course really.
Andrea - Looks like your doing my work for me, thanks for that. Pretty good question about Valdez's play - something I plan on elaborating on later when I post my questions for Wednesday's virtual class. The whole TV studio set up initially confused the heck out of me, but maybe it was an inference to TV's pervasive mentality: how so many Americans rely on what the TV delivers in cogent, packaged type characters as being reality rather than to educate themselves about each other on a more humanistic, personal level. Damn I should have saved that nugget for later.
Alright here are my questions for Wednesday's virtual class, I guess I'll just plop them in this thread since we have a nice little discourse going anyways. Most of these questions are questions that still confuse me with the text of Valdez's "...Badges" or just talking points that I think might help me feign intelligence and understanding of the text.
First, what's the deal with Valdez's format? I was/am confused as to whether I was supposed to become attached to these characters or if they were characters acting out these characters for the supposed TV sitcom? There was a director, but now there isn't. The police are outside, but then the main characters seem to ignore it...?
If the set of the play is a TV studio, then why don't these characters ever break out of character? I was under the impression, until act 2 scene 3, that this household melodrama was "real" in the sense that I was supposed to believe that the characters were acting out their real lives, not acting out acting. Halfway through this play, with all the drama, I was totally oblivious that Valdez notified the reader on the first page that there was a DIRECTOR and that the "play" was being "filmed".
Second, drawing more on Andrea's comment, what can we guess is Valdez's motivation for setting this play on a TV set, when he could have seemingly done this play as in the traditional format of the audience (the reader) maintaining their suspension of disbelief that the characters are as real as any characters in a play are? To me, the play's overall message was muddled by it's confusing storytelling device.
Third, am I to assume or believe that the DIRECTOR is, literally, Sonny? If so how are they talking to each other? Is this a mechanism Valdez uses to insinuate that everyone has two sides, their stereotypical "as seen by society" side and their real, more soulful side? Or is the 'Sonny' in the TV show simply an actor acting out the DIRECTOR's (real Sonny) "real-life" script? (likely) Or am I to believe that Sonny is a literal schizophrenic? (less likely) Or that Sonny has a twin brother that looks and sounds like him and that also directs him in his TV pilot? (least likely/joke)
Lastly, the Epilogue gives us the ridiculously stereotypical flying sombrero ending, a replicate of the one discussed by Buddy and Connie in the beginning. The DIRECTOR explains that "The only latins our audiences care about are those who dance and sing and stamp their feet... And say funny things, crossover value!" which is clearly (?) the overall message. So the whole spaceship thing was an obvious reference that America likes its characters packaged and tidy, with predictable behaviors and circumstance? Is this "play" just a satire on American predictabilities and racial/cultural stereotypes, or something profoundly deeper which I am completely missing? I have a sneaking suspicion that I really missed the boat on this one and that there's some obvious ideal that I totally missed.
*** EDIT
I went through the text again, trying to grasp the hidden knowledge that precludes me, and what can I say... I'm just bloody stumped! Sonny seems surprised when he hears the canned laughter? When are these characters IN character or out? Which part am I supposed to believe is "real" and which "acting"? Does it matter?
Help me out!
i think that the reason the characters never break out of character is because they can't. i think that people who are racist or prejudice often think that those who they dislike can just stop being "like that" whenever they want to. That they can just like, snap out of it, and act like "eveyone else".
therefore i believe that it is symbolic that the characters don't break character, because it shows that they are not just fluid steretypes but actual people.
and as for sonny being the director, it feels like he is the most uncomfortable and ashamed of his race and will do anything to break it or push the stereotypical limits. therefore, he has to direct everyone else so that he feels like he is in control.
just some thoughts
I'm not sure that I completely grasped what Valdez was trying to do with the whole tv taping set-up but this is what I got from it--
there's a good quote by SONNY on pg. 199 that shows the relationship between the two types of reality that readers are seeing-a reality (TV SHOW) where these characters think they're living a pretty well-off "Americanized" middle class family life(nuclear family: both parents as actors in Hollywood business, daughter's a pediatrician, son is a prodigy in Harvard Law School) vs. the reality that only Sonny seems to know is there (denying one's roots/IDENTITY in return for assimilation/ACCEPTANCE-his parents ACT OUT the sterotyped roles that their fellow Latina/o emigrant community have to face in real life, the sister denying her parents in order to achieve her 'American' success story of becoming a doctor-married to an English professor, and Sonny going through this same process of having to deny so much in order to be okay with where he is at but stopping short of doing that.)
In this quote Sonny says a few important things-
SONNY: "Which reality?...You can almost imagine a studio audience out there...sitting, watching, waiting to laugh at this cheap imitation of Anglo life."
Pg. 207
SONNY:"Do you know how many times I've denied you?...You see, in order to ACT TRULY AMERICAN, you have to kill your parents..."
Being that this play is supposed to take place in 1985, we are witnessing the issues that Chicana/os were going through in their transition to the world of higher education and "professional" careers while their parents did what they had to in order to help them get there.
Like Aurora was saying, I think that them not breaking out of character is that they are stuck where they are. Buddy and Connie are able to live the "American Dream" with their surburban house, a pool and able to provide their children a good education. However, they are only able to pay for this by playing their stereotypical roles in Hollywood. They have to play the gardener and the maid or some revolutionary and whore. It is just interesting to me that they have become so successful by playing the roles that society already sees them as.
Valdez's format for "I Don't Have to Show You No Stinking Badges!" is definitely more complex than some of his earlier work, like his Actos.
In "I Don't Have to Show You No Stinking Badges!" Valdez plays with reality. At the end of the play he has his audience questioning, "Is what I saw really real, or what is it exactly that I just finished seeing?"
Valdez likes to play with his audience's perceptions of reality. He likes to blur the lines of reality in his work. I was left to ponder many questions about who was really who, after reading "Los Vendidos", as well.
I have come to think of Valdez as a kind of "coyote". In many cultures, the coyote is full of wisdom, but does not necessarily share his wisdom with others in a straightforward way. He prefers playing tricks and pranks on others. To me, Valdez is definitely playing the part of the coyote through "Badges".
In response to Laura's comments on Sonny's troubles at Harvard i think it is important to look at what Valdez is drawing attention to in terms of the repressive nature of institutions like Harvard. Sonny, as a child of upwardly mobile parents who have worked their way up from the poverty of East LA, is experiencing inner conflicts between the two worlds he has been exposed to. In the sequence where Sonny acts out in search of his Latino masculinity, Valdez is exposing the psychological effects of assimilation into an alien culture, one that does not embrace diversity and multi-culturalism. Sonny is regressing into a role which he could have played had it not been for his parents success.
In terms of the 'American Dream', i think Buddy is the character who most embraces this life-style- he is fiercly proud of his achivements despite all that was working against him. The tragic irony is that he has reached this position at the expense of his culture and community as he has been playing roles which depict them as criminals and animals-something that Sonny then tries to make a reality through his uncharacteristic behaviour.
Valdez seems to play with the differences between dreams and realities: most notably, the American Dream, personal aspiration/dreams, fantasy, and when Sonny has his breakdown, a total disconnect with reality. I'm not sure if Valdez is making a pointed commentary on the variations between reality, fantasy and beyond. Perhaps he is exploring different manifestations of class-related fantasies in the American cultural consciousness. It's interesting how reality becomes completely warped in Act II, and then Valdez neatly closes the epilogue with the clicheed "happily ever after" fantasy, with the exception of Sonny's unusual mode of transportation. Valdez is definitely toying with his readers -- I think Sara's insight of Valdez as coyote is right on.
Isabelle's brings up an interesting point about the costs associated with fulfilling the American Dream. Valdez is saying that Chicanos must sacrifice their culture in order to succeed. I found it interesting when Sonny described his Harvard roommate (tall, blonde white guy). Sonny described him as a role model, which I would interpret as his vision of the American Dream. But to fulfill this role, he had to give up his roots. When the roommate killed himself, it caused Sonny to question his identity and purpose. So he went home, got in touch with his "roots", the cholo character, and eventually shot himself (i think). So the American Dream (illusion) killed himself, and the "authentic" Sonny killed himself.
As for the Tv episode format, having the monitors on stage for the audience to see helps to break down the "fourth wall". And the switch between reality and acting seems to throw into question the validity of the particular identities portrayed by the characters. So, as a lot of people have said, it makes the reader wonder what is real and what is fake. The epilogue suggests that the previous scenes were all an act. There is a certain amount of irony in these actors-playing-actors.
A couple things:
First, sorry for the late post--I was under the weather yesterday due to a flu shot :(
Secondly, in regards to Wikipedia, I think the professor is right in how she describes it, and many people have a better view of it than they should; Wikipedia can be updated at any time by anyone it seems. Wikiepia is the perfect example of why professors are getting more and more weary of internet resources--you can't trust what's out there. That's just my two cents on Wikipedia--you're better off looking somewhere else, unless you want a reference that has nothing to do with any of your academic work. I still think it's important that Carissa showed us the link to let us know just how "updated" Wikipedia is.
I guess my comment relates somewhat to everyone's discussion about the American dream, or rather, about what America is. It also relates to generation gaps, especially between parents and child. I can see this a lot in Sonny's mistreatment of his parents, their money, and how he puts them down for their work. It also really stood out to me when he corrects Connie's English, which I think has a lot to do with race. This is hard to explain without talking it out, but, from my experience, many "Americanized," educated children who are not white will put their less Americanized parents down simply because they are less Americanized. The Americanized child tries to escape the identity his or her parents give him or her (race), possibly due to racism, and goes against his or her parents' non-American ways to go with the flow and show that they are more American. I see this a lot, and I see it in Sonny. I don't know if that made sense, but if anyone finds it to be worth it, I can try to explain this better/elaborate in class.
As Laura pointed out, Sonny breaks out of the role that his parents have staged for him, in many ways he serves as an opposing/antagonist figure in the “staging” of a negotiated American dream. Buddy and Connie’s “American Dream” is a middle-class suburban existence that affords them tangible Americaness, while Sonny, at least in my reading of his role, embodies the position of the “Chicano” who is far removed from the idealized, conformist successes of his parents.
Kakshi, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Wikipedia. I don't know why I'm so fervent about this or feel like I have to argue about it, but I dislike the mentality that Wikipedia cannot be trusted merely because anyone and everyone can edit it. Go look at a popular article that you are well-versed in and you'll probably see that it correctly mirrors your understanding. The only times when articles are erroneous is when people vandalize them, which is usually corrected soon thereafter by some trusty wikipedian. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a popular idea or event on there that is erroneous. Obviously, many noteworthy articles are omitted, which is not as much an insult to Wikipedia's legitimacy but more a reflection of where we place our emphasis as a society.
The notion that "you can't trust what's on the internet," in my opinion, is hogwash. I don't know how our government instilled that in our heads but bravo to them and their propaganda department. Any rational mind should be able to adequately differentiate between what is factual and what is obvious bullhonky.
Concerning the Valdez text: I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one perplexed with his delivery/message . You could gather, from the title alone, that it's a straightforward satire about the media's stereotypical portrayal of minorities but I think we've all realized that there are some underlying themes that are not readily obvious and therefore open to interpretation.
I though that the ending was inconclusive, which is a very Valdez, but in this play it was a lot worse. I don't care for it, the imaginary realism of the dream sequence was almost redundant. There are many good messages that are brought forth through this play that are cluttered by the imaginary realism of this play. It was almost frustrating and killed some of my interest in this play. I get the message its presence is only heightened by the phrase, but why the dream. It almost discredits Valdez points, buy making it fantasy. A lot of things are resolved in our dreams at things are heightened as we read in Simply Maria, but the lines were made clear at the end. Valdez doesn't make these lines clear which takes away from the message. It's almost subliminal except that it isn't. I suppose by know you realize i did care for the play and find it problematic in its form which takes away from the message.
Post a Comment