Blogs

Last week, my essay focus on the friendship between Natalie and Leah. This week, I will sharpen my lens to focus on specific part of the book to analyze the complex friendship. But I have not decided which part to choose. Probably, I will choose to focus on ENVY, combine it with my personal expereience and go on exlore the nature friendship between women.

Last week, I (co)wrote my paper through the lens of existentialism about the relationship between Leah and Natalie/Keisha.

After getting feedback from Mark, I've decided to refocus the lens to form a sharper picture, by expanding the lens to incorporate Kirkegaard's view of existentialism. In doing this, I'd also like to form a more complete image of both Leah and Natalie not only in their relationship, but also as individuals. 

My first lens focused on the use of 37 in Leah's section of NW, and how that chapter title acted as a tag when the chapter discussed Leah's attempts to stay mired in the past, but I was too narrowly focused.

This week I will broaden my lens to find the 'key tags' of Nat and Felix when they interact with their past, and I will discuss how these tags compare, contrast, and balance each other.

My first lens was names as a key to identity, but after talking with Anne, I realized that there is a lot of issues with this.  It doesn't really make much logical sense and its hard to apply it to the topic I chose.  This weekend, I'm starting afresh with a new topic and lens.  After reading an essay about human and animal relationships, I decided to use this as my lene to talk about Leah, Olive and grief, as well as the importance of the inter-species relationship.

  In my last essay, I tried to expand my structure from a quote from NW "people generally get what they deserve", which associates with "social mobility". I questioned whether people can really get what they deserve, and whether social mobility is feasible. But then my essay started to go into different directions. I talked about how Natalie/Keisha looks at herself differently than others and London's history, which is a little weak.

  For this week's re-writing, I'll sharpen my lens. I want to focus on whether people get what they deserve, and its connections with social mobility. I'll re-write my essay by limiting the topics I want to discuss and expand it through this specific lens.

I haven't really looked into how realistic this might be but I was thinking of maybe focusing solely on WIllesden.  I I could look at statistics, geography and businesses in Willesden.  In my first paper I focused on the accuracy of different aspects in the novel but I still feel like we arent given a very good description of Willesden.  I think understanding Willesden and where the characters are supposed to have grown up would give a better understanding of their motivations and beliefs.  

Last week I didn't use a lens in my paper. I wanted to but couldn't find a lens, because relationships are a quite abstract topic.

So I'll change my focus to Natalie's upward social climb, and maybe mention a little about Michel as I write. Anne recommended an article called "Models of Minority College-going and Retention: Cultural Integrity versus Cultural Suicide" as my lens. That article talks about factors that allow a minority person to acquire further education, and discusses the pros and cons of the influence on that person.

This past weekend, I used the lens of existentialism (in particular, Sartre's view) to observe the relationship between Leah and Keisha, focusing mostly on the third section of the book.

After reading Mark's thoughts, I've decided that this weekend, I'd like to refocus the lens to contrast Satre with Kierkegaard (who is, after all, mentioned in NW) and observe the separation of Leah and Keisha (that is, where they are in the first and fourth sections of the book, both going through seperate crisis).

Because of this, the essay will focus more on the individual characters: Who Leah is when she goes through her pregnanacy scare, who Keisha/Natalie is when she is in her pregnancy v. who she is with Nathan v. who she is when she wants to turn Nathan in, and how she reconciles all of these different "selves" into one person.

For my last paper, my lens was the econimical cause in the depressed marriage relationship of Leah and Michel. I still want to use this lens but I want to relate some knowledge from the econ class I take in this semester.

Last time my lens are too broad and complex- the differences and similarities between Nat and Felix, and the reason for their difference- self respect.

This time I want to narrow lens to the similarities of Nat and Felix（sex with others，same opening narration of the chapter） to illuminate that no matter how hard they are trying to change, they are rooted in their fixed class and why Zadie smith wants to create these similar characters. Maybe because their similarities may reflect and apply more broadly- for the people try to change but can’t. The reason may be social class is solidified, they can’t move on. Maybe I want to relate this to the social solidarity by Émile Durkheim.