If I Were Earth

Throughout the course of the semester there have been several poems presented on Fridays that were written by Henry Dumas, and I have enjoyed analyzing every single one of them. A while ago, I dedicated a blog post to the poem “America,” by Dumas, and here I want to take a look another one of his poetic works entitled “If I Were Earth.” To me, this poem seems to have a universal expression rather than one tailored to African-American literature.

If I Were Earth

Henry Dumas

Each tear that fell

from the crushed

moons of your face,

stabbed me,

broke and split

into a thousand pains.

But I held out my arms

and no not one did I miss,

No, not one pain.

And if I don’t let

you soak into me

and bring me up,

if I don’t let you seep

deep into me

and teach me,

then you can cry in

the morning to the sun,

and tell him to rise up

and burn me away.

It is immediately evident that there a sense of pain and maybe even anguish in this poem. All the description regarding tears, pain and crying is the core imagery that sets up the expression in place. More specifically, I find that there is also a clear illustration that the person crying is very fragile – these tears are not violent, instead they are a representation of delicate pain. In lines four through six, the imagery of the tears fully supports this idea of fragility. When the tears land on the receivers arm, they shatter into a “thousand pains.” It is almost as if each tear is a precious bead of glass that strikes upon landing, only to shatter in humble helplessness. The weeper is someone that is portrayed as sensitive and in deep pain.

The relationship that is set up between the crier and the other observer that is soaking in the tears is interesting to understand. In some ways, the relationship is really quite vague and undefined, for example, readers don’t even know who the two people are and what their official relation titles to each other are. However, primarily in the mid-section of the poem, there are quite a few implications that uncover the nature of the relationship. To start, we can glean that the two individuals are for some reason quite distant. In the third line, the eyes of the crier are referred to as moons. Moons physically are distant, which works with the title “If I Were Earth” because the author is stating that they are separated as Earth and moon, but moons also have a distant quality to them. Usually, I envision moons to have grey, barren stretches of land that produce a murky, distant feeling. Moons are for sure not used as an image of warm, cozy intimacy, there is definitely some separation between the companions. Another interesting aspect to the relationship outlined by the author is the power balance that is described. In the moment that the poem switches tone from a voice describing the past and the tears to a voice that outlines future scenarios, the author reveals that the crier has some power over himself. Although the first several lines depict a person crying in a vulnerable manner, the latter half of the poem adds more dimensions to the crier in this detail of authority. The author clearly elaborates on how the crier is the one that has the right and ability to develop and teach him, and that if he doesn’t allow the crier to do so that is to his own disadvantage. Through these words, the speaker lays out a more specified dynamic between the crier and himself.

The last few lines capitalize on the character of the crier, it shows what could be the future of this character that is fragile and weak yet functional as one who the companion can learn from. The speaker says that if he doesn’t follow up on supporting the crier, then that person can “cry in the morning to the sun.” The way that I interpreted this was that they could go find comfort in the sun, as if the sun were a parental figure that wanted to let their child spill all their problems unto them, someone that would be willing to have a loving discussion. Going along with the idea of comfort, the switch from the metonymical allusion using the moon is transferred into a relationship with the sun. The shady coolness of the moon is converted into the warm, welcoming sun, where the tears can disintegrate and the crier can be themselves in broad daylight. So if the speaker doesn’t respect the crier, there is still a possibility for that person to move on to happier days. The imagery of the sun also has a dual aspect to it, because it is represented in two forms if the poem is interpreted in this specific way. In one light, the sun works as the comforting figure that the crier can go to. The first description that is used by the author is that the crier can cry “in the morning to the sun.” The imagery that this brings to my mind is that of a colorfully lit sky at daybreak, with a calm, soothing, artistic vibe. The sun is a friend here. On the other hand, the sun also operates as an angry, intense source of heat. When the speaker addresses what will become of himself if he takes this less respectful path in not absorbing tears, he says the sun will “burn me away.” This dual characterization of the sun brings out the reality for the crier and the companion individually.

In the end it seems as if the broad light of the sun is actually a negative thing. The tangent of “And if I don’t let you…” only leads to a picture in which there is ultimate separation, a breach defined by two individuals going in opposite directions in life. So although there is pain in the moonlight, maybe there is something to be cherished in the moments of tears. Maybe that is where the author finds the most genuine relationship, where he can share the pain and embrace what the crier goes through. It is in these moments that the crier can “bring me up” and “teach me.” There is an exchange of emotion that is serious and without cheer, but it is where the two companions truthfully connect. 

Racial Divide

Lately there has been a lot of discussion surrounding the killings of African-Americans in our country. From the case of Michael Brown to Eric Garner, public opinion is rapidly turning against the government because of the lack of action to indict cops in their violence against these black citizens. This sort of action by the forces of the government has been repeated throughout the history of the United States, and people are getting tired of situations like this.

While it is safe to say that the cops were in the wrong and people have the right to be frustrated, it is important not to overlook the actions of people reacting that may not be of the best choice. In general, anyone who is rioting is not really helping anybody. The outbreak of vandalism and damage of property does not right the wrong of any case of racial injustice, yet people riot. Of course there are many peaceful protests, but rioting is an entirely different matter. There is footage of Michael Brown’s mother, for example, pleading with the public not to riot, because she knows that it is not the right way to go if the aim is to create long-term peace and safety nationwide. In American History Seminar we are watching a film regarding race relations, and one moving scene involves a black radio announcer asking the black population to not riot after the announcement that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. He claimed that setting the city to fire is not “what he would have wanted.” Although peaceful protests generally address the problem in the best way possible, there has been one recent case that is troubling. A protest in NYC started a chant that went, “What do we want? Dead cops!” It is expected that there will be a backlash in any given race related atrocity, but rioting or using unnecessarily offensive chants really does not move America in the right direction. Furthermore, while I understand the legitimacy behind expressing oneself on a public platform, I still stand firm in my belief that rioting does not ultimately help, but rather hurts, so it should not be the course of action people choose to take.

Taking all aspects of this national situation into account, it seems as if all of this action, from both sides, is really going nowhere. This sort of situation is a repeat of history, which in itself shows that there has not been much progress, regardless of how people would like to think of America. The entire situation with Rodney King was outrageous, and now the country is facing the same sorts of happenings. And it would be nice to think that we don’t live in a society where people actually act in violence against people just because of their race, but surprisingly that wish is too idealistic. As our nation develops, the race divide is not really mended as it should be.  Now that people are protesting or rioting, I don’t know if that will really change anything. Yes, the public is becoming more aware, what one would think to be a good thing, but what does that really amount to? Not only is the violence a repeat of events, but the protesting is as well – protesting with regards to these specific cases did not really change the course of this nation’s history before, so how will it now? It would even be nice to think that all the protest would be “chipping away” at the problem, but in reality, I don’t even think that is the case. The number of incidents certainly is not decreasing, and people are just getting aggravated, whether they support the victim or the cop. It seems as if the only thing that is happening is that the breach over race issues is getting wider. 

Sethe's Love

One of the central events in Beloved that is constantly referred to throughout the novel is the murder of Beloved herself. This death at the hands of Sethe is the source for many passages that give readers a look in to the traits and feelings of many different characters and their interactions with each other. In the narration of the murder, schoolteacher along with some others find Sethe in the shed with the children in terrible condition around her. Howard and Buglar are bleeding nearby, Sethe has just cut her daughter’s throat, and she is about to inflict more damage on Denver. Stamp Paid interfered before it was really all too late, but the murder of one baby daughter had been committed. A while later, when Sethe gives her own account, she includes a bit in her tragic story of when she realized her children would be called for slavery. She claims that she was overwhelmed, so she went forward with her violent action. The decision she makes is portrayed as entirely out of love and a heart of protection, no malice included. Basically, Sethe wants to go forward with the ultimate wrong of taking away their lives so that they don’t have to go through the same slavery life that she dreads.

The reason why Sethe’s position as a mother allows for her to try to go so far as to take away the life of her children is because the past of slavery is so real and present in her feelings. There is a consistent theme of events never dying in the novel, and so the painful memories of slavery unfortunately strongly stick to Sethe. As a result, she is overwhelmed with the reality and there is a backlash in her actions. Overall, she does her very best to avoid thinking about the slavery days and the harsh times. Although it is a real struggle, she attempts to avoid traumatic experiences of the past at all costs. Due to this extreme reaction to the ongoing nature of slavery memories, when Sethe meets the older Beloved from out of the river she fails to recognize her as the reincarnation of her baby. Morrison makes the signs that they are connected so blatant, and so the failure of Sethe to connect just shows how much she has trained herself to forget the unforgettable past. In the text, Beloved is described as having extremely smooth baby skin and a strong tie to the water. And of all people, it would make sense for Sethe to connect to Beloved right off the bat, instead, she has blinded herself and is really unable to see even the clearest of hints. The other few people in the house take note of Beloved, but Sethe is just oblivious to it all. The influence of a story are evident in the moment that Sethe actually recites her version to Paul D, as the story envelops her and she describes it as if she were there again. Morrison continuously pushes the theme of undying events, and the storytelling of Sethe is one tool that is available for her to accomplish this goal.

Because she makes such an extreme decision to express her love, Paul D actually backs out from his relationship with Sethe. While most readers of Beloved feel a certain level of sympathy for her, these feelings are absent in Paul D and he initiates a dry, harsh split between them, breaking their long relationship because of the story rather than approaching Sethe by considering her side. He observes that she loves too much and that it seems like she forgets that she has “two feet…not four.” He means to say that her love is animalistic and that is primitive. Additionally, it carries the implication that Sethe does not know how to restrain herself. Paul D is so adamant in his belief that Sethe is not wise and worthy any longer that he leaves the household entirely. There is actually another character in the book that expresses some of Paul D’s sentiments. This figure is Ella. The two women meet each other through Stamp Paid, since Ella and Stamp Paid work together in the Underground Railroad and are connected in helping Sethe. It does not take too long for Ella to notice the way Sethe is glued to Denver, and she kind of resents that behavior. In her mind, she feels that Sethe goes too far in loving her children. In the end Paul D and Ella both tend to distance themselves from Sethe.

The reaction that Sethe receives opens up questions on why she gets such a cold response when sharing her sad story. Both Ella and Paul D have experienced a lot in the realm of slavery as well, so it makes sense that they have no patience for emotions being spent over matters related to slavery. Basically Sethe takes one option of becoming intense in her love because the slavery deprived her of love, and Paul D and Ella are oddly restrained because they are trying their best to forget slavery. The two parties take two entirely different paths for a shared interest: to forget the cruelty of slavery. Once they align near each other, it is natural that they clash and cause relationships to break. The fact that the way in which the characters want to deal with their memories influences them to their present days is testament to the undying aspect in experiences. 

Gang Life

One of the most hyperbolic and captivating depictions Beatty makes in The White Boy Shuffle is of gang life in Hillside. As soon as Gunnar moves to his neighborhood, the first impression he gets of the place has to do with gang activity. The LAPD check if he is affiliated with any group right off the bat, so it is obviously part of the core that makes Hillside what it is. A large part of the reason why gang life is so interesting in the novel is simply because of the hilarity Beatty adds in portraying it. Obscure names are used, the gang Gunnar gets involved in is the “Gun Totin’ Hooligans” for example, not what you would normally expect a gang to be called. And the two thugs that introduce themselves while strolling into class during Gunnar’s first day of school stick to the titles of “Hope-to-Die Ranford a.k.a. Pythagoras” and “Velma the Ludicrous Mistress Triple Bitch of Mischief Vinson.” The actions of the gangs, at least the Gun Totin’ Hooligans (which is Beatty’s main focus), are pretty comical as well. The first look that Gunnar gets of the Gun Totin’ Hooligans is from his tent hide out in the department store, and it is quite a scene. As the rest of the gang members casually loot the store, one guy is taking practice shots with the bow and arrow using the mannequins for targets – not the usual gang activity (or gear). Furthermore, we see that the Gun Totin' Hooligans can’t really perform any violent tasks, partly because of their outdated weaponry tied down by questionable tradition, and they rely entirely on Psycho Loco. They don’t really function as a gang if you think about it, and they even have a poet in residence: Gunnar. So really, based on the picture Beatty gives us, it is tough to really take the gangs seriously. Through exaggeration of names, actions, associations, he is drawing out a definite element of silliness.

All that being said, I don’t think that Beatty is writing out a pointless silliness – there are definitely layers of messages that come along with his portrayal. Beatty is stripping away the veil of toughness that gang members raise for themselves and that the general public assumes of gang members, and he is bringing their identities to the most basic level. He is taking all of the image away, and boiling the matter down to its definitive state. By critiquing gangs under such an exposing light, Beatty shows that the killings and violent situations are all silly, and that there is no substance to them (not unimportant, just pointless and irrational). A prime scene in the novel that brings this idea out is the time when Pumpkin dies. His death comes out of the blue, a surprise to everyone, and there is really no good reason as to why he passes. While Psycho Loco and Pumpkin are robbing a Korean owned store, Psycho Loco shoots a warning shot, and a chain of events somehow suffocate Pumpkin. Basically, the death is an accident. Killed by his own partner in crime, Pumpkin’s death is so random and not glorious that it fully magnifies Beatty’s theme of irrationality in gang violence. People really die – a real blow to any relations of the victim – and it’s all from pointless fights made by gangs, a tragic reality.

Even though there is no apparent good in the gang life that Beatty portrays, it would be a mistake to miss out on the other half of gang significance he alludes to. The gang is a community for people who need a community. In the Gun Totin’ Hooligans for instance, Psycho Loco leads the daily charge, but there are a bunch of other faces in the mix tagging along for the ride. Really they do nothing – if Psycho Loco were removed they would just be a group of nearly randomly assembled teens – but the very fact that they are together is what is important. All the young guys are in it just for the sake bonding and finding a second home where they can connect with peers. It is integral to their lives in Hillside, and Gunnar is a good case in showing how connected and important the gangs are. Coming from Santa Monica, he is pretty soft to start off with, but he eventually is fit into the Gun Totin’ Hooligans, even if he plays a unique role, and gang life in general – anybody and everybody finds a place in the system. Early on in the novel, a passage discussed how Gunnar hated the Cub Scout that he was a part of, but the interaction he has with his gang sharply contrasts that, and this outlines the difference between superficial and pure bonding. Due to the silly way that Beatty illustrates gang activity throughout the novel, the question of whether or not there is a “purpose” to gangs is raised, and I think that the answer to that would be that while there is no end purpose (in violence) there is still a comfort and brotherly connection for the members that is worth noting and valuing.

To elaborate on the vital inner connection of gangs Beatty seems to point out, I think the scene in which the Gun Totin’ Hooligans decide to take on the Ghost Town gangsters in unparalleled fashion is especially relevant. This scene is one of the most memorable and fresh in my mind, because it captures the spirit of bonding so well. In an effort to take out their enemies, the gang cross dresses and then heads over to the cluster of bungalows that the Ghost Town gangsters hang around. After the launch of arrows and balloons has been made, the Gun Totin’ Hooligans wrap up their raid and head out. On the car ride back to their own neighborhood, they have a real celebration by blasting opera music really loud. Gunnar “noticed none of the boys bothered to remove their wigs or makeup” and decided to hit “the high notes with the rest of the fellows.” This moment is so surreal in that it breaks every image someone might have of gang life -- the music, apparel, and activity. In their celebration, they don’t care what they look like and really just feel the joy of life in the company of each other. Through Gunnar’s eyes we can see that he really feels at home and is able to fully embrace the moment too.
Beatty’s cartoonish way of presenting gang life is a successful commentary on the aimless reckless nature of violence and importance of brotherhood in gang life. 

Free Puppet

A really cool part of Gunnar’s development in my opinion is the way he has turned into someone that is insane. Not crazy insane, but mature and in-his-own-world insane. There is a lot of evidence in his letter to Yoshiko fairly late in the novel that shows how he is really just doing his own thing, not giving a care as to what people think of him or what he should be doing. First off, he is writing the entire letter during half-time, when he is probably supposed to be invested in the game against Cornell. Coach Palomino is foaming over how bad the team is playing, yet Gunnar is laid back through it all, not showing any interest in the game. When coach slaps a player named Isaac Gottlieb for missing a layup during warmups, Gunnar just thinks/writes, “oh shit.” There is no sense of exclamation, no emotion, he is just an indifferent observer. At the same time, Gunnar expresses that he fully capable of crossing the line if he chooses, and he seems to have fun with it. When the national anthem plays before the game he refuses to stand, and when reporters approach him because of this he eventually gets to a point where he equates America with Satan. He knows that he is being completely random, and he feels perfectly comfortable acting in that way.

While Gunnar exhibits a large amount of freedom in his thoughts, words, and actions, Scoby is a little different as the novel progresses. When we first meet him in the novel, he is the epitome of coolness. Lost in his own world of music and always doing his own thing, Nick Scoby is someone to admire. However, he is deeply negatively influenced by the pressures of public expectation. At first, he was able to play basketball or explore in his own music genres on his own or with community friends, but the transition to a public display of his perfection is uncomfortable to him. In the letter, Gunnar requests for Yoshiko to find a counselor for Scoby because he is going “insane.” This is a different kind of insane than the one I label Gunnar with, because it has darker connotation. Scoby is cracking under pressure, and Gunnar analyzes that the reason for this is that Scoby is continuously trying to find a “pair of scissors” to cut the “strings.” This is an allusion to the puppeteer strings illustrated in Invisible Man, where strings represent the everlasting hold white people have on minorities, namely black people. So the problem is that Nick has turned into someone that is trying too hard, and its damaging him. He is trying to free himself from the hold of the strings and then be his own person. However, to be your own person, Beatty is saying you just have to get over the fact that there are strings in the first place, unfortunately Scoby can't face this reality.

Gunnar is able to thrive because he knows how to deal with the strings. While Scoby struggles to snip them away, Gunnar just flat out accepts them. He admits to being attached, and he can only see the string if his eyes fight the fog of his own spirit of freedom. Once Gunnar is in the mature state of accepting reality, he can then take a step back and do whatever he wants. That is why he is able to  do stuff like calmy contemplate whether or not a free-throw is worth it at the height of an important game, get ink all over the basketball (and therefore other people’s uniforms!) during the Cornell game, etc. Gunnar feels his freedom because he understands that the strings are not cut, and he dances. But he doesn’t dance with the pupetteer, he creates his own rhythm and just lets himself go. He is purely insane. 

Creative Writing 104

The whole experience Gunnar has with Boston University is really quite interesting. Specifically, the way Beatty handles Gunnar's interactions with his peers in the Creative Writing 104 course is particularly crucial. Right away, we see that the people in his class are sort of out of touch -- each in their own way, the other students are pretty extreme and odd. The first person to introduce themselves to the class is Peyote Chandler, who is absolutely obsessed with Sylvia Path and tried to kill herself by sticking her head in the oven. Next is chubby Chadwick Osterdorf III, who finds true poetry solely in Rimbaud. And then there is Negritude, who tries to sincerely devote herself to honoring African culture but severely fails. I see an interesting dynamic of how Beatty clumps them all together and juxtaposes them against Gunnar. It all starts with the introductions that are made. Within each personal presentation, Gunnar, the “boisterous black kid,” constantly interrupts. He is the sole nuisance to the class, and his voice is heard loud and clear by everyone. In combination with the absurdity of the other students, it seems like they are a jumbled mess of white people while Gunnar stands apart as the individual black student. To add on to that, when he finally reveals who he is, they all jump on him verbally due to his success in poetry. This change of pace creates a very two-sided connection, with all the other students lending their attention and Gunnar receiving it. Throughout the class period he is clearly in control, and the others are on a different level than him, they are worthy of being warded off.

Because all the other students and the professor are white and they have an exaggerated amount of praise for Gunnar, the whole concept of minstrelsy comes up here in my opinion. His poetry becomes something of their superficial pleasures, and more value is put into the fact that he is a black poet who has found success than the content of his work. This idea was previously made pretty clear in Gunnar’s other art of life: basketball. During the pickup games in the park and within the moment that he amazingly discovers that he can dunk with impressive ease, there is a real organic quality to basketball. It is played for simple enjoyment and fun, and no one has any hesitation when stepping onto the court. After landing a spot on the school team, a whole new world confronts Gunnar (and Scoby). He doesn’t feel the same rhythm that he did in the park, and he doesn’t feel the energy of the game itself to the same extent. With the traits of his BU writing class in place, Gunnar seems to also go through the same thing for poetry. Like basketball, there is an organic start. He scrawls poetry on walls and people from his neighborhood stop to read and admire it. There is a certain amount of street cred that he gains, and it is all part of a natural balance of respect. As a poet for the Gun Totin’ Hooligans, Gunnar has a chill role and reputation, but once he gets to Boston, it’s a whole new story. Once again, white crowds smother him with unwanted unnatural attention. With the addition of a book, his poetry is taken from off the walls of LA and put into a very “official” form. Gunnar’s poetry is at one point in the conversation and not just for the presentation, but it takes on an unfortunate transformation for him personally.

The classroom scene starts to get really weird once Gunnar’s peers and professor start chasing him around, there is no way that this sort of thing would happen in reality. Beatty does this intentionally, however, to push the idea of the white person obsessed over a performer. The way Gunnar’s professor characterizes him when he first realizes that he is the great black poet sets up this vibe. Dr. Edelstein excitedly shoots out of his seat and then awkwardly recites one of Gunnar’s poems on the spot, and he is in a frenzy all because “his performer” is in the room with him. Since there is so much insanity in how the white people look past Gunnar as a human, and just seem him as a guy who produces poetry for them, he reacts in an way of desperation -- standing in the school yard, he rips off all his clothes. I interpret this as an opposite reaction to the muddled crazy action of the white people, and he does this by trying to let out his feelings and emotion. The very depiction of the clothes supports this, as they go up in a whirlwind into the air and then fall to the ground. With the same structure, personal expression bursts from Gunnar, and then dies down just as quick. Immediately following this explosion, the white students scurry around trying to collect what they can, trying to obtain his clothes like little prizes. It is pretty dehumanizing that Gunnar just made this shocking move and then all they do is look right past him and see what part of him they can keep for themselves – his clothes.

The statement that Dr. Edelstein makes when trying to defend Gunnar and his nakedness from the cops is what sums all of this up quite nicely. Upon confrontation, Gunnar is backed by his professor who exclaims, “It’s okay, he’s a poet. Matter of fact, the best black…the best poet writing today.” The narrator then adds that he “…had permission to act crazy.” At this point it is quite obvious that on the inside the white people label Gunnar as black, and that they also want him to just perform for them. Beatty has created a wide gap between Gunnar and the other people in the BU writing section which leads to yet another scene that demonstrates the minstrel dynamic. 

The Logan Question

There can be a lot of different opinions about what Janie should have done regarding her relationship with Logan in Their Eyes Were Watching God. It all started because her grandmother, Nanny, who wanted the best for her, but in the end Janie doesn't stick with him, utilizing her own skills of judgment. It is understandable that Nanny wanted Janie to have a husband like Logan in the first place, he is stable and wealthy. This sort of future would be favorable, and Nanny is so adamant about securing the future because she has a bad history herself. When she was still in slavery, she was raped by her master and then chastised and beaten for "her actions" by the master's wife. She had no say or free will in the happenings, and it boiled down to just a pretty miserable life for a while. In her direction of caring for Janie, she doesn't want spoiled history to be repeated, so it is for good reason that she insists Logan becoming a part of the family. 

Even though I do trust in the judgement of Nanny, I also have a sympathetic side towards Janie and her choices. She is obviously just getting her bearings on life as a developing young woman, so I think it is actually healthy for her to find independence in what she does. The downside is that she just doesn't have the wealth in experience that Nanny has to make her choices. What I find admirable in Janie is that she is slightly aware of this fact. On the outside, she really wants to go forward and do anything and everything, but she is not ignorant. She has the sense to give Nanny's opinions a thought, so she successfully finds a balance in her actions. On one hand, she goes forward and kisses Johnny Taylor -- a moment when she got to experiment with the pleasures she wanted; yet on the other hand, when Nanny scolds her for what she has done, there is not a trace of resentment. Superficially she has the attitude of wanting to do whatever, but the narrator does reveal that the kiss had been reduce to the feeling of a "manure pile after a rain." This admission is key, because it shows readers that she is not rash in her sexual exploration, she is purely trying to find what is ideal and true to her love. If Nanny says that something is wrong, she takes some real consideration as to whether or not that could be right, and in the case of the kiss, she almost agrees. 

An even stronger case of how Janie is open-minded to Nanny even if she doesn't always follow through in action, and why I find her a favorable character, is the way she deals with the Logan question itself. From the start, Janie never wants to be with Logan, but somehow, the marriage goes through. How could Janie approve (even if it is only partial approval)? She puts an honest and hopeful faith into the future and that it will work out. She hates Logan in every way -- his appearance and demeanor -- but she finds a way to try things out. The narrator of TEWWG points out that she thought that in the end she would find love. To me, that kind of love experiment is just plain risky. But the point is, she trust what her grandmother says and attempts the new life. Not too long after, we find out that she feels that finding love will be impossible, the reason why she ultimately leaves Logan, but there should be a certain amount of respect for the amount that she tried to make things work by obeying Nanny originally, no matter how reluctant she was. 

After spending a little time with Logan, Janie moves on to marry Jody right away, a mercurial quality that sends a lot of criticism her way. The way I see things, it is pretty sad how the direction of her life turns towards disappointment with Jody once she marries him. Some may say that she deserved the hardships and such for not fully listening to Nanny, but to this I have to disagree. It is not a deserved fate for her, just a necessary one. What I mean is that this is where the aspect of her individuality comes into play. To fully realize her own identity, she had to make her own choices. And remember, she wan't making moves on the whim, she tried Nanny's way first. The strong independent spirit of Janie is only put into a real context if the reader considers her nature of obedience as well. It is appropriate for Janie to have thoughts about the pear tree, and finding a love and life that suits her best is a search she has the right to take. 

In the end (after Jody is gone), Janie is finally able to let down her hair and express herself with her braid. But to get to this stage, she first learned the hard way what the realities of life are by living with the constantly worsening Jody. She made her decision, and faced consequences for it, but all after making an obedient move. So another question that arises is whether or not the original decision to marry Logan and live her life with him would have saved her trouble anyways. As their marriage progressed, he starting making her work more and more. That experience alludes to a not so easy life that may not have been that different from the arguments she had to endure with Jody. The key difference between the two situations is that one was made out of an independent decision, a healthy move that allowed her to actually develop. The themes of experienced wisdom and youthful curiosity contrast sharply and expose the ways Janie develops as a strong woman through a chain of experience in love.