European Literature Group
Here's discussion space for your group. By December 9th, you need to have posted at least three times. One of your posts should pose a question or issue or problem in the text for discussion; at least one should respond in depth to someone else's problem or question. The third can be either. Each post will be graded as an open response.
posted by Ms. Clapp @ 12:10 PM
29 comments
29 Comments:
Hi Everyone.
So I thought I'd just give you my first observations of the book.
One thing I noticed, this being a translated work, is that the translations are not always accurate, at least in the language we use. On page 3, there is a quote translated “…one of those transfers…” Here, “transfers” is used instead of tattoos. However, in the process of translating, it was more accurate to use this word than tattoos. The goal was to have the same meaning come across to the English readers and by keeping as many literal Italian translations as possible, the closer we are to reading the actual book.
Another thing I noticed in the beginning was the nickname of Antonio Natale: Skull. Often times in literature, the author chooses names that reflect the character’s personality, which is just what Ammaniti did with Skull. The “skull” in his name suggests that he is hollow, he doesn’t have a heart. This is supported by his actions: he would go as far as to ask a girl to reveal her breasts, and he would even ask her to show her private parts. The “skull” really reflects his hollow character.
Lastly, I've noticed a lot of words from the religious register throughout my reading. An example is when Barbara was asked to do the "challenge" for losing the race: “Barbara Mura…was the lamb that took away the sins” (16). Barbara is being compared to a lamb that sacrifices its life for, in this case, Skull (treated like a God practically). This shows not only the submissive nature of Barbara to want to fit in, but also Skull’s dominance in acting like a God. I've noticed more references to Biblical things, so this is an idea that I think we should follow...
I noticed that too about the translation. I just think that maybe the dialect in that region of Italy is different and the translation can't always be accurate.
I also wanted to comment how when Filippo calls Michele a guardian angel and it is ironic because in the end he ends up dying for Filippo. For Filippo to be free and not be killed, he basically took the bullit for him. I don't know if this act is from any Biblical seen from the Bible? Do you guys think this has any religious connection?
Also Katie i forgot to comment how you mentioned Skull's name relates alot about his personality. Also I realized the whole family is wakco! I mean the brother likes to pick on little kids and beats on them like he wants to kill them. This whole book has alot of religious connections to people like you said for Barbara, but also when Michele has that dream about Jesus and Lazarus and when Filippo screams that he is dead and Michele is questioning wheather Jesus brought him back. Also in the Italian culture religion is a really big part of their life. What do you guys think about whole religious observations?
The translation really is apparent throughout the novel. Katie pointed out the first example we noticed: he uses "transfer." I actually didn't know what this meant first but it's a "British" word for a fake tattoo. The translator is British and uses British spelling also. I remember reading "color" as "colour" in the novel. Words like color and honor are spelled using "ou" instead of the last 'o.' I don't really think that the translation is that important.
Also, on the religious register, I think that religious references are regional like Ashley said. Italians tend to be more religious than American or other writers that we usually read. I believe we have to ask why the register is used. The register in this case is used because it is a reference that most people would recognize and understand. It was written for the audience (Italians). But I agree with you two also, it is used to intensify and draw attention.
I think what is really interesting is the foreshadowing in the book and the way religious register is used to create that. On page 34, Ammaniti writes, "I woke up during the night. I had had a nightmare. Jesus was telling Lazarus to rise and walk. But Lazarus didn't rise. Rise and walk, Jesus repeated. Lazarus just wouldn't come back to life... So Jesus started shaking him like a doll and Lazarus finally rose up and bit him in the throat. Leave the dead alone, he said with blood-smeared lips." The religious reference is very obvious here. I think that this is also foreshadowing (Michele being Jesus and Lazarus being the boy in the hole.) The foreshadowing I see is that if Michele continues to see the boy he will be "bitten in the neck" (metaphor for physical injury, maybe even death.)
What do you guys think? Am I overlooking this? It's also interesting to note that if my interpretation is correct that Michele is being compared to Jesus. He has high morals like Jesus and seems quiet but he doesn't fit a lot of characteristics. He is very young, not a leader, etc.
Dario I do agree with you about Michele being compared to Jesus. I mean Michele risks his life for Filippo so he can live, Filippo calls him a guardian angel, Michele also has that dream about Jesus and Lazarus that foreshadows Michele's death. Michele tries to do what's right regardless what other people say or think. Like when his father told him to promise to never go back to Filippo, but in the end he knows what he has to do.
Hi guys. Interesting topic with the religious register. And I don't think you're looking into it too much Dario. And Ashley, there definitely is a religious connection!
So I'm not sure if you guys have ever heard of Michael the Archangel in the Bible? Well, sometimes Michael the Archangel (Michele in Italian) is compared to Jesus. So Dario, I think if Ammaniti is thinking about the same thing as I am, then he was comparing him to Jesus, in a sublte way that isn't too obvious, confusing us (like you pointed out, not a leader, young, etc).
So here's the connection: In the book of Jude, Michael had the post of archangel. He was THE archangel, since no other archangel is mentioned in the Bible, nor does the Bible use “archangel” in the plural. “Archangel” means “Chief of the angels.” In the whole Bible, only two names are associated with authority over angels: Michael and Jesus Christ. This, too, argues that Jesus and Michael are the same. Regarding the resurrected Jesus, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 states: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” Obviously depending on beliefs and such, one can take this completely different. But I think it's possible that Ammaniti named his main character Michele, and then have him mistaken as an angel to lead us into this direction.
Wow, I didn't know that. So then we can probably argue that Michele is a Christ Figure! Yay, we found one!
Again, I'd like to discuss why Ammaniti does this. Filippo even refers to Michele as "my guardian angel" in the book so I think that there is really a lot of room to make the connection between Michele the boy and Michele the Archangel. I think Ashley hit the nail right on the head by saying "Michele tries to do what's right..." Even as the adults around him have gone corrupt, Michele remains just in his thinking and action. (This is part of the reasons I don't really like the ending, but we can discuss that later.) That is testament to his morality.
So back to the why... like I wrote in my last post, it's foreshadowing. Personally, I knew from the moment that Michele found the boy in the hole that he would rescue him, or tell his parents to go rescue him (irony!). (Do you guys think it was that obvious too?)
Michele took the bullet for the dare for losing the race even though he could have just as easily let Barbra do it. He felt bad and knew that what Skull was doing to Barbra was wrong and he was the only one in the group of friends to speak up and put an end to it. On that note, Michele is a moral leader.
I think that Ammaniti uses the name connection to Michele the Archangel to (obviously) build Michele's (our protagonist)character and thus foreshadow the rescue of the boy. I think it was obvious that Michele was going to rescue Filippo, the question was really what obstacles were on his way.
Dario,
I, too, think that it was pretty obvious that Michele was going to save Filippo, or at least get him to safety. Otherwise, the "obstacles" that you mentioned wouldn't really matter. You said you'd like to discuss the WHY (I don't know how to italicize...), and I think you started with something interesting by saying that "Even as the adults around him have gone corrupt, Michele remains just in his thinking and action." The WHY that Ammaniti compares Michele to the Archangel and Jesus is to suggest that about the society Michele lives in, it's unjust, and people do stupid things. However, there are good people out there that actually try to do right when they're told it's wrong.
I'd like to address now the ending that you said you don't like so much. Michele takes the bullet for Filippo, and judging from the ending, I think he dies right? "Now it was dark again. And there was papa. And there was me." So I'm thinking he did die, but even if he didn't, he still took the bullet for Filippo. Dario, you suggested that because Michele remained just in his thinking and actions that it probably wasn't fair for him to take that bullet. But who did Jesus die for? Wasn't it so that others could live? He spilled his blood (as Michele did) so that others could live, and get forgivness for their sins (perfect example for his dad, to now have the opportunity to be forgiven of his sins).
So again to the why: not only does Ammaniti add depth to Michele's character, but look at the analysis we had to do to make that connection. He gave us more to think about than just what the story's about: the values of his culture, the meaning/ association of the names etc.
Great analysis! More evidence for a Christ figure, yay! So the religious register serves that purpose.
I had never thought to say that Michele taking the bullet for Filippo was him dying for others sins (partly because I don't think he dies) but it makes perfect sense. It's a really good connection. I don't think Filippo dies however but I believe that my opinion is very subjective. Ammaniti leaves the ending very open (part of the reason I don't like it) and leaves it up to the reader to interpret if Michele dies. I like to think he doesn't. Regardless of if he does, those around him (especially his father) become better people because of the incident.
The main reason I didn't really like the ending is because it kind of ends in the climax of the action. I'm the kind of person who wants to know the aftermath: does Sergio go to jail/for how long? does Antonio's family go to jail? what happens to the children of the village (Barbra, Skull, everyone)? I just think that Ammaniti could have done so much more with the ending... but overall it is very good.
With that, I will ask one closing question: what was your favorite aspect of the novel?
Personally, I loved the drastic changes in the character and being blindsided by so many things. At first, when Antonio's father comes home he's characterized as a "short" but playful man. The overall image of the father that I got from the naration was a warm and playful one. That is, until we realize that he's keeping a kid hostage in a hole and nearly kills him. That would be part of the "blindsiding" that I mentioned earlier. However, what I like most is that Ammaniti stays true to his character and shows through the opposition of Michele's father that he really is a good man and is against killing the boy. He even suggests releasing him when Filippo's parents refuse to pay the ransom. At the end, we see the father's realization to the truth and morality of the situation. He holds his son and throws down the gun. In that aspect, Michele's father represents the people of the world that benefited and saw the light after they killed Jesus. Which brings me back, in short, I agree Michele represents Jesus dying for the sins of others!
I noticed the foreshadowing as well. I thought that after Michele went back a second time to see the boy in the hole, he would want to do something to help him if he was alive, which I agree with him being a moral leader.
About the religious register in the story, yes I definitely agree with most of it. I agree with Ashley saying that religion is regional. Italians are more religious than those in the U.S., most countries besides the U.S. are. I agree with Dario saying the register being used to argue that Michele is a Christ-figure.
I don’t agree on the archangel Michael being considered as Jesus, even though they both come to mind when “chief of angels” is mentioned. I thought the archangel was more of a messenger for God. I would think that Michele was more of a Guardian angel looking over Filippo, instead of a chief angel. For some reason, I think that the author used the name Michael because honestly, most people don’t know the names of angels. You have Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Lucifer…can you name all the angels names? Exactly. And since Michael is probably the most mentioned angel, the author would’ve used that to give the readers a hint about the close relationship of the story and to religion. Even though I think the Archangel, Michael, is not considered Jesus, I think that Michele is like Jesus. Jesus dies for the sins of others; Michele dies to metaphorically cleanse his father’s sin, by taking the bullet for Fillipo.
We didn’t talk about the title yet. I’m Not Scared (I’m still scared that the dirty almost dead boy in the hole is going to attack me. =[ ) shows the bravery of a nine year old boy that has discovered something disturbing and has to transition to being a man and accepting it. Well, the title is another example of Michele being a Christ- figure. Jesus prays to God one night while his disciples are sleeping, and God tells Jesus of his fate: to die for our sins. In “The Passion of the Christ”, Jesus is depicted as being scared and begging God to not give him that fate, but he soon has to not be afraid of his fate.
Do you guys think the title has a deeper meaning?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm going to post in two separate comments because we've digressed into two different subjects, so just to keep them separate. To Dario, I think my favorite aspect of the book was the subtleness of the religion. Like I had already mentioned, it wasn't obvious to come up with these observations but now that we've finished the book, it's (may I say) rewarding to be able to make deeper connections to not only Jesus, but what Ammaniti was saying about life.
Now to Lilly,
Why is it that you thought the archangel was a messenger to God? What did you think Michele was trying to "tell" Filippo, since you applied it like that? And if you applied the fact that Michele was only a guardian angel, then how can we apply the fact that he represents a Christ figure since Jesus had a lot more authority over a bunch of angels, instead of just being one?
And no, I probably can't name all the angels seeing that there is an undefined number of them (stated in the Bible), but I don't think that matters either. Personally, I tend to hear more about Gabriel than Michael (in this context of him being compared to an archangel). You said that Ammaniti probably used Michael to suggest the affiliation with relgion. But WHAT affiliation is what we're trying to figure out. Michael and Gabriel are the only two angels given personal names in the canonic Bible. So Ammaniti could have easily used Gabriel, but by using Michele, or Michael, he lets us have that connection that I mentioned above. Not to mention that the name Michael means "who is like God," or "he who resembles God." Many people think that Jesus is God, (teaching of the Catholics of which I assume the author is, having it be the "official" (most prominent) religion of Italy. So, there again, is a connection between Michaele being the arcangel and Jesus.
As to the title, I think that's a good connection. The first time I made a connection to the title was on page 43 where it said, "I'm not scared of anything." In context, this was one of the first times that Michele tried to see the boy. So I think that it could, Lilly, have a connection to Jesus not being scared. But also, on a simpler level, I think it can mean exactly what it says. I mean, this book definitely develops the idea of maturing and losing the fear of certain consequences.
Hmm. I thought that the archangel was a messenger of God because I was thinking of the angel that appeared to Mary and Joseph about Mary being pregnant. Now that I think about it, I think the angel was Gabriel. Bad misunderstanding on my part. When I said that Michele was only a guardian angel, I meant to compare an archangel and a guardian angel, I guess I overlooked that before sending it. My fault again. I’m on of the people who think Jesus is God, my religion class used to make us remember by saying, “Jesus is God in a bod.”For the affiliation of using the name, Michael, I was just suggesting that the author might just want the reader to associate it with religion since religion is very subtle in the book. I for one didn’t even think much about religion until the story with Lazarus, then after that, I looked at Michele’s name and thought of the angel, Michael, just to show how religious it is. I can’t really explain it, ugh! Not having enough sleep just kills my thought process.
Anyway, I really don’t like open-ended endings. That killed The Giver for me, making me wonder if the boy died or not. I personally like happy endings.
I love learning about the Bible, I don't really know too much from it but I feel like I'm learning now!
Lilly asked "Do you guys think the title has a deeper meaning?" I think that all titles hold greater meaning in the context of the entire book. When I first read the title, it looked a bit like a mantra, something a little kid would repeat to himself as he's walking through a scary house or some place like that (which Michele does do.) Having finished the book I'd say that the reason I thought at the beginning is partially true but that also that Michele isn't scared to defy his parents and his little village to do the moral thing.
All of the people around him are afraid to do the right thing except for Michele. The other children are afraid to stand up to Skull when Barbra "loses" the race, but Michele realizes that what Skull was asking of Barbra was immoral and stands up against him. Even the adults in the community are afraid to stand up to Sergio (Michele's own father even) except for Michele. He directly defies his father's order to not go to Filippo and does the right thing.
Now of course Michele is scared, he's a child, but I see the title as something he tells himself before bravely doing the right thing... What do you guys think?
[The original title in Italian was "Io Non Ho Paura" which I always thought would better translate to "I Don't Have Fear" but for our purposes sounds less awkward as "I'm not scared."]
Alright, I'm going to split up everything I've read of the blog.
In the discussion about Antonio's nickname, Skull, it was said that the nickname characterized his personality. First off, I want to mention the irony I see there. His last name is Natale which means Christmas which you should know is a holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus (even if he was not born that day). So a skull is associated with dark qualities such as death, which is the first thing that comes to mind for me. Skull vs. christmas, the irony can also be related to his character. Skull is the supposed leader of the gang of friends. Leaders are meant to be strong, but not only physically like Skull. In fact, the true leader of that group of friends is the quite slim Michele who has demonstrated his leadership qualities through the same actions previously talked about (deciding to do the forfeit). Skull is hollow, hard outside, but nothing on the inside.
Here is my take on the translations. It really isn't a big deal. Whenever there seems to be an English specific word, just use some minor context clues, for instance the transfer. It was pretty easy to figure out that the narrator was talking about a tattoo. So therefore the publishing company did reach their goal, just use some context clues and "the closer we are to reading the actual book" (Katie).
One thing I would like to disagree with is Lilly's remark, "religion is very subtle in the book." Religion rings throughout the entire story. Antonio Natale, his name is Michele for a reason, the dream about Jesus and Lazrus, Barbara being compared to a lamb who relieves their sins, Filippo titles Michele a guardian angel, there are many more examples these are just the first few that come to mind right away. Yeah, I like the discussion about the register and how it portrays Michele as a Christ figure. I'm just going to add some further evidence to back up the current argument: Michele looks out for his younger sister even when it seemed most daunting because he knew it was the right thing to do.
I'm going to cut it off here, because I think the post is getting fairly long. It's just that this is a very exciting conversation!
Man, I didn't finish my last comment.
to Dario, even though the ending was open ended, its pretty obvious that Michele dies =[. that's why I said, I like happy endings, and not so much stories like these.
This is my interpretation of the ending. Michele's death was spelled out for him when he first had his nightmare back in chapter one or so. It seemed like an unconscious warning, "Leave the dead alone", and if you think about it, if he had, then he would never had taken the bullet.
Well, I'm sorry but Jesus is dead. More importantly, Jesus has to die. In the book we see a truly corrupt sides of adult in the form of violence. A grave sin has been made, and cleansing or enlightenment is needed to fix the whole mess. In the old testament I believe, God became a very hateful towards humans due to the action of taking the fruit of knowledge. He remained this way until the actions of his son took place. He sacrificed himself to save the entire population, and I believe this allowed the ascent to heaven. So, as everyone agreed to before, Michele is our Christ figure. His sacrifice saves more than just one life that day. Death would bring enlightenment to his father and his group of friends. It would allow the father and his friends to repent for what they had done which in turn would lead to the release of Filippo. That was Jesus' ultimate affect on the human race. Michele dies, to cleanse the corruption of the adults, which also highlights that perhaps as a child Michele was more mature than his own father, and his counterparts.
Well, my favorite part of the book was in the beginning. Michele and his friends went to find out if Melichetti really threw his daughters dachshund into his pigsty to be eaten because it peed in the house. When they confronted the man, he told them the real story and told Skull to not make up lies. I liked it because I did not like Skull’s heartless character and abusing his “power” as leader. It was like an “in your face!” moment to him. I would have lost all my trust in him if I was his friend. Melichetti made him look like a jerk, which would make him even bigger of a jerk that an adult would do that.
While I agree that Michele is a Christ figure in our novel, I would still argue that you can interpret Michele as alive at the end, simply losing consciousness as everything goes "dark." If you think about it, Michele's father realizes through the action of shooting his son the wrongs of his ways and his son does not have to die for the people of the town to see the wrongs as well. When an innocent child is shot and, let's say, nearly killed, the message is sent. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be stronger or more effective if the bullet had killed Michele, which it might have depending on how you interpreted the ending. My argument is that depending on whether or not you think it takes a death to set a message in stone and really have it hit home or just a wounding it is ultimately up to the reader to decide whether Michele dies or not. (I know that in the movie he probably does not die as he is shot in the leg [not usually that lethal] and is conscious when his father holds him.)
Also, to respond to the claim that Michele has to die because he is our Christ figure: an author has the final say on whether or not to use every part of a story he or she adopts. For example, Michele is certainly not 30 years of age but we still consider him a Christ figure. In the same way, it can be argued that Michele does not have to die for him to be labeled a Christ figure.
The issue I would like to bring up is the author's choice of using Michele's father as being apart of the kidnapping.
Alright, the way I see it, the father is nicknamed "Pino" which was revealed to the reader by his wife. Pino is a nickname for Giuseppe. Now we know that Giuseppe was Maria's husband, making him, according to the bible stories, the non biological father of Jesus. I'm assuming Ammaniti named the father Giuseppe for this purpose. Now being the father figure to jesus, and being the father of Michele, why be the demise of Jesus?
It could have been any one of those kidnappers to end Michele's life but there is a specific reason to choose his own father. I am thinking there is a biblical background to this. Was it God who killed Jesus? I am unclear of the specifics of the death of Jesus. For instance, was it God who told Jesus that he HAD to die in order to save his people? If so perhaps that is the reason for choosing Michele's father to be the end to Michele's life (yes i still stand on Michele is dead).
You do not have to be thirty years old to be a Christ figure. But certainly to follow the story of Christ the largest event of Jesus's life is his death!
But I don't want to get caught up in that argument because it is not concrete whether or not Michele actually is dead, even though we all know he is dead. What I would like to talk about is the title. Before reading the book I saw the title to mean the phrase we all say to ourselves inside our heads going into a fearful activity. Before a mountain climb of thousands of feet high, one would say "I'm not scared" even if fear is felt. It is a reassuring phrase.
In context, the phrase comes up as he enters the shack where the "dead" boy lays. Of course Michele is scared, but there he says to himself "I'm not scared." I feel like the title is a great choice for the book seeing as fear is a common theme throughout the story. Whether it is being haunted by the images of ogres, werewolves, and witches or just being afraid to do the right thing. Well, Michele may have been afraid of ogres, but he was never afraid of doing the right thing.
Another thing! The translation choice of I'm not scared vs. I do not have fear, in my opinion, the former is the best. Mainly because that phrase is meant to be read as a dialogue. In plain speech dialogue we say I'm not scared or I'm not afraid. I feel like the translator was wise in choosing the better title.
Certainly Jesus's death is a large part of the Christ figure story but it does not have to be included... I think it even said that specifically in our "How to Read Like a Professor" book but I can't quote it because I do not have my books or note with me. (wish I did!)
I think we need some other opinions on this... I know it's a bit late but I think we've hit our first real disagreement. I wish it would have come yesterday or earlier today. Katie, Ashley, Lilly? I'll ask you tomorrow if you don't respond now!
P.S. I'm not saying that Michele definitely does live, but that it can be interpreted that way. What do you guys think?
Wow, half a day without checking the blog and so much progress has been made!
Joe, I'd like to say excellent job on your posting. I knew there was religion in this book, but I really did not pick up on the family mimicking Joseph and Maria, the parents of Jesus (Michele).
AS to the title, I think I agree with both Dario and Joe, justyfying the titles. I think that if it were translated "I do not have fear" it almost seems more powerful, it's something that you do not have, it's not carried with you. The title I'm Not Scared, however, seems like a little kid would say it. I understand that a little kid does say it, but we're also comparing him to Jesus. I do not have fear just sounds better. To me, part of the difference is in the contraction. When we learned to write and argument, we learned to not use contractions. We shouldn't compared to we should no. We should not has a firmer meaning, as if one if sure and secure of what they're saying. So that's why in the title, I feel like "I'm Not Scared" conveys a bit of uncertainty.
Now, as to the Jesus dying or not. I don't think a literal death is necessary to be a Christ figure. If we think about it, what is dying for others' sins anyway? Is it not just a sacrifice? I think this is the important part.
In the book, Michele (even unwillingly) sacrifices his leg (well, it being healthy) which in the end, like some have mentioned, allows his family and friends to repent their sins.
Something just came to me! Ok, so have we considered point of view yet? The point of view is of Michele. It isn't an omniscient 3rd person narrator. It is Michele recounting the story that happened in 1978. So therefore, he's alive! I thought we'd never figure it out, so I'm a bit happy. So now Joe, what do you think? Can you not relate Jesus to Michele anymore? I still think they should be, and like I said, sacrifice is key, not death.
You got me =(
Thank you Katie :] So, yes he still a Christ figure, even though he doesn't die. As to the title, I don't think that "I'm Not Scared" is a worse title than "I do not have fear" because of the syntax but because it is less literal and loses some of the original meaning bestowed in the original "Io non ho paura." The book (or at least the translation) is informal and uses contractions throughout so I do not have a problem with the contraction in the title.
Post a Comment
<< Home