Outrageous People 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
9 comments
9 Comments:
Hey guys, so I'm almost finished with the book now...I still have couple more pages to go, and I left off where Myrna is trying to 'save' Ignatius.
After finding out about Ignatius' mom getting married, Myrna replies "What? Who'd marry her?"
and Ignatius replies "Thank God you understand..."
Reading that made me laugh out loud, and started to make me think about their characters. I never really noticed how similar they are, and how their characters reflect one another so well. They are both outrageous people, with outrageous outlooks on life. Ignatius despises the modern world he lives in, while Myrna believes sex can solve most of the world's problems. Also, she is reason for most of the outrageous stints Ignatius gets himself into(Levy Pants riot?har har).
So what do you guys think about their relationship towards one another?
Replying to Jessica about the relationship between Ignatius and Myrna, I believe that Myrna acts as a catalyst and motivation for Ignatius through her letters which criticize him. Ignatius seems to have a child-like rivalry with her, only doing anything just to spite her. Their views upon the world are also very different which emphasizes their rivalry. Ignatius seems to be born in the wrong time period as he hates anything modern and commercial while Myrna believes sex makes the world go round (showing that she accepts the modern world as the modern world is more open and accepting of sex). Despite Ignatius hate for the modern world, its seems that ironically he would be nothing without it as he thrives off criticizing and mocking every detail of the present. I find it interesting how Myrna is not physically seen by the audience in the book until the very end despite her significant role and impact she has Ignatius. Myrna also seems to be the only one who can actually persuade Ignatius to get off his lazy butt.
I would like to ask my group: to how big of a role does fortune actually play in the novel? Even though Ignatius constantly blames his horrible luck on the goddess Fortuna who spins his wheel of fortune up or down, I believe that Ignatius acts on his own free will and the aftermath of whatever action are consequences and not fate. Or maybe perhaps Ignatius is ironically fate himself as he is able to unknowingly pass judgment to whomever he meets such as allowing Ms. Trixie to finally retire or getting the three lesbians, Lana, and George arrested.
I would also like some feedback on the role of Jones. I know that he saved Ignatius from being hit by a bus, but I feel like there was more to him and his actions. Perhaps there is significance in his appearance, or maybe his reason to work at the Night of Joy portrayed and subtly commented on the lifestyle of an African American at the time. He was always talking about slavery, maybe he was a symbol for modern slavery and exploitation.
Jones subtly commented on the lifestyle of an African American at the time. He was always talking about slavery, maybe he was a symbol for modern slavery and exploitation.
Along with your point, Jones also commented about American society during this time.
Going back to Chapter 3, Jones remarks on the fiscal significance of American society. He says, “you better not be droppin silver dollar coins, Night of Joy be going bankrupt”(88). Lana Lee is a miser that cares only about money. Her attitude is “doing whatever it takes to make a buck”. Ignatius does not yield on the subject of American society and connecting back to the beginning of the story, New Orleans is characterized by its corruption.
Jones is the depiction of modern slavery and exploitation because he is paid under minimum wage and because of his fear to go back to jail accepts his situation. Jones’ situation is reminiscent of other African Americans in the south; a time where they subjugated themselves to tasks that didn’t pay much at all because they feared the police.
How big of a role does fortune actually play in the novel?
Although Ignatius feels powerless to Fortuna, I think he is in complete control of his actions. For example, while he has his job at Levy pants, Ignatius strives to do as little work as possible. In a self absorbed manner, when he’s told to file, he makes a sign instead. But there are times when Fortuna plays a pivotal role. For example when Ignatius stumbles upon the Hotdog vendor, this can be seen as an instance where Fortuna is playing her role. But again, Ignatius takes control of the situation and does what he wants.
I propose, is Ignatius Fortuna in guise? Ignatius’ actions end up affecting other characters.
I think fortune definitely plays a huge part in the entire book. Though Ignatius does seem to take control of the situations he gets himself into, I think fortune is what gets him into those situations in the first place. Which brings on the next point that Victor brought up, "is Ignatius Fortuna in guise? Ignatius’ actions end up affecting other characters."
That could very well be possible; even though it may not be his intentions at all, his character seems to effect everyone he ends up being in contact with. Though at first his encounters with them may seem horrible at first, by the end of the book, it allows for them to come out better by the end of the story; which is essentially what the role of fate usually does.
Without a doubt, an excellent example for this is Ignatius's effect on Patrolman Mancuso. It was all because of his little brush with Ignatius in the beginning of the book that lead to his fall and then eventual rise; finally getting the promotion he's striven for since the beginning. And all the morally corrupt(Lana Lee and her soft core porn, George) end up getting what they deserve, all due to Ignatius. I don't think Ignatius had any intention of causing all this from the beginning, he just seems like an arrogant dunce, who seems to play the role of fate in the storyline.
Thinking about Ignatius playing the role of fate, how do you think Toole's style of writing contributes to this?
First reading the story, we previously discussed how the storyline seems to jump from one to another so often, but by the end of the book, I realized Ignatius seems to have effected all of those storylines in some way, and like a puzzle piece, it all seems to fit together into a whole.
How do you guys feel about this? Do you think Toole's style of writing is effective?
I love the point you made, “Ignatius [didn’t] have any intention of causing [events] from the beginning.” I feel that’s the beauty of Fortuna, it is not planned out. Excuse my generalization but people depend on Fortuna because her randomness. Fortune may occur at any time or it may not occur. For example, Patrolman Mancuso with all his effort is trying to move up at the station but his tyrannical chief keeps him down. When your strength isn’t enough, who do you turn to? I believe that individuals are in charge of their own Fates, Destinies, etc but when left with close to nothing, we depend on Fate.
Does Fate fall along the same line as Hope? I agree that Fate is characterized by ones dependence to it but is it like Hope? The Romans would not approve if all one did was depend on her.
To further answer your question,
“How do you think Toole's style of writing contributes to this?”
100% of Toole’s style lies in the (juxtaposing) the many characters in the novel. Which is effective and as you eloquently stated, “like a puzzle piece, it all seems to fit together.”
Please correct me if I’m using the wrong literary term.
If we’re to write a paper, I suggest we should definitely look at Toole’s writing style with the characters.
In line with JMa’s question, what type of narration is the book told in? I remember we attempted to attack this question in class.
Point of view seems to play a paramount view in characterizing the characters in Toole’s novel. It seems like the point of view for each character differs depending on who is narrating. For example Ignatius seems to believe that he is superior to everyone who conforms to the modern society yet others like Myrna views him like a rival and is amused with him or Lana views him as a big hulking useless dolt. I think the contrasting point of views adds on to the irony. I feel like also point of view is also used to reveal that many of the characters all share the same type of arrogance that Ignatius has but just hide it better.
Post a Comment
<< Home