- Consider Locke's use of "for your own good" and the ways that one person imposing his/her will on another is in tension with the possibility of the recipient "owning" that good.
- Sometimes the "/" (vergule) is used to indicate the instability of categories. For example, talking about "dis/ability" suggests that: 1) disability and ability are always in relation to each other, 2) disability and ability might coexist, 3) we might consider disability "or" ability, etc. (Anderson & Merrill, 2001).
For those of you who want to try a hand at this type of analysis, let's do that here. Some techniques might include:
- Find a very short piece of text and read it multiple ways. You might try out the dictionary activity Peter described in class or generate your own meanings. To use a common deconstructive metaphor, how does the language/meaning "slip"?
- Make a statement about the surface ideology of the text--the meaning that, for the moment, seems "obvious" to you. Then find ambiguities in the text or counter-evidence. What contradictions can we find? What do you now consider to be the sub-text?
Play with different ways of reading the verse. What happens when you treat the shape of the words on the page in different ways?
I have only made it through roughly the first half of the book, but it is already rife with passages begging for deconstruction. Before I get to that, however, I'd like to make a few comments about the overall trends here that reflect some of the basic principals of deconstructive criticism. For example, our text states that the multiplicity of human identity is a point of interest. It is clear to see that this idea is being toyed with in a way that is central to our understanding of Crank. The most obvious instance of multiple identities is the fact that Kristina develops a secondary persona, Bree, in a sub/semiconscious attempt to better suit the tastes of a boy she meets. Interestingly enough, this young man has also adopted the alternative appellation of "Buddy," when his real name is in fact Adam. Deconstructive Theory tells to be aware of the instability of identity in all texts—this text is making that pretty easy for us.
ReplyDeleteBut what does it mean? In terms of the genesis of these alternative personas, there is indication of a correlation with the use of a drug, methamphetamine in this case. Kristina is a fairly straight-laced individual—"the perfect daughter," as indicated on the back-cover—but there still exists within her the desire for a certain species of pleasurable chaos. The outward appearance—the identity—associated with the name Kristina, however, cannot acknowledge these deep-seated longings while remaining whole. Admittedly, the creation of Bree precedes the use of any drug (except maybe nicotine), but Methamphetamine crystalizes (pun intended?) this alternate identity. It is often said that a drug can make people do things that "aren't the person" but the drug acting through them, but I get the distinct impression that this idea is being questioned in the text. Kristina alerts us to her desire for Adam, and although she resists the urge at first, she succumbs to it rather swiftly, especially after she meets "the monster." (Consider, also, that this text is actually written by the mother of a meth addict, and that we might "zoom out" a little bit to see that she might be tempted to blame the actions of her daughter on the drug itself.)
Steve, I'm so glad you brought up the concept of the "mother telling her daughter's true story," since reading the introductory statement I found myself questioning the narrative's motives. I was struck instantly by early references to Kristina's father (and mother, for that matter), since this seemed almost a conflict-of-interest within the book. The initial depiction of Kristina's father as entirely without merit, an addict and degenerate, guiltless, unapproachable, and unsupportive, seems somewhat clouded/exaggerated from an ex-wife's perspective, rather than that of a bitter daughter. (Or maybe this is just the author's bias toward melodrama?) While no doubt some fathers are as despicable as Kristina's, the author seems to be employing her own negatively warped emotions toward her ex-husband to shape this character as partially "at fault" for her daughter's fall from grace. The mother's blame is relegated to keeping this awful man away from the children, which, as it turns out, would actually have been a wise plan. (The parental-bias argument is only strengthened when the father confesses that no woman will ever compare to Kristina's mother.) Even positive portrayals of her father later on would not be able to alter the reader’s initial sense of mother/daughter helplessness.
ReplyDeleteI questioned whether Ellen Hopkins’ exploration of Bree might help uncover the author’s own dark side, since it’s not known how Kristina’s innocent mother could have fallen for a "bad boy" like Kristina's father; this would seem to parallel her daughter’s love for Adam. Both she and her mother seem to have been caught up in a debilitating lust for danger.
A final thought, along Steve's lines: if an author is expected to portray the meth experience accurately, must we assume she's "translating" her daughter's words, improvising on other addicts' confessions, or has experience with the drug herself? And if, as is likely, she is only relaying what she "thinks" it's like to be an addict, isn’t that itself subject to the author's interpretation? Thus Hopkins’ assessment of the reasons for Kristina’s addiction is subject to bias. Trying to tell her daughter’s story, the author seems to place significant blame on peer pressure, on supposedly uncontrollable teenage angst/lust, and on the undeniable craving for a high. This little acknowledges Kristina’s lapse in self-control and addiction may rest, at least partially, in her own, purposeful doing – something that may be difficult for a mother to face.