Week 2 Post

In class, we discussed the stereotypes of vampires throughout media and culture. They are commonly held as creatures that are dark and evil, they prey on humans for blood and generally drain or transform their victims into other vampires. They are weak to the sun, don't have reflections and . Other more modern lores paint vampires as shiny statues of aesthetic perfection that feed off of animals or humans. In Gomez's novel, even early on, we see that the vampires that appear in her book are much different than the vampires that we see in many other books and stories. In the first two chapters, we encounter vampires that are not just blood sucking monsters who live forever, rather we encounter people who have logic like the original Gilda and Bird. The original Gilda is compassionate and kind, as well as thoughtful of those around her. She is also a woman, something that was not very common until modern vampire lore. Bird is a Native American and the new Gilda is an African American. Vampires of different ethnicities was also something that wasn't commonplace until modern society introduced them, and even then they were very few in number and still lost a lot of the characteristics that made them racially human. Becoming a vampire no longer makes one pale and pasty, regardless of their color. Rather, they stay the same, looking as they did in life. Also, there is an introduction of homosexuality in vampire society. Generally vampires are male and heterosexual predators who take pleasure in draining blood from women, especially virgins. In the Gilda stories, not only is Gilda non-selective about whom she drains from, she is also a lesbian vampire who is benevolent in nature. In the first two chapters, we see that there is a significant difference between the vampires in western culture and the vampires in the Gilda Stories

Derrick Alma

Week 2 - Chap 1&2

In The Gilda Stories Gilda herself should not be placed in the same light that the majority of people see vampires in as she both does not act like them and does not think like them. The story brings us to this a bit at a time, introducing part-by-part that these vampires are not the standard ones we are used to. It does so by taking (the new) Gilda in from slavery, helping her and introducing her to them. It then shows that even though she needs blood to survive, she gives back to them in return in the form of good dreams and giving them suggestions to help them in the future, therefore hopefully repenting for taking someones blood without their consent. After we have gotten used to the idea of this type of vampire Eleanor is introduced in the light as most of the vampires we have all heard of, driving a large wedge in-between Gilda and what we used to perceive as "all vampires" in our thoughts.

The Gilda Stories Ch. 1 and 2

Is Gilda really a monster in comparison to the typical vampires that we know? Typical vampires have the characteristics of only taking blood and then killing their victims. Yes, Gilda also takes blood from people but is she seen as this murderous vampire? I believe that taking blood from others is a wrong thing to do. However, there really isn't another, better way to go about getting the blood. All the other options have disadvantages and are out of the question. Other than taking blood, Gilda is not a typical "evil" vampire. Taking blood from others is not a hobby for her, this is what she needs to survive. It's not like she does it to hurt people either; she only takes as much blood as she needs and would never take so much that it would kill the person. In a way, I think she knows that taking blood from others is wrong and therefore she tries to make it right by giving more than she takes. To cancel it out, she puts good ideas in the people's minds of whose blood she takes. She tries to make things right and give good advice. Gilda uses her power of reading people's minds to help and not harm. Someone in class also mentioned that humans kill in order to get the things we need but we never give anything back in return. This poses the question, are humans really any better than Gilda?

These first two chapters have been a real challenge to read. However, it introduces us to new things that we never would have thought of. We are so used to things that society sees as normal or typical and now we are introduced to the unordinary. When we think vampire, we think fangs, Dracula, bats, coffins, and murder. When would we ever thought of a female African American vampire that doesn't kill and does good actions?

-Bethany Davis (Post #2)

The Gilda Stories Chapters 1&2

Jewelle Gomez's book "The Gilda Stories" really breaks the mold on the subject of vampires and the perception that most people have when they read or think about vampires. In the first two chapters we see that not all vampires are concerned with killing, but they are concerned with being a "family" of sorts and looking out for each other. We read about the challenges they faced in keeping their true identity a secret. Many of them have moved in the past and try to stay out of the public's sight.

The practice of sustaining life through acquiring blood is a complex and controversial one. Some vampires that we encounter in the book, like Gilda and Bird, only take enough from their victims to maintain their lives. Other vampires like Eleanor have a more violent take on the practice and have been accused of entrancing and killing for fun. Gilda herself doesn't like to take more than she needs and tries to help her victims by slipping positive thoughts into their heads in exchange for the blood she took.

Dan Muscarella

The Gilda Stories Chapters One and Two

Gomez gives a very interesting perspective on vampires in her book that was very different for me.  Most of the vampire books that I have read, or vampire movies that I have seen portray vampires as evil and malicious--and occasionally there are stories about vampires as "lost souls" but there is always this 'secret' part of them that they try to hide that is this evil monster inside that most of them cannot control.  So, seeing Gomez write about these kinds of vampires--acting so normal and human is a new twist.  Her vampires are kind, and clearly don't wish people harm--more than any human.

The passage we read in class was interesting, and the discussion that followed, because really, how can you make drinking blood from humans, humane?  I'm sure there is no easy way to go about asking, or taking in such a way that you aren't being a total monster.  I do believe though, that what she is doing is wrong, that taking blood the way she does isn't right, it isn't fair, but on the flip side, it's not really her fault that she has to drink blood for survival.  If there is one thing about all living creatures that is sure, it's that survival is hard wired into our DNA and we fight for that about all else, so I can't blame her for doing what she does because it is who she is.

Allison Weening, Post 2

Gilda Stories Chap 1 & 2 Post

My second post will be a continuation of our class discussion of whether Gilda is truly evil or if she is a good person as most vampires are perceived as bad or evil people. In class we discussed the actions of Gilda and analyzed whether this was good or bad. Gilda preys on unsuspecting victims for their blood. Once she attacks, she feeds on them for her own well-being. However, unlike many other vampires, Gilda gives something in return to her victims. I believe that the act of feeding off of humans for their blood is entirely wrong. These people are VICTIMS, which is an important word to emphasize. It would be the same instance of being robbed, stabbed, shot & etc, you are the victim. If you were stabbed or shot, it wouldn't really make a difference whether you received something in return for it, would it? It doesn't give back your sense of security, comfort and your life which has been taken for the well being of someone else. I believe this is an evil act which violates people, whether or not something is given back to the victim.
However, I do not believe Gilda wishes to harm anyone and that she dislikes that this is what she has to do in order to survive. It's very unfortunate. I believe Gilda is still a good person and that her intentions are not to hurt others.

Angela Feeney post #2

The Gilda Stories Chapter 1 and 2 Post

Going into this class I really didn't know a lot about vampires and their mythology. I just had seen them in violent horror movies in the past and never really read about them in novels. So in a way this book has opened my eyes to the world of vampire novels and how they are portrayed differently in different forms of media. What was really interesting was in chapter one we learned about the ways the vampires acted and their mannerisms. To my surprise the vampires were civilized and generally good people. They only had to feed when they had to and didn't take thrill or pleasure from the feeding. They only did it to sustain their life. Mostly in pop culture you see violent vampires who take pleasure in stalking and killing their victims. Even starting with the earliest Dracula films this stereotype of violent vampires has been around. So this book strays away from that trend which I think is a very interesting view on vampires. This really opened my eyes to see that vampires our portrayed in different ways and people accept the different ways the vampires are portrayed.
Then when we read chapter two we learned that not all vampires are good. Some vampires do fit the stereotype that pop culture had portrayed them in years based. The vampire in the book Eleanor, fits that example of a vampire that takes thrill in violence and bringing pain unto people, be it some type of physical pain or mental pain. She likes to play mind games with people like she did with Samuel and the situation with his wife, as well as instigating violence like how she wanted Gilda to kill. So in the novel there is an extreme clash of vampire "values" in the book, there are good vampires and bad ones. I predict maybe throughout the novel we will see more of this confrontation between the two sects of vampires and the different values they have and believe in.

Post Number Two Kenny Liszewski

The Gilda Stories Ch.1 & 2

In the first chapter, Gilda transformed from a human being to a vampire. She is being introduced to a new lifestyle that has keened in on her ability to survive as a vampire. Gilda does not portray traditional vampire qualities, in that she does not kill her victims. Instead she gets in her victims' minds and tries to pursuade them to live a lifestyle that she seems to find more suitable in her opinion.

We perceive vampires as murderers and evil creatures - but when Gilda was faced with this challenge, she did not condone it. She would not kill the victim that Eleanor commanded her to to kill. Gilda seems to still be learning the ways of her newfangled life as a vampire. Gilda has learned enough to know righteous compassion for human life.

As the story progresses, it will be interesting to see if Gilda retains her empathy and composure, with the pressure she will be exposed to from her peers.



Scott Swan

Post 2

Week Post Number Two: The Gilda Stories Chapters One & Two

Although I really don't agree with Gilda reading into her victim's thoughts and feeding off of people, the class discussion has persuaded me into viewing Gilda as a flawed existence rather than a monster or evil.
Gilda needs blood in order for her to keep living her immortal life. In exchange, she reads into her victims minds, playing into their thoughts to compensate for her taking some of their blood. I guess this isn't much different from us; we kill animals, even torture them and act vicioulsy towards them because some people view them as nothing more than food. Just because they are animals, some people view animals as a level below humans. I am not a vegetarian but I do believe that animals should be treated kindly. Me eating meat really isn't much different from Gilda taking blood from people. Actually, Gilda is probably better because she gives her victims something in return and doesn't kill them.
If there is any vampire to consider a monster, i'd be Eleanor. She doesn't go through the exchange and feeds off of people's emotions towards her. She enjoys manipulatino and treats people like toys. She has no respect for their lives, emotions, or how things play out in the end. This reminds me of a passage from page 31: "the source of power will tell in how long lived that power is." Eleanor's power is short lived, therefore causing her to jump from victim to victim. Gilda, on the other hand, experiecnes a longer lived power because she exchanges her victims blood for a fantasy or happier thoughts.

Pam Kawalerski
Post #2

Week #2 Post

For this weeks post I think I will choose to focus on the discussion that took place in class today regarding whether one would/should classify Gilda as "evil", good, or a "monster".

Personally, I feel that the classification of a "monster" for Gilda herself is completely inappropriate. I see this because as we also discussed, the vampires in the Gilda Stories are most certainly different from the stereotypical blood-drinking, people-killing vampires that we all know. In saying so, one could classify the "typical" vampire as a monster as they take lives each night. In comparison, Gilda simply takes only the amount of blood needed and in return supplies a generous vision for her "victims". This also can relate to the comparison to "humans doing the same thing". Vampires NEED blood to survive, and it seems as if Gilda would not agree to taking blood from humans if there was indeed another way. I feel that she has some sympathy in the matter or else she would find satisfaction in killing, like another character we know...Overall, taking blood IS wrong, but there seems to be no other way. Also, she provides a means of happiness to her "victims" which seems as she is trying to give back for taking the blood, which is good.

The first two chapters of this book have opened a new knowledge to vampires, different from that we are used to knowing. Typically, we usually hear about the Witch Trials, etc. during the 19ths Century. This, I would say, goes hand in hand. Gilda is an African American vampire, clearly one significantly "un-excepted" in norm society during this time period, just as witchcraft was frowned upon. All in all, the first two chapters can be looked upon as the start to an opening of a new outlook on outcast-hood and I look forward as a new chapter approaches.


Courtney Bisher

AAC

On a completely different note:

Upon approval by our instructor, Jeff, I am pleased to advise everyone about the new club on campus this semester!

1.)This Thursday at 4pm in OM 201, will be the first general body meeting of the Animal Allies Club of Canisius College. As Vice President, I invite you all to learn about the club and enjoy some free food!

2.)We will also be having a bake sale on the 11th and also on Valentine's Day(14th), so come grab your sweetheart some good grub!

3.) Thirdly, we will be having a film screening of "Fantastic Mr. Fox" soon!

I conclude that this is completely random, especially for an English blog post. However, being a new club, we run by the word of mouth at this moment. So, in saying so, if you have ANY questions, be sure to ask. I don't bite. :D



CHECK US OUT ON FACEBOOK!
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=154396777933518

OR, feel free to email me at bisherc@canisius.edu

Week #1 Post

In response to number 1.)

According to Alice Walker, "one cannot truly have freedom unless one becomes an outcast". This "theory" can be compared in both her poem, "Be Nobody's Darling", as well as in other works of writing that we have read in class thus far. The interpretation and definition of an "outcast" is both familiar among everyone, as well as a bit different, depending on the person. One, like Alice Walker, would define an outcast as an individual that is to be proud to be different and stand apart from the rest. However, an outcast can be also be looked upon as someone who does not fit in, someone who you would not want to be.

In comparison to other readings, "Fleur", and "Mrs. Sen's", "Be Nobody's Darling" is the simplest. Both Erdich, and Lahiri choose to focus on two characters in one scenario, as two different retrospects. They do this, whereas Walker seems to propose to a wider audience, where everyone that feels left out can find unity and hope in her words. When it comes to having true freedom with being an outcast, I can configure that Erdich would agree while Lahiri would not agree.

Erdich, the author of "Fluer" writes of two characters, Fleur and Pauline, Pauline being the narrator. One can gather that from Fleur's eyes, "outcast-hood" is individualism, as well as freedom. She chooses to live her live anew when moving to the new town. Although she is described by Pauline as one who could brighten up a room with her good looks, Fleur sees beyond that in regards to simply living easy. Based upon her past of being mysterious and practically being shunned away from her old town, Fleur starts new, showing to Pauline that being an outcast simply makes you an individual and you must make yourself happy. Pauline, however, sees things in a different light. Towards the beginning, Pauline is lost in herself and is invisible to everyone else. Pauline is wrapped around the fact that since she is invisible, she is a nobody. However, this is changed when Fleur comes into town and teaches her that YOU are in charge of who YOU want to be, and she does just that. These two woman find FREEDOM from their individuality/"outcast-hood".

On the other side of the spectrum we have Lahiri, the author of "Mrs. Sen's". Lahiri writees of two characters as well, Mrs. Sens and Elliot. Both characters are outcasts in their own ways. Mrs. Sens is still trying to adapt to the American culture, while Elliot is just trying to find himself and look beyond the life that he leads. The end of the story leaves the reader pondering, as it does not end with your typical "happy-ending". Mrs. Sens is forced to the farthest point where she can no longer strive to be independent. Elliot is left home alone, no longer with a babysitter. Lahiri seems to propose that there is not always a happy ending. **While being an outcast can give you freedom, freedom is often lonely.

One can summarize that being an outcast has both positive and negative aspects.


Courtney Bisher, Post 1 Comparison

Steven Wells Blog #1

I believe that the characters in "No Name Woman" and "Fleur" have their story told by outside narrators for a few reasons. One reason is for them to have a sense of mystery associated with them. You don't ever really know if Fleur is a witch who kills people, or if it is just rumor. If the story was told from Fleur's perspective, then it would be a lot more straight forward. The same goes for the aunt in "No Name Woman". You learn everything about her just from other people think about her. You never really know if she was raped or not, or who she had sex with. If she was able to speak in her own voice, then she would probably tell us what really happened and be able to explain many rumors to us.
The main reason why these two characters are told by outside narrators is to allow us to see why they are an outcast. These two characters are outcasts because of the way people view them. They could be normal people like everyone else, but many people jump to conclusions and make rumors about them, not even knowing if the rumors are true. These stories being told from outside narrators made me see why we can wrongfully label people as outcasts.

Pam's Post

Both Jhumpa Lahiri’s “Mrs. Sen” and Maxine Hong Kingston's "No Name Woman" contain characters of different cultures; Mrs. Sen is of Indian heritage in, “Mrs. Sen”, and speaker of , “No Name Woman”, is of Asian decent. Both characters display a struggle with their place in American culture in relation to their traditional ways. Mrs. Sen sets up her home in a simply, Indian way with many rugs, colours, and always makes dinner for her husband, never ordering out. She does not know how to drive therefore limiting her freedom and dresses traditionally, in a sari. The speaker in, “No Name Woman”, displays herself as torn between acting as though her aunt that brought shame to her family never existed in order to maintain honour for her family or to remember her aunt, which could be turbulent.

The main difference between these two characters is that although Mrs. Sen tried to break her own boundaries, she failed to push herself after her failure in driving while the speaker in, “No Name Woman”, knows no limits. She, in a sense, went a step further; she pushed her own boundary lines, disregarding her instructions of her mother which were to never think about her aunt ever. By publishing a work about her aunt and the hardship that she faced with her adultery, bearing a child from that, and her suicide, she is keeping her aunts memory alive. Mrs. Sen does makes an effort to gain freedom by driving but let her fear eat away at any chance of that. When she finally decides to go to the market, without Mr. Sen or a license, she crashes and cries in her room after leaving the reader unsure of what happens to her in the end.

Pam Kawalerski
Post #1