"All of the garbage of this city? Where do they take it? I don't know where they take it--but it might very well be my room."
This quote to me made me think of Giovanni in a whole new light. This coupled with his actions later on after losing his job steer us in a new way of thinking about him. We originally saw him as this very suave, debonair, and effortlessly charming man, however, now he looks very vulnerable and not very confident in himself.
I somehow found it really odd, how the French men in the story grew "weaker" as characters as time went on, not sure of who they really were, and David as a person actually "found himself." I mean, while it might be an "American phrase," David seems to be going in the opposite direction of all of these French men in terms of development.
Jacques, Guillaume, and even Giovanni are seemingly descending into a form of madness. They haven't found themselves yet, and David actually seems like he is actually "finding himself." He even admits his feelings for Giovanni in Chapter 3 as he loved him like he would never love any other man, and although he's still struggling with who he is, he doesn't treat or call himself scum so much as the French men do.
Also, another interesting note, all of the mental breakdowns occur in each character's respective room. Guillaume in the bar, and Giovanni in his room. Maybe this tells us of the nature of these rooms more in this French culture, and maybe it shows us how truly necessary these rooms are.
I think, Daniel, this change of personality has to do with his upbringing with his father. Like we talked about last Thursday, David has to be like father-figure when his father indulged in drinking. His has a somewhat huge effect on him in that David jeopardized his future by dropping out the college and went on to 'find himself' in Paris. I couldn't agree with you when you said that he became more vulnerable and not confident. I think this is due to the fact that he is seeing more of reality far from what he envisioned.
This book is increasingly making me detest the pet term "baby". Every time calls someone 'baby' I cringe. At first I thought it was merely because it sounded, or read, silly, and so out of place in the book. But the more often the appeared, I began to realizing how demeaning and utterly ingenuine it sounds. In this way he is not only seeming to give Giovanni a unisex term to pacify him, still seeming to fight with his situation, but he is also belittling him. His emotions seem to be made trivial and unwarranted. David keeps saying he loves Giovanni, truly, but when he uses the same term to calm Giovanni that he used to coerce Sue, a women he simply used, I find myself doubting him more and more.
Indeed, there is almost no one in this novel that deserves empathy, with Hella as the one possible exception. There is an ugliness that permeates the Parisian gay male culture, one that reeks of misogyny and superficiality. The seedy undercurrents of exploitation among the men, the job opportunities bartered in exchange for sex, and the protagonist's association with those men engendering such a morally questionable lifestyle reads a very negative connotation into the experience of the homosexual man. There seems to be an inescapable moroseness, a foreboding. The men rot. Thanks to Baldwin, they rot beautifully, but the stink remains, layers of virtue sloughing away with the turn of each page. It is saddening to see the lowness that manifests under the pressures of secrecy, shame, and confusion. The affect of society's disapproval is evident, but it is not enough to excuse the disgrace, the ambivalence, and the selfishness that both David and Giovanni portray. I am embarrassed of them and for them.
Recently, I finished Salman Rushdie's "Shame" for another course, and one of Rushdie's commentaries was how shame allowed women in Pakistan to remain marginalized; shame was so deeply engrained in women's perceptions of themselves and their bodies that they themselves became appalled by their gender and allowed themselves to remain subjugated by men. I think something similar occurs in the first half of Giovanni's Room, where David allows himself to be judged and even feels that he /should/ be judged because of his non-normative sexuality.
The presentation that Daniel's group did made me consider this, as they discussed that most people view the beginning of gay history, or at least gay rights, as being marked by the Stonewall Riots. I think that the Stonewall Riots more so represent a shift in cultural ideology, as being "queer" became something to celebrate and fight for rather than something that occurred but was largely kept out of the public eye. David came from an American generation entrenched in homophobia and where sexual acts between men were outlawed, and David's shame is a consequence of that culture. The result is that David struggles to come to terms with his sexuality, and even when he begins to accept it he seems to still feel that "deviant" sexual behavior is something to be punished, and is condemning of himself and his peers. Post Stonewall, David may have been better equipped to accept his sexuality, but more importantly, he may have found it actually worthy of defending.
I really like the points you make here. The shame and confusion David feels towards his sexuality is largely a result of the culture he grew up in. His refusal to confront his own issues starts him on his "flight" he mentions several times throughout the book. This flight only serves to exacerbates his problems as it leaves him unable to connect with anyone - making love with just the body as Jacques put it. I wonder though if David's story could really be any different if it took place post-Stonewall. While it's interesting to consider what effect having a queer culture to identify with would have on David, I don't believe it would ultimately do him any good. Most of David's connections seem to be non-verbal ones, such as all the information he derives about people by recognizing things in their eyes. His ultimate downfall though is that he can't turn this power back on himself. If only he could make a connection with himself, perhaps he could have been saved. His refusal to own up to his own feelings though is a feeling still common to many in the queer community (or who would be in the community if they weren't struggling to avoid it). If we can learn anything from David, it should be the importance of healthy introspection. It is easy to be quick to judge people like David, but since these types of people already spend their time in shame judging themselves (and not meeting their own expectations), what good does it do?
I don't think I've ever hated a character so much in a book. This may seem like a far stretch, but I mean it. David keeps disappointing me. He's a user, manipulative, selfish, condescending and careless about everyone else's lives but his. Of course we all have exhibited some of these traits at times ourselves; if you say otherwise, you're lying. However, it seems like David feeds off of being a vindictive person to others. It's like he's punishing those who love and care about him most by tricking them into thinking he feels the same, when in reality he is just thinking of the next escape plan to get away from them. Yes, he is finding himself in France but at the same time he is destroying others (Giovanni). Also, I understand that, at the time in America homosexuality was not accepted like it was in Europe and David must have had a few painful experiences and confusing moments before moving to France, but that doesn't give him the right to exploit Giovanni, lie to Hella and milk Jaques for money whenever he needs it. We've all experienced painful times in our past, we've all felt ashamed of ourselves at some point and pushed people away who were only trying to help us, especially our parents. But that's not an excuse to project misery onto others.
I'm a little indifferent about David. I feel like at one point in our lives, we have all been David. In addition to that, we have to take into consideration his life and how he grew up. A- his mother died at a super young age and B- his father was never really around and when he was, he wasn't too much of a father figure. For David to act the way he is acting now, is truly not a surprise. Although I do agree that he needs to get his act together, he does have reasons behind his actions. Not everyone is strong enough to put aside drama issues to see what is right in front of them. Not every succumbs to the light as easy as others and David is a prime example. He loves the dark because he was born in darkness. It
Surprisingly, I do not dislike any main characters in this book. I am indifferent to both David and Giovanni. However, I think it is very interesting to see the transformation of the characters from part 1 into part 2. At first David seems to be the one who is searching for himself and Giovanni had his life together. In part 2, after Giovanni loses his job, it seems that the two have switch. It was also nice to see that the importance of the roles each of their rooms play comes to light in part 2, especially Giovanni's room for both Giovanni and David.
I am still of the thought that all the rooms are prisons, as well as reflections of each character's psyche. It feels like a great commentary on how we can trap ourselves within our miseries and problems, how we can tuck them away in secretive places and let them fester and rot. We get trapped within our own rooms and, whether out of agoraphobia or that the door is actually barred, we seem unable to escape. The 'rotting' (I love that term) of the characters allows the reader to see the consequences of allowing yourself to get stuck, perhaps saying that it is through your own effort you can escape.
I also feel like David never had a home. I know that was discussion from last week, but he never had his own room. Even his room that he is in throughout the whole book as he reflects isn't his, which is starkly reflected when the land lady comes to check everything. He's this drifting, unplaced thing that just wanders through the world without ever understanding itself. Maybe in the end he begins to see things more clearly, but he never actually comes to terms with anything. Instead, he ends up wallowing and reflecting on all of his actions that he finds shameful and regrettable. The end has him boarding a bus to be taken away into the world with no clear purpose and no real home.
Although David is very deceitful and selfish, I am really glad the book allowed the reader into David’s thought process without sugarcoating any feelings. David is well aware of everything he is and for that I commend him. There are many people going around claiming and even convincing themselves that there are morally superior than others but David does not make this claim. In fact, at the beginning of the novel he comes out and warns the reader of his struggle to be good. Like Professor S pointed out, I think there are traits even if they aren't to the same extent that most people share with David. Giovanni’s room is my favorite read so far and there is no doubt in my mind that it’s because of David’s honesty that I felt more connected with novel.
Olivia’s comment about the exploitation and hypersexualization of the “experience of the homosexual man” are reminiscent of my feelings towards ‘Looking for Langston.’ It seems that secrecy, immorality and overall dirtiness were qualities not uncommon of the queer individual in pre-stonewall culture. Olivia’s reference to the “stink” of rotting men may or may not have also been a reference to Giovanni’s tirade, in which he accuses David of being afraid to dirty himself with the “stink of love” (141). David has in fact dirtied himself with numerous affairs during his relationship with Giovanni, unbeknownst to his lover of course.
I noticed the steady tone of moroseness Olivia mentioned as well, and I also could not help but to note the seemingly ubiquitous presence of the work ‘sardonic,’ meaning grimly mocking or cynical. Baldwin is very clear about the mood he wants to convey to his audience.
An issue that is important to note, and that has not been touched on much, is the issue of David and Giovanni’s sexualities. We really have no basis on which to declare either of them as homosexuals or heterosexuals, but their intimacy with both genders does raise the question of possible bisexuality. Both characters, especially David, are constantly struggling to reconcile their own sexuality, which rather may be homosexuality, but galvanized by the disapproving nature of the time period, just as in the tale of Ms. Ogilvy. Sexuality is still a mystery today though, so there is not really a way of proving anyone’s sexuality. It is rather decided by what they personally feel.
As for the many critical comments towards David’s character, I agree but cannot help but to sympathize, and nearly empathize with him. He states that he feels “nothing” towards Giovanni and Hella at the ends of his relationships with each of them, respectively. The reader receives insight to David’s nearly every thought and can understand that the motive for David’s shadiness is merely his vulnerability. The damage he inflicts upon his lovers is not due to his sardonic nature, but rather due to his unpreparedness for relationships and his detachedness from his feelings and identity. Both of which can be traced back to David’s childhood, in a culture that condemned his identity and in a broken family that did not teach him how to love.
I really enjoyed the fact that this book's protagonist, David, went against the grain of a typical main character. David is a very unlikeable character whose decisions do not lead to any sort of resolution or happy ending. This story was completely tragic, and I think that most of or many of the bad events are solely the result of David's wreckless, selfish lifestyle, with little or no regard for the effects it has on others. I kept hoping that there would be some sort of happy closure, but instead, there was simply wreckage. I agree with Cherokee, who said that we all resemble David at some point in our lives. I think this is true, but when we do resemble the kind of person David is, the trick is to stop being a total asshole before someone gets their head chopped off.
I can't say I enjoyed it, but that fact that David is someone that we love to hate really makes this story that much more interesting. On of him being a total jerk, then we have a slew of characters--each with their own flaws. Giovanni is a misogynist. Both Guillaume and Jacques are creeps. By the end of the story, Hella seems like the only decent person left to root for. And even she gets screwed over.
What truly confounds me is the fact that I still feel a certain degree of empathy for most of the characters at varying points in the story. I think that's Baldwin's brilliance. He managed to create truly complex characters that were, in their own right, human.
"All of the garbage of this city? Where do they take it? I don't know where they take it--but it might very well be my room."
ReplyDeleteThis quote to me made me think of Giovanni in a whole new light. This coupled with his actions later on after losing his job steer us in a new way of thinking about him. We originally saw him as this very suave, debonair, and effortlessly charming man, however, now he looks very vulnerable and not very confident in himself.
I somehow found it really odd, how the French men in the story grew "weaker" as characters as time went on, not sure of who they really were, and David as a person actually "found himself." I mean, while it might be an "American phrase," David seems to be going in the opposite direction of all of these French men in terms of development.
Jacques, Guillaume, and even Giovanni are seemingly descending into a form of madness. They haven't found themselves yet, and David actually seems like he is actually "finding himself." He even admits his feelings for Giovanni in Chapter 3 as he loved him like he would never love any other man, and although he's still struggling with who he is, he doesn't treat or call himself scum so much as the French men do.
Also, another interesting note, all of the mental breakdowns occur in each character's respective room. Guillaume in the bar, and Giovanni in his room. Maybe this tells us of the nature of these rooms more in this French culture, and maybe it shows us how truly necessary these rooms are.
In other words, I feel like as David finds himself, the other French men are losing themselves. It's a very interesting situation.
DeleteI think, Daniel, this change of personality has to do with his upbringing with his father. Like we talked about last Thursday, David has to be like father-figure when his father indulged in drinking. His has a somewhat huge effect on him in that David jeopardized his future by dropping out the college and went on to 'find himself' in Paris. I couldn't agree with you when you said that he became more vulnerable and not confident. I think this is due to the fact that he is seeing more of reality far from what he envisioned.
DeleteThis book is increasingly making me detest the pet term "baby". Every time calls someone 'baby' I cringe. At first I thought it was merely because it sounded, or read, silly, and so out of place in the book. But the more often the appeared, I began to realizing how demeaning and utterly ingenuine it sounds. In this way he is not only seeming to give Giovanni a unisex term to pacify him, still seeming to fight with his situation, but he is also belittling him. His emotions seem to be made trivial and unwarranted. David keeps saying he loves Giovanni, truly, but when he uses the same term to calm Giovanni that he used to coerce Sue, a women he simply used, I find myself doubting him more and more.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, there is almost no one in this novel that deserves empathy, with Hella as the one possible exception. There is an ugliness that permeates the Parisian gay male culture, one that reeks of misogyny and superficiality. The seedy undercurrents of exploitation among the men, the job opportunities bartered in exchange for sex, and the protagonist's association with those men engendering such a morally questionable lifestyle reads a very negative connotation into the experience of the homosexual man. There seems to be an inescapable moroseness, a foreboding. The men rot. Thanks to Baldwin, they rot beautifully, but the stink remains, layers of virtue sloughing away with the turn of each page. It is saddening to see the lowness that manifests under the pressures of secrecy, shame, and confusion. The affect of society's disapproval is evident, but it is not enough to excuse the disgrace, the ambivalence, and the selfishness that both David and Giovanni portray. I am embarrassed of them and for them.
ReplyDeleteRecently, I finished Salman Rushdie's "Shame" for another course, and one of Rushdie's commentaries was how shame allowed women in Pakistan to remain marginalized; shame was so deeply engrained in women's perceptions of themselves and their bodies that they themselves became appalled by their gender and allowed themselves to remain subjugated by men. I think something similar occurs in the first half of Giovanni's Room, where David allows himself to be judged and even feels that he /should/ be judged because of his non-normative sexuality.
ReplyDeleteThe presentation that Daniel's group did made me consider this, as they discussed that most people view the beginning of gay history, or at least gay rights, as being marked by the Stonewall Riots. I think that the Stonewall Riots more so represent a shift in cultural ideology, as being "queer" became something to celebrate and fight for rather than something that occurred but was largely kept out of the public eye. David came from an American generation entrenched in homophobia and where sexual acts between men were outlawed, and David's shame is a consequence of that culture. The result is that David struggles to come to terms with his sexuality, and even when he begins to accept it he seems to still feel that "deviant" sexual behavior is something to be punished, and is condemning of himself and his peers. Post Stonewall, David may have been better equipped to accept his sexuality, but more importantly, he may have found it actually worthy of defending.
I really like the points you make here. The shame and confusion David feels towards his sexuality is largely a result of the culture he grew up in. His refusal to confront his own issues starts him on his "flight" he mentions several times throughout the book. This flight only serves to exacerbates his problems as it leaves him unable to connect with anyone - making love with just the body as Jacques put it.
DeleteI wonder though if David's story could really be any different if it took place post-Stonewall. While it's interesting to consider what effect having a queer culture to identify with would have on David, I don't believe it would ultimately do him any good. Most of David's connections seem to be non-verbal ones, such as all the information he derives about people by recognizing things in their eyes. His ultimate downfall though is that he can't turn this power back on himself. If only he could make a connection with himself, perhaps he could have been saved. His refusal to own up to his own feelings though is a feeling still common to many in the queer community (or who would be in the community if they weren't struggling to avoid it). If we can learn anything from David, it should be the importance of healthy introspection. It is easy to be quick to judge people like David, but since these types of people already spend their time in shame judging themselves (and not meeting their own expectations), what good does it do?
I don't think I've ever hated a character so much in a book. This may seem like a far stretch, but I mean it. David keeps disappointing me. He's a user, manipulative, selfish, condescending and careless about everyone else's lives but his. Of course we all have exhibited some of these traits at times ourselves; if you say otherwise, you're lying. However, it seems like David feeds off of being a vindictive person to others. It's like he's punishing those who love and care about him most by tricking them into thinking he feels the same, when in reality he is just thinking of the next escape plan to get away from them. Yes, he is finding himself in France but at the same time he is destroying others (Giovanni). Also, I understand that, at the time in America homosexuality was not accepted like it was in Europe and David must have had a few painful experiences and confusing moments before moving to France, but that doesn't give him the right to exploit Giovanni, lie to Hella and milk Jaques for money whenever he needs it. We've all experienced painful times in our past, we've all felt ashamed of ourselves at some point and pushed people away who were only trying to help us, especially our parents. But that's not an excuse to project misery onto others.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little indifferent about David. I feel like at one point in our lives, we have all been David. In addition to that, we have to take into consideration his life and how he grew up. A- his mother died at a super young age and B- his father was never really around and when he was, he wasn't too much of a father figure. For David to act the way he is acting now, is truly not a surprise. Although I do agree that he needs to get his act together, he does have reasons behind his actions. Not everyone is strong enough to put aside drama issues to see what is right in front of them. Not every succumbs to the light as easy as others and David is a prime example. He loves the dark because he was born in darkness. It
ReplyDeleteSurprisingly, I do not dislike any main characters in this book. I am indifferent to both David and Giovanni. However, I think it is very interesting to see the transformation of the characters from part 1 into part 2. At first David seems to be the one who is searching for himself and Giovanni had his life together. In part 2, after Giovanni loses his job, it seems that the two have switch. It was also nice to see that the importance of the roles each of their rooms play comes to light in part 2, especially Giovanni's room for both Giovanni and David.
ReplyDeleteI am still of the thought that all the rooms are prisons, as well as reflections of each character's psyche. It feels like a great commentary on how we can trap ourselves within our miseries and problems, how we can tuck them away in secretive places and let them fester and rot. We get trapped within our own rooms and, whether out of agoraphobia or that the door is actually barred, we seem unable to escape. The 'rotting' (I love that term) of the characters allows the reader to see the consequences of allowing yourself to get stuck, perhaps saying that it is through your own effort you can escape.
ReplyDeleteI also feel like David never had a home. I know that was discussion from last week, but he never had his own room. Even his room that he is in throughout the whole book as he reflects isn't his, which is starkly reflected when the land lady comes to check everything. He's this drifting, unplaced thing that just wanders through the world without ever understanding itself. Maybe in the end he begins to see things more clearly, but he never actually comes to terms with anything. Instead, he ends up wallowing and reflecting on all of his actions that he finds shameful and regrettable. The end has him boarding a bus to be taken away into the world with no clear purpose and no real home.
APOLOGIES TO THE CLASS!!!
ReplyDeleteSorry I am unable to upload my personal post about Part 2 chapters 4-5. I don't think I know how to. =(
Although David is very deceitful and selfish, I am really glad the book allowed the reader into David’s thought process without sugarcoating any feelings. David is well aware of everything he is and for that I commend him. There are many people going around claiming and even convincing themselves that there are morally superior than others but David does not make this claim. In fact, at the beginning of the novel he comes out and warns the reader of his struggle to be good. Like Professor S pointed out, I think there are traits even if they aren't to the same extent that most people share with David. Giovanni’s room is my favorite read so far and there is no doubt in my mind that it’s because of David’s honesty that I felt more connected with novel.
ReplyDeleteOlivia’s comment about the exploitation and hypersexualization of the “experience of the homosexual man” are reminiscent of my feelings towards ‘Looking for Langston.’ It seems that secrecy, immorality and overall dirtiness were qualities not uncommon of the queer individual in pre-stonewall culture. Olivia’s reference to the “stink” of rotting men may or may not have also been a reference to Giovanni’s tirade, in which he accuses David of being afraid to dirty himself with the “stink of love” (141). David has in fact dirtied himself with numerous affairs during his relationship with Giovanni, unbeknownst to his lover of course.
ReplyDeleteI noticed the steady tone of moroseness Olivia mentioned as well, and I also could not help but to note the seemingly ubiquitous presence of the work ‘sardonic,’ meaning grimly mocking or cynical. Baldwin is very clear about the mood he wants to convey to his audience.
An issue that is important to note, and that has not been touched on much, is the issue of David and Giovanni’s sexualities. We really have no basis on which to declare either of them as homosexuals or heterosexuals, but their intimacy with both genders does raise the question of possible bisexuality. Both characters, especially David, are constantly struggling to reconcile their own sexuality, which rather may be homosexuality, but galvanized by the disapproving nature of the time period, just as in the tale of Ms. Ogilvy. Sexuality is still a mystery today though, so there is not really a way of proving anyone’s sexuality. It is rather decided by what they personally feel.
As for the many critical comments towards David’s character, I agree but cannot help but to sympathize, and nearly empathize with him. He states that he feels “nothing” towards Giovanni and Hella at the ends of his relationships with each of them, respectively. The reader receives insight to David’s nearly every thought and can understand that the motive for David’s shadiness is merely his vulnerability. The damage he inflicts upon his lovers is not due to his sardonic nature, but rather due to his unpreparedness for relationships and his detachedness from his feelings and identity. Both of which can be traced back to David’s childhood, in a culture that condemned his identity and in a broken family that did not teach him how to love.
I really enjoyed the fact that this book's protagonist, David, went against the grain of a typical main character. David is a very unlikeable character whose decisions do not lead to any sort of resolution or happy ending. This story was completely tragic, and I think that most of or many of the bad events are solely the result of David's wreckless, selfish lifestyle, with little or no regard for the effects it has on others. I kept hoping that there would be some sort of happy closure, but instead, there was simply wreckage. I agree with Cherokee, who said that we all resemble David at some point in our lives. I think this is true, but when we do resemble the kind of person David is, the trick is to stop being a total asshole before someone gets their head chopped off.
ReplyDeleteI can't say I enjoyed it, but that fact that David is someone that we love to hate really makes this story that much more interesting. On of him being a total jerk, then we have a slew of characters--each with their own flaws. Giovanni is a misogynist. Both Guillaume and Jacques are creeps. By the end of the story, Hella seems like the only decent person left to root for. And even she gets screwed over.
ReplyDeleteWhat truly confounds me is the fact that I still feel a certain degree of empathy for most of the characters at varying points in the story. I think that's Baldwin's brilliance. He managed to create truly complex characters that were, in their own right, human.
Grammar correction:
Delete*On top of him