How Genuine is the Catharsis of "A Raisin in the Sun"?

"A Raisin in the Sun" ends with the Younger family deciding to finally get out of their "rat trap" in the Chicago ghettos and move to their new house in Clybourne Park. The play ends with a suspenseful confrontation with Lindner in which Walter has a change of heart and realizes that their family has to move out and face their new white neighbors whether they are welcome or not. This ending leaves the audience with a feeling of hope and triumph, and definitely catharsis. However, as we read in the packet about Lorraine Hansberry and her play, the original closing scene was of the Younger family as they sat, armed and in the dark of their new living room in Clybourne Park, waiting for the white mob to come get them. This ending gives a very different feeling than the revised version, and it leaves the audience in suspense. I would say it lacks catharsis and the feeling of triumph that accompanies the current ending of the play. If Hansberry had left this original scene in the play, the message would be different and it would not seem that racism was dying, but that it was winning. All it takes is one extra scene at the end to completely change the meaning of the play. You can take any play, book, movie, or story of any kind and add something extra to the end--perhaps the next untold part of the story--and it would change the meaning. Stories end at strategic points to leave the right feeling with the audience and to portray the right message. Take Harry Potter for example. The last book ends with Harry defeating Voldemort and then fast-forwards 20 years and shows Harry happily married to Ginny and living life happily ever after. But what if you added one last scene about a new evil wizard beginning to plot his plan to take over the wizarding world? The ending wouldn't leave the audience with a sigh of relief, but with a gasp! People would wonder what it was supposed to mean: was the message to say that evil can never truly be eliminated? Obviously that is the complete opposite of what the Harry Potter saga was supposed to teach, but something like that could happen after the events of the story, just like the Youngers could get killed by an angry mob. You can always wonder what happens next after a story ends, but sometimes it's best not to. Once you start imagining the unwritten events after an ending, anything can happen and it can lead you away from the purpose of the story.

Different Styles Can Speak the Same Message

The Harlem Renaissance was an explosion of literature and art from African Americans.  It all portrayed the oppression that African American's faced in American, but different authors and artists had strikingly different ways of expressing their feelings.  The two pictures on this post prove that. One artist dwells on the tragedies of the past, whereas the other shows a scene of African Americans having a good time in the new age.  Langston Hughes wrote somewhat depressing poetry.  In his poem "The Weary Blues", he writes that an African American Blues singer wished he had died from the pain of his oppression.  On the other hand, there's Zora Neale Hurston, who wrote  "How It Feels to Be Colored Me" with sarcasm galore!  You wouldn't think that the oppression of African Americans is a matter to joke about, but Hurston effectively gets her point across without using the 'woe is me' angle.  She even writes, "Sometimes, I feel discriminated against, but it does not make me angry." (Hurston).  Hughes and Hurston write almost completely opposite statements, but they both demonstrate through their work the oppression African Americans faced during the Harlem Renaissance. The political campaigns for the Presidential Election were similar to this.  For example, some Obama supporters criticized Romney to make Obama look better, and others simply promoted Obama by discussing the good things he has done and the things he plans to do.  The same goes for Romney supporters.  I hope I don't offend anyone because I don't really follow politics so this was just an example, but it's a great way to show that people can reach the same purpose through different methods.   

 

What the Heck Does The Great Gatsby Mean?

I personally loved The Great Gatsby, but after reading all the different viewpoints in class, I got really confused. After hearing what all those different groups of people thought the book meant, I found myself wondering, what did Fitzgerald want it to mean? Every work of literature can have multiple purposes or themes depending on what the reader takes from it. I suppose the only time there is a right answer to the purpose of a book is when the author shares his or her intended purpose. In the case of The Great Gatsby, we will never know exactly what Fitzgerald had in mind. Did he mean to demonstrate that the world of his book wasn't real due to the lack of African Americans, as the African American view point says? Or was Fitzgerald just a racist? Is Nick gay? Do all the characters really have a fear of intimacy? These are questions that can only be answered in opinion. with the movie coming out in the summer (which I can't wait to see!!), I'm starting to wonder what interpretation the director will take. Regardless of what people think of the book, I'm sure the movie will have a clear message. Will it be that money is corruption, or that the past is the past and it can't be brought back? Will the movie portray Gatsby as a hero or a crazy, delusional man who chases a dream so far that he falls off a cliff? With so many interpretations of the book, it will be interesting to see what the producers of the movie decide is the "correct interpretation".