The pairing of Gopnik and Ondaatje in the readings gave me a context or space to analyze their words. Maybe, it’s more accurate to say that the juxtaposition of their works directed my focus. I don’t know that I would have seen the same aspects had I read them separately, or if I hadn’t been looking for elements of place.
I came away from the readings with the thought they that described different ways of knowing; the world, and themselves, through place. Gopnik literally changed his perspective through changing place and seeing the world from a different angle. Sallie Chisum’s view of the world remained in one physical location, but I believe that Ondaatje implied that her perspective was shaped by the constant stream of guests. Maybe I’ve got it wrong, if there is such a thing as wrong. Different may be a better word. Maybe it’s just my mood, or the change of the seasons, that has me looking at things more philosophically.
I like how Gopnik described Americans and America, right down to the world I know of Philadelphia and Cherry Hill, through the lens of seeing from across the Atlantic. I got the feeling that his view of himself and his countrymen changed when he changed location. The way he described the CNN announcers implied that they were superficial, casually describing the weather of places in Europe that had been the setting of past atrocities. As if, in today’s age, the announcers should speak solemnly while reporting the weather in Norway. As if, Norway should remain forever locked in memory as a place of shame for humanity, and especially for America. Gopnik further condemned American power and influence in the world through the analogy of a superficial weatherman stating, “…all we can do is smile and say that you might want to pack a sweater for the imperial parade.” I can’t say I disagree with the sentiment. I think a little MYOB would do us all some good. Yet, I’m not willing to view all Americans as superficial, just the ones we know about; the famous, the media, and elected officials. I think that was the point that Gopnik tried to make, he seemed to condemn all that was superficial about America. Maybe he felt that before or maybe the realization came through distance and change of place.
Gopnik also wrote about technology as a means to highlight differences in cultures. American culture is spread far and wide through technology, but he recognized that the infusion of culture is superficial. The store in Paris, which physically resembled a store in Cherry Hill, continued to be culturally different due to the people who worked there. The clerks in Paris view the customers as “always, entirely wrong.” He stated that it is only information that has been globalized. In other words, perspective is still a matter of location in space-time. Perspectives are altered and shaped by the “electric rain” or media. Yet, places in Paris remain real. Their culture has not been altered a great degree.
I like that way Gopnik used the analogy of the different types of plugs (grounded and ungrounded) to highlight the different perspectives between people in Europe (old places) and modernized Americans. He wrote that Americans are “ungrounded.” One has to take those words both literally and figuratively. Maybe he’s right. Maybe each one of us should travel through the “attic of civilization” in or sip coffee in some real bistro in Paris to see ourselves from a different perspective. I don’t judge his perspective as right or wrong or give it any more weight than my own, but it’s certainly worth considering.
Unlike Gopnik, Sallie Chisum shut-out the physical world. She locked herself inside a home that was separated from civilization by miles of desert; she shut the blinds, blocking all light. This seems to symbolize a rejection of truth, if light symbolizes truth. However, by welcoming guests into her home, all guests - of the human sort as well as animals - she learned about the world through their eyes. The world came to Chisum in flesh and blood. Billy viewed her life as being locked in “madman’s skin.” In an odd contradiction of ideas, he submerged her in water, trapping her within the white sheet to prove his point. The image of Chisum wrapped tightly in a wet, white sheet within the darkness of her home is provocative, but the meaning of it escapes me.
Chisum’s poem in the beginning of the piece indicated that she was initially fearful of Billy. But, her actions – walking around the house barefoot in his presence, caring for his burns – indicate that her perspective changed. This seems to point back to Pagnucci’s idea that life is a collection of stories. Setting is where they take place, location shapes stories, but the story, the characters, the interaction between people is what shapes the person. I still feel a closer connection to this view, even after reading Gopnik’s compelling words. Though, I have to consider that place plays a larger role than I initially believed. Maybe, Berry wasn’t as crazy as I thought.
Response to Paris to the Moon, Adam Gopnik and The Collection of Works of Billy the Kid, Michael Ondaatje