In the article we were asigned " Not You/Like You" the author makes a clear connection with the concept we discussed in class of insider- outsider. She says that " The moment the insider steps out from the inside she's no longer a mere insider. She necesarily looks in from the outside while also looking in from the inside". This one quote seems to sum up all of our readings on the topic into one sole concept, especially Pans story. In class we went on back and forth about what a secret was and who was in insider and who was an outsider. With this distinction made in the article, once Pan began the friendship with Carson, was she still an insider?
To me she was not, because she stepped out of the Chinese culture. She didnt essentially set aside her culture but loved out side of the culture she was taught. Pan indeed looked in from the outside, sharing all of China Towns secrets with the outsider. She looked in from inside becuase she knew all of her cultures stories even though she was Chinese American.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You contradicted yourself when you stated, "She didn't essentially set aside her culture but loved outside of [it]." A stronger argument would be that Pan was an outsider because she was half-American. However, nothing in the text supports either of these arguments. In opposition to the latter, the Chinese gave her access they denied Americans. Even in the end, at a point in the story where the Chinese people could have justified ostracizing her, the mother of the toddler comforts her. To finalize the level of acceptance Pan is given by the Chinatown community, Far ends the story by reiterating her point: "And Pan, being a Chinese woman...." This isn't what you call an outsider to the Chinese community.
In opposition to the former, Pan did not become an outsider to the Chinese culture "because she loved outside of [it]." Your statement means that her love for the reporter negates her experience as a lifelong Chinatown resident, her experience as a Chinese woman, and the intimate knowledge she has of the Chinese culture because of these experiences. With this statement, you therefore imply that Far is an unreliable narrator and perhaps, by extension, observer of the Chinese culture. You are thereby implying that Far's relation of the characters' reactions to Pan are not to be trusted either (for example, the comfort offered to Pan by the mother of the toddler could not be trusted, given your statement). The consequences of your analysis is the death of this story. Given what you've said, nothing in this story is reliable, therefore it's hardly a story. It's a lie. Your statement denies the text as a whole, calling it an untrustworthy, unworthy article of literature.
Though I invite you to show me where the text indicates or otherwise implies that Pan "looked in [on the Chinese community] from the outside," I also ask you to address the value of the work if both Far and the characters she has created are untrustworthy.
Post a Comment