Doris Brothers Ph.D. (2012): Murakami, Connoisseur of Uncertainty: Commentary on Paper by Thomas Rosbrow, Psychoanalytic Dialogues: The International Journal of Relational Perspectives, 22:2, 228-233.

Freud, Sigmund. “Five Lectures on Psycho-analysis.” 1955. PDF file.

Haruki.” Journal of Japanese Studies, vol. 25, no. 2, 1999, p. 263., doi:10.2307/133313.

Rubin, Jay, et al. “From the Archives: Super-Frog Saves Tokyo.” GQ, GQ, 3 July 2012, www.gq.com/story/haruki-murakami-super-frog-saves-tokyo-full-story.

Strecher, Matthew C. “Magical Realism and the Search for Identity in the Fiction of Murakami.

CRP Reflection

            This final paper was by far the most challenging paper I have ever written in my life. I’ve probably sat in front of my laptop for just hours gazing upon nothing. This paper had weeks of development leading up to it, weeks of research in the computer lab yet I could not think of how to write this. I kept asking myself what I am truly trying to say. What am I trying to accomplish? It’s so easy when you talk in your head to yourself when trying to figure something out but actually doing it is completely different. You procrastinate and procrastinate until finally you just start. And you pray that whatever you write is the best it can be.

My goal for writing this paper was to show that I was able to formulate an idea from the reading ‘Super Frog Saves Tokyo” and make something out of it that was unique to me. I felt that by making a connection from Freud and his patients from one of his studies to Murakami’s work shows the research I put into this. I never thought that I could such a connection that I hope made sense and that my idea can be understood upon. I tried my best with this paper. I feel like my connections and my writing do all the talking for how I felt about this.

Without a doubt this paper was difficult and stressful and made me want to rip my hair out at times, but helpful. And I know it was helpful on the fact that by completing this paper, I’m prepared for what college has in store for me later on.

EE Reflection

           When originally tasked with writing this paper, I felt lost and gazed when sitting in front of my computer.  It’s Halloween night and everyone is out trick-o-treating and I’m asking myself how to write this. I probably spent a good hour or so just trying to find a catchy title. And once I found that, the introduction took even longer. For me, writing is like a rhythm, kind of like a dance. Until you find that groove, it’s very difficult to know what to write. But after sitting in front of my computer for an hour, I started figuring it out.

My main goal with writing this paper was to really get across the point that the narrator in the Black Cat hated himself so much that he didn’t want to face his problems. He instead used the cats as a means of displacing how he felt. He removed a cat’s eye just for avoiding him. I felt that it was very important to get the point across that this guy is harming innocent cats because he hates himself so much. And when that hate for himself grows so large, he kills his wife because she was suffering so much by being with him.

Lastly, the assignment was very helpful in the fact that it allowed me to understand how to convey an idea in a way that is less argumentative but more of finding one. The assignment was definitely the first time I wrote a paper in this nature. You get so used to creating a thesis statement and trying to prove it that its difficult at first to right in a different style. But this change ultimately was nice and I know for a fact that later on in college when I need to write one of these papers again, this experience will definitely make it easier for me to write.

Literacy Narrative Reflection

             I usually find myself being neutral on the political spectrum. I never want to side with a political view without hearing all the sides. Certain topics such as healthcare, or economical budgets, warrant discussions that make a resolution difficult. Conservatives trying to victimize Betsy DeVos, isn’t.

Ruby Bridges and Betsy DeVos’s actions have no such connection that I see of. Their backgrounds alone can help define the empathy I seek for one and despise the other. I don’t think a white woman who grew up with proper education who was most likely never discriminated can be compared to a little black girl during the hearts of the civil rights movement.  It’s a comparison that makes no sense. I’d rather people compare DeVos critically towards former Secretaries of Education.

I wonder if making comparisons of the such are made to spark debate amongst us. Topics like racial injustice in America are some of the most one-sided debates in the country today. Many people feel very strong about their stance on what’s really going on. I feel very strong on my opinion. Maybe these things are done to see if people have changed the way they think. If a liberal may entertain the ideas of a conservative slightly more, or if a conservative recognizes into liberal talk. Sparking debate every here and there could lead to a better understanding at the problem at hand.

Literacy Narrative

            On the first day of embarking on my college journey, professor Killebrew distributed two contrasting images. One of Ruby Bridges, the first African American girl to attend an all-white school, and one of education secretory Betsy DeVos. At first glance, the pictures seemed similar, but portrayed the same scene but in contrasting political context.

In the first image, a 1964 painting by Norman Rockwell, depicts Ruby Bridges, a little girl walking past a wall plastered with racial slurs and tomatoes depicting the day where Ruby enters an all-white elementary school in 1960, during the heart of the civil rights movement. Attacked by racist bigots who refused integration in the public-school system, a little girl was harassed for wanting to have the same rights that other white children had. The second photo is a political cartoon of Betsy DeVos created by Glenn McCoy in February of 2017, portraying DeVos as Ruby Bridges. The cartoon portrays DeVos, walking past a wall plastered with tomatoes and a “slur”. Created to be a twist on Norman Rockwell’s famous painting of Ruby Bridges, the cartoon was made to create a comparison of the two. Being a cartoon however, makes one think the true purpose of this cartoon is to mock DeVos by using Ruby. DeVos’s situation isn’t anything like Ruby’s but the fact they were disliked by certain groups of people.

The images are representations of satire and historical context. Ruby Bridges actions are a turning point in the Civil Rights movement. That little girl led the way for people of all color to be treated fairly in education and allowed us all to be integrated. If you look around in our classrooms today, every face is unique to their own background and treated fairly regardless of their background, a value that was not shared during the 1950’s. Paintings that hold historical significance are essential for us to view today, especially in a time where racism still exists. It’s essential for us to look back at paintings as such to remind us the sacrifices people made for the future of society. Satire political cartoons are for us to express our thoughts of the world. Betsy DeVos is a very controversial member of the President Trump’s cabinet, as many feel she is not qualified for the job, Secretary of Education. The cartoon pokes fun at DeVos and her political affiliation for her questionable work being done in office. It’s important for us to express our thoughts on matters today that’ll effect our future. Political cartoons are almost like a check on the world today to express our opinions to avoid mistakes of the past.

As Ruby Bridges was once discriminated because of the color of her skin, I’ve been discriminated for the color of my skin. Being a middle eastern appearing man today, I get treated differently in certain scenarios because of the color of my skin. If I were to have bookbag seeming somewhat larger than normal, I may be profiled for having an explosive device because of the color of my skin. Ruby Bridges was verbally and physically attacked for wanting a better education because of the color of her skin. What did a little girl like Ruby do to harm someone?  We as a people today still struggle with the same problems that little Ruby did.

The Rockwell painting makes me feel very uneasy about our nation.  The fact that a little girl was abused in this country for no reason other than a color disappoints me in who we were once was. It shows that we had no integrity and no respect for one another. But what scares me even more is knowing how great yet how little things changed. We still struggle with racial discrimination and oppression today that Ruby faced.

Discussing the images in class made me feel a sense of hope for the future of our country in that fellow classmates all agreed upon the fact the no one should be judged by the color of their skin. Everyone was respectful of one another and treated with respect regardless of their skin and background. Being discriminated myself because of the color of my skin, makes me optimistic for a future in which no one is discriminated for their appearance.

Viewing the images in class has brought us to discuss a problem of discrimination that still plagues us today as a country. A problem that needs to be resolved. A solution that can be only created if everyone understands it. It’s crazy to think how we once were as a country during the civil rights movement. And I fear that there’s children out there that are being treated the same way Ruby was treated. That the color of their skin still dictates how people treat them. I hope we can one day end this discrimination of color for good and accept each other for who we are.

Freaky Freud-day: Finding Freud in Poe’s “The Black Cat”

In Edgar Allen Poe’s The Black Cat, the cats are mistreated in the hands of the narrator, perhaps unleashing his inner emotions onto these cats. Freud explains his theory of displacement which is the expression of inner emotions, usually violent, on trivial objects that do not have severe consequences. At first glance when reading this story, it was easy to assume the narrator was an out of control drunk who murdered his cats and wife for an unexplained reason. When analyzing the story in depth, the hate the narrator possess is not towards his wife or even his cats, but rather towards himself. For instance, he kills the cats when it ignores him, but he also hurts them when they are kind to him. The narrator does not initially hurt his wife, but he eventually kills her because he feels that she is suffering by being married to him. His inner demons displace his disgust of himself onto those around him not only physically but emotionally as well.

The first instance of this displacement was with his first cat Pluto. As was said in the text, “One night, returning home, much intoxicated, from one of my haunts about town, I fancied that the cat avoided my presence. I seized him; when, in his fright at my violence, he inflicted a slight wound upon my hand with his teeth. The fury of a demon instantly possessed me. I knew myself no longer.” Only a person who hates himself would take offense to a cat, his own insecurities and built up anger would cause him to harm the cat. And the fact that he was out in town drinking heavily to the point of intoxication goes to show his desire to bury his problems. No sane person as the narrator claims himself at the start harms a cat for avoiding him.

He displaces his emotions again with the second cat this time. For example, the narrator writes “For my own part, I soon found a dislike to it arising within me. This was just the reverse of what I had anticipated; but — I know not how or why it was — its evident fondness for myself rather disgusted and annoyed. By slow degrees, these feelings of disgust and annoyance rose into the bitterness of hatred. I avoided the creature; a certain sense of shame, and the remembrance of my former deed of cruelty, preventing me from physically abusing it. I did not, for some weeks, strike, or otherwise violently ill use it; but gradually — very gradually — I came to look upon it with unutterable loathing.” Now, when the cat takes a liking towards him, he rationalizes his hatred of himself and his actions onto the cat.  He looks at the cat with hatred because he cannot look at others and treat others that way. Just as he perceived the first cat avoiding him, he attacked it and when the second cat liked him, he wanted to harm it. This further adds to the idea that he actually hates himself and that the cats are the perfect trivial objects to displace his emotions upon.

For the last example, he describes his feelings about his relationships towards his wife before she enters the cellar with him, “From the sudden, frequent, and ungovernable outbursts of a fury to which I now blindly abandoned myself, my uncomplaining wife, alas! was the most usual and the most patient of sufferers.” He believes that his wife by being with him, is suffering. That he believes that he is such a despicable person that his wife suffers every day by being with him. That is why when the opportunity presents itself, his mind displaces his feelings of hatred not on her but their relationship, thus killing her. By doing so, his mind is able to be feel at ease with avoiding having to face his insecurities head on. It is much easier to repress and displace these emotions onto other things than having to confront it and face it.

By killing the cats and his wife, the narrator loses his mind. He never truly expresses why he hates himself so much because he can’t bring himself to it. As Freud implied in his 5 lectures of psychoanalysis, we repress thoughts and ideas in our minds that we don’t want to face. Rather than facing them, our minds creates loopholes to allow us to avoid our problems in a way that makes sense to us. Freud’s belief in this idea of displacement is evident in Poe’s short story because of the narrator’s inability to deal with his problems. His constant repression led to killing people and animals to avoid facing this issue that bothered him so greatly. If the narrator was a patient of Freud’s, he would’ve one thousand percent told him he was repressing and displacing his feelings onto other things. Freud’s work and ideas can be applied in literature in every time period.

All You need Is Frog; Murakami’s Views On Society.

            Every day, peoples’ actions go unrecognized and unappreciated. From a simple thing as holding open a door for someone or just asking someone how they’re feeling, we as a society have become dormant to expressing gratitude for all that others do for us to make our lives better. In Haruki Murakami’s literature, this judgement on society is prevalent. When people aren’t appreciated for what they do on a daily basis for years, their loneliness’ pushes the mind to finding a coping mechanism to deal with a gap in their life. If someone feels like they’re all alone for years and years, their minds will split and disassociate to find comfort in their lives.

In “Super Frog Saves Tokyo”, the main character Katagiri is approached by a six foot tall talking frog. A frog that not only speaks but needs him on a secret mission to save Tokyo. At first glance, you might think the guy is crazy and that he may be a schizophrenic of some sorts. But Katagiri is not a man with a history of mental illnesses and hallucinations. He is in fact, a lonely man whose life has been undervalued by his peers and his own family. As the talking frog says to him in their encounter, “For sixteen long years, you have silently accepted the most dangerous, least glamorous assignments—the jobs that others have avoided—and you have carried them off beautifully. I know full well how difficult this has been for you, and I do not believe that either your superiors or your colleagues properly appreciate your accomplishments…After your parents died, you raised your teenage brother and sister single-handedly, put them through college and even arranged for them to marry, all at great sacrifice of your time and income, and at the expense of your own marriage prospects. In spite of this, your brother and sister have never once expressed gratitude for your efforts on their behalf. Far from it. They have shown you no respect and acted with the most callous disregard for your loving kindness.” Katagiri has made sacrifices after sacrifices in his life yet he is all alone with no one to even care about him. He dedicates his life to one of the toughest jobs in japan and did all that he could to set up his siblings’ lives, yet no one has repaid him the favor.

When you look at Katagiri this way, it is no surprise that his mind begins to disassociate from reality so greatly that he begins talking to a giant frog about fighting a giant worm to prevent Tokyo from being wiped out by a giant earthquake. And Murakami does this on purpose to emphasize that the mind can take so much. For instance, in Matthew Strecher’s journal  “Magical Realism and the Search for Identity in the Fiction of Murakami Haruki”, he finds that Murakami does present dissociative themes in his writing. He writes “ Murakami’s model of the human mind is fairly uniform throughout his literature, his motifs and terminology largely unchanged in the past 20 years. In general, it is presented as a uniformly coded division between the world of the light and that of the dark, the latter corresponding to the unconscious realm. Murakami envisions the inner world of the mind as dark, cold, and lifeless. At times the unconscious is only symbolized, other times it is real.” (Strecher 270) The light in Katagiri’s life is frog, this new friend that needs him and only him or a mission to save all of Tokyo. A person who actually needs and appreciates him. The darkness in his life however, is everything else. All the people that give him troubles, the people who do not appreciate him, the people who he helped that have not shown an ounce of gratitude back. All these people who took him for granted for years and years have led to split to his conscious mind.

Split Consciousness is when the conscious mind is split into two different beings that do not overlap. As people, we think of ourselves as one being in complete control. During Freud’s Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis, he treated a woman named Janet, who presented symptoms of similar to split consciousness. He explained one of the woman’s conscious as a “mystical ally” (Freud 17). This perfectly represent Katagiri and his Frog. Frog is not real, but he helps Katagiri feel fulfilled by needing his help to save Tokyo from a catastrophic earthquake that will save millions of lives. For once in his life, he feels that someone is on his side. For instance, when frog says “By tomorrow morning, old Frog will have your problems solved. Relax and have a good night’s sleep.” Katagiri realizes that he can lean on someone for help if need be. And that very next morning, Frog had one of Katagiri’s biggest problems go away, a loan once thought impossible to get the money back on, was done with full cooperation. This moment confirms any doubts of frog’s existence and loyalty. Katagiri’s now knows he has a friend, confidant and problem solver.

In Doris Brother’s Murakami, Connoisseur of Uncertainty: Commentary on Paper by Thomas Rosbrow, they wrote “When we feel endangered by what seems like the imminent repetition of an old trauma, we may feel compelled to eliminate experiences of unbearable uncertainty through our own dissociative reductions of complexity.” This relates to Katagiri once again in that his experiences of being treated like a rag doll are the real feeling he wants to express. The opposite of these feelings of being taking advantage of is to be a superhero who saves the day. That way, everyone will appreciate and admire him. So, with the help of frog, he is able to fulfill this mission. The same way frog needs Katagiri for emotional support to save Tokyo, Katagiri just needs his own emotional support no matter what form its expressed in.

The ending of the story confirms that Katagiri had a split consciousness between reality and a world where frog exists. After he wakes from another vision from his other conscious, he says to himself out loud, “What you see with your eyes is not necessarily real”, confirming that his consciousness coexists, one being day to day reality involving people in his everyday life, the other being his alternate universe with his friend six foot tall talking frog. These two consciousness coexisting does not necessarily mean Katagiri is not a normal function person. It just means that he like anyone else needs to feel some sense of worthiness in society no matter how it plays out.

All in all, the mind can only handle so much social isolation. In Murakami’s writing he can’t stress this point enough. When someone is undervalued as much as Katagiri was and as lonely as Katagiri was, his mind found a way to make it bearable. By disassociating from reality and the splitting of his consciousness Katagiri finally found something that he so deeply desired but lacked in his life, a friend. A friend that only exists in another part of his mind that is not real but at the same time real to him. And that only matters to him because he does not matter to anyone else. No one around him cares enough for him, no matter what he does. But as long as you have just one person or just one frog in your life, life can be bearable.  So next time someone holds open a door for you, or asks you how you feel, take a moment and appreciate their actions and let that be known.