Dust on the Bookshelf


[New] American Girl in New Orleans

It was out of curiosity and nostalgia that I read the latest book series by the American Girl company. The new books are a paired series of two friends, Marie-Grace and Cécile, who live in 1853 New Orleans, LA. The six paperbacks give you alternating and overlapping views of how a nine-year old girl might have experienced the antebellum Crescent City as it suffered through one of its worst yellow fever epidemics.

Cécile Rey is a french-speaking free person of color, gens de couleur libres, who dreams of public speaking. She cheers up the children at both the white and “colored” orphanages with her stories. Her father is a stonemason who creates the beautiful marble tombstones of New Orleans’ iconic above-ground cemeteries. Her brother, Armand, returns from studying in Paris and is a talented artist but almost dies from the fever.

Marie-Grace Gardener was born in New Orleans but left as a young child with her father after her mother and baby brother died of yellow fever. The Gardeners return after living in the Northeast, and Marie-Grace must adjust to a new, if familiar, culture and language. She helps her father, a doctor, and sings very well. Her mother’s family lives on a bayou in Belle Chênière, Louisiana, where Marie-Grace heads to spend the Christmas holidays.

Marie-Grace and Cécile bond while working in the city’s quickly-filling orphanages, and the series culminates with a benefit held for the many newly orphaned children. Cécile and Marie-Grace both perform their gifts at the benefit, sealing a lifelong friendship that overcomes their linguistic and racial differences.

Naturally, I was intrigued by this series: Nineteenth-century New Orleans featuring a free person of color who speaks French, and the tensions of a growing anglophone American population! American Girl is expanding its definition of “American.”
I am happy to see this trend of representing non-anglophone Americans being taken up by such a popular and well-established series.

Growing up, the books were read to me until I could read them myself. I remember well the 1997 introduction of, Josephina Montoya, “a Hispanic girl whose heart and hopes are as big as the New Mexico sky.” The sixth girl in the series, Josephina reflected the company’s decision to represent more minority American girls. Addy, “a courageous girl determined to be free in the midst of the civil war,” was the doll I owned and the series I remember reading the most.

If you look at the list of girls (given at the beginning of each book in historical order) it is striking that all the girls of color are nineteenth-century characters:

1764: Kaya, “an adventurous Nez Perce girl whose deep love for horses and respect for nature nourish her spirit”
1774: Felicity, “a spunky, spirited colonial girl, full of energy and independence”
1824: Josephina
1853: Cécile and Marie-Grace, “two girls whose friendship helps them–and New Orleans–survive terrible times”
1854: Kirsten, “a pioneer girl of strength and spirit who settles on the frontier”
1864: Addy
1904: Samantha, “a bright Victorian beauty, an orphan raised by her wealthy grandmother”
1914: Rebecca, “a lively girl with dramatic flair growing up in New York City”
1934: Kit, “a clever, resourceful girl facing the Great Depression with spirit and determination”
1944: Molly, “who schemes and dreams on the home front during World War Two”
1974: Julie, “a fun-loving girl from San Francisco who faces big changes–and creates a few of her own”

I’d argue that this lop-sided representation of minority American girls means two things:
One, American Girl has purposefully chosen to tell these lesser-known earlier histories of American girls. This gives today’s minority girls a chance to read and connect to their early history in this country, one they might not learn in school. Also, depicting an early American diversity pushes against the often simplified early American story: pilgrims, Indians, slaves.

Two, there are more books to be written! If I were to think in the way it seems the creative directors of this company do, in search of stories in which girls overcome a historical obstacle–oppression, conflict, disaster–while celebrating the talents and big hearts of American girls, I would call for the writing of a Civil Rights Movement story, an Asian-American story (possibly immigration or internment), or a Caribbean-American story (Puerto Rico??).

The 1920s, 50s, 60s and 80s lack an American Girl representative. I hope they are in the making, for in 2012 these decades are certainly the distant past for today’s 9-year old.

To be honest, I was at first turned off by the idea of a, crudely-termed, black/white pairing for this latest American Girl series. I thought, “Will there forever be racialized doubling in Southern American literature!?” But upon reading them, I found the books to be truly touching. And, realistic or not, this example of interracial friendship and understanding can only be a positive model for young girls in today’s ever-tense, ever-mixing America.

The authors’ perspectives: Cécile and Marie-Grace video



Justina & the Salvation Armband
April 14, 2012, 13:05
Filed under: Music | Tags: ,

Third music post in a row. I know, you may be thinking, “Sarah why not change the name of your blog to Dust on the CD Rack?” But don’t worry I’ll get back to books soon, and who owns a CD rack these days anyway?

This is a plug for my friends’ incredibly beautiful band: Justina & the Salvation Armband. They’ve just released their EP Soul Sacrament online. I invite everyone to take a listen. Justina’s voice will haunt your for days and Danny is ohsosmooth on guitar.

Though it’s hard to choose a favorite song, I may have to go with “Got Me to My Knees.”

Rock on, mes amis.



We been on the run, Driving in the sun
April 10, 2012, 17:23
Filed under: Dust, Music | Tags: , , , , ,

It’s time again to move.

Later this summer I will be heading, as those from the North might say, out West .
Out there. California. Out there.. way out.

far out. far out!

farside, west side, west coast, best coast

Cal-i-forn-I-A.

Reader, I am delighted to say that in August I will begin a PhD in English at the University of California at Berkeley.

and Phantom Planet will not get out of my head.

We’ve been on the run
Driving in the sun
Looking out for number one
California here we come
Right back where we started from

Hustlers grab your guns
Your shadow weighs a ton
Driving down the 101
California here we come
Right back where we started from

California!
Here we come!

On the stereo
Listen as we go
Nothing’s gonna stop me now
California here we come
Right back where we started from
Pedal to the floor
Thinkin’ of the roar
Gotta get us to the show
California here we come
Right back where we started from

California!
Here we come!

This song is imminent sunlight and it feels like a road trip with your best friend. I will be making this trip with my best friend. James and I are more than pumped for the move.
All OC references aside, the raging drumbeat and urgent piano melody of “California” have made my heart race since high school. But NOW, now I fear cardiac arrest! Pedal to the floor/Thinkin’ of the roar/Gotta get us to the show.

California here we come.



Brown Sugar

It’s easy to listen to a song and not hear what it’s saying, to not listen to the words. Especially if the music is good enough or the lyrics are bad enough. For example, I have no idea what Janelle Monáe is saying in “Tightrope” but I am OBSESSED with it.

Occasionally I find myself doing a “close listening” of a song I have known for years, only to find that I have not known the song at all.

This has happened twice with the 1968 song “Brown Sugar” by the Rolling Stones. Years ago I listened actively for the first time to Mick Jagger’s words. I then understood that he was not talking about the metaphorical sweetness of some girl he liked, but that he was talking about having sex with black women generally. Brown sugar. How come you taste so good. Brown sugar. Just like a black girl should. I was at that time mildly scandalized by these words and proceeded to listen to the song in that new sexualized light.

But listening to “Brown Sugar” yesterday, the words “New Orleans” in the song’s first verse stuck out at me and I thought, What is talking about New Orleans for?
Lo and behold, in further examination of the text, I found a more complex and unexpected story being told by Jagger, one that is explicitly historical, postcolonial and sexual, alluding to the slave economy, plantation rape and sexual doubling, as well as prostitution and what would still have then been called in some places, miscegenation.
Below are the lyrics as I have best heard and read them:

Gold coast slave ship bound for cotton fields
Sold in a market down in New Orleans
Scarred old slaver knows he’s doing alright
Hear him whip the women just around midnight

Brown sugar
How come you taste so good?
Brown sugar
Just like a young girl should

Drums beating, cold English blood runs hot
Lady of the house wonderin’ where it’s gonna stop
House boy knows that he’s doing alright
You shoulda heard him just around midnight

Brown sugar
How come you taste so good, now?
Brown sugar
Just like a young girl should, now

Get along, brown sugar
How come you taste so good, baby?
Got me feelin’ now, brown sugar
Just like a black girl should

I bet your mama was a tent show queen
Had all the boyfriends at sweet sixteen
I’m no schoolboy but I know what I like
You shoulda heard me just around midnight

Brown sugar
How come you taste so good, baby?
Brown sugar
Just like a young girl should, yeah

I said, Yeah, yeah, yeah
How come you, how come you taste so good?
Yeah, yeah, yeah
Just like a, just like a black girl should
Yeah, yeah, yeah

Suddenly, I find it difficult to sing along to this song. The images of slavery, rape and sex are oppressive, like a gulf summer heat. The Stones tend to sing about difficult subjects, inspired by Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry and the like. (Waters’ “Good Morning Little School Girl” is similarly disturbing, though you can’t keep your foot from tapping) But I wonder, once a songwriter dips into historical verse, should we read their lyrics differently? Does the song become a work of historical fiction or postcolonial poetry?

These questions could possibly be answered by scholars who study poetry, ancient ballads, bards or rap. And probably the Stones would not appreciate such analysis of their music. But I can’t help approaching this song differently once again. After this close listening I can only wonder what other contemporary songs are out there that, when written out on paper, would remind me so much of my own historical and literary studies?

Watch “Brown Sugar” live in ’71:
Jagger omits “just like a black girl should” and adds “get down on your knees brown sugar” in this version for TV.

Watch Janelle:
You haven’t seen dancing like this in a long time.



What are you reading?
March 7, 2012, 13:48
Filed under: Dust

Hey readers!

I’m posting this out of curiosity. What are you currently reading? I’d love to hear what it is. Required articles for class or a guilty literary pleasure? Are you enjoying it? Respond in a comment!

Hope to hear from you all.
Sarah



portraits of language and languagelessness
March 2, 2012, 01:36
Filed under: Books | Tags: , , , , , ,

I’ve been told that I’m going about this at a good pace. Five years ago I read The Dubliners by James Joyce and love it. This week I finished A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man hoping it would never end. Maybe five or ten years from now I will attempt Ulysses.

However, that is not the point of this post. As I said I really loved reading Portrait. It was a good reading experience. Not only is book full of engaging stories and striking style, but I had an experience reading it. I mean in the way some people say, “I had a time doing X.” I didn’t just do it. There was more to the doing of it than just reading. I felt it and was wrapped up in it. These qualities put books on my all-time favorite reads list.* The reading itself is worth putting your eyes on the words.

But because I cannot get off this Bhabha quote for the life of me, I was struck by a certain passage of the novel in which Stephen Dedalus comes in linguistic conflict with his dean of studies in comparing the word “funnel” with “tundish,” apparent synonyms in the context of a lamp. Here again is Bhabha and then Joyce:

whose languageless presence evokes an archaic anxiety and aggressivity… 

His courtesy of manner rang a little false, and Stephen looked at the English convert with the same eyes as the elder brother in the parable may have turned on the prodigal. A humble follower in the wake of clamorous conversions, a poor Englishman in Ireland, he seemed to have entered on the stage of jesuit history when that strange play of intrigue and suffering and envy and struggle and indignity had been all all but given through–a late comer, a tardy spirit. …

The little word seemed to have turned a rapier point of his sensitiveness against this courteous and vigilant foe. He felt with a smart of dejection that the man to whom he was speaking was a countryman of Ben Jonson. He [Stephen] thought:
– The language in which we are speaking is his before it is mine. How different are the words home, Christ, ale, master, on his lips and on mine! I cannot speak or write these words without unrest of spirit. His language, so familiar and so foreign, will always be for me an acquired speech. I have not made or accepted its words. My voice holds them at bay. My soul frets in the shadow of his language. (204-205).

Stephen Dedalus, the Irishman, wrestles with his discomfort in speaking a colonial tongue. Many scholars rightfully describe the Irish situation as a postcolonial one. The infamous violence is political and even here glimpsed in tiny insulated form in Stephen’s experience with words. His dean speaks condescendingly of the word “tundish,” for as an Englishman he “never heard the word in [his] life.” Stephen finds himself insulted to the point that standing in the study he is on guard for a duel. This word is his weapon, his “rapier point” that will defend him against the “countryman of Ben Jonson” (an Elizabethan poet).

This passage is very rich for colonial and postcolonial readings, but I would simply like to use it as another test of Bhabha’s argument and mine. As a question, whose languageless presence evokes an archaic anxiety and aggressivity? Is the dean languageless or is Stephen? Stephen describes himself as languageless and yet he is the aggressor. The dean provokes anger in him.

So while Bhabha writes of the reaction provoked by a languageless stranger, Portrait presents the view of the Stranger, in his own country, and what provokes him. Stephen others the dean for his difference, and puts an insurmountable distance between his English and that of the dean. Even as native speakers of the same language, one man feels languageless as a result of the colonial history of Irish oppression.

Many authors wrestle with writing in a language of oppression. Fanon, among others, writes poignantly on this tension throughout his work. I eagerly await a seminar here at Paris 8 given by a doctoral student writing on authors who despise their maternal language. How exactly Joyce felt towards the English [instead of the Irish] language I cannot say. But this autobiographical novel reveals some. He frets. Stephen seems to squirm beneath it, in its shadow.

“I have not made or accepted its words,” Stephen thinks. And this conclusion could also be applied to his feelings about the Catholic church. At the end of the novel, as these tensions pile on top of each other, Stephen leaves “to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race.” In his work, Joyce nearly if not surely found the English words that capture Ireland and the Irish consciousness.

 

*This list off the top of my head includes: Their Eyes Were Watching God, Absalom, Absalom!, The Awakening, The Giver, Black Boy, most Poe, and “The Yellow Wallpaper.”



In search of a summer reading group?
February 26, 2012, 17:24
Filed under: Books, Dust | Tags: , , ,

Hello readers!

I am using this post to plug a summer reading group that I am working on with James Marks and Josh Cohen that you are all invited to participate in.

It will be a summer of William Faulkner!

Quick background: last summer the boys hosted a reading group of The Pale King by David Foster Wallace through their website: tpkteam.com

We will be using the same site to host this virtual and interactive book club. This summer it’s Faulkner. It’s good to sweat while reading Faulkner and so I hope that all of you will consider reading with us.

It is a basic format. We’ll be reading a few texts over the season and you can jump in whenever you want on any or all of the books/stories. We hope to start a conversation fostered by posts and comments. There will also be supplemental criticism and related texts for those interested in that.

Emphasis on low-pressure and low-commitment. I know that some of you (my mother) have long-standing book clubs that already meet regularly. How long has it been now mom? I have early memories of getting kicked out of the house with dad when “the ladies who read” came over.

But TPKteam only requires you open your computer and maybe an account at your local library. Below is the reading list (the first is a short story) and I hope you will all check it out. We’ll be starting in June!

Yours,
Sarah

faulkner in hollywood “A Rose for Emily” (1930)
As I Lay Dying
(1930)
Sanctuary
(1931)
The Hamlet
(1940)
Requiem for a Nun
(1951)
“Race at Morning” (1955)

you can find some of my thoughts on the reading list here.

Summer approaches! Now where did i leave my pipe and typewriter…



What is a Mangrove?
February 16, 2012, 15:14
Filed under: Books | Tags: , , , , , ,

I’ve just finished reading Traversée de la Mangrove by the brilliant Guadeloupean author Maryse Condé. (It has been translated into English) If you know me well, it will not surprise you that I am newly fascinated by this environment, the mangrove, and its watery/landy/salty goodness and its role in literature.

Have you thought about mangroves?  was the question posed to me two weeks ago by Professor Valérie Loichot of Emory.

Oh my. No, I hadn’t.  I thought, while feeling that sensation of omigosh I just locked myself out of the house. I’m not even completely sure what a mangrove is..

Ensuite, Professor Loichot suggested I read Condé’s book. I have and now I am thinking… what an interesting link between Louisiana and Caribbean [environment] literature!

A mangrove can be a lot like a bayou. One thing they have in common is a slippery terminology (forgive me, i was allowed no water puns in my thesis). A mangrove is a plant (image a.) a specific species with a high salt tolerance. It is also a space or land/water mass (image b.) sometimes called a “mangrove swamp.” Like the term bayou, depending on the context and employer of the word, it can refer mostly to verdure or mostly to water bodies.

image a.  image b.

All that being said, they must have some critical differences or one could assume that they would be called the same thing, especially because according to Florida travel sites and Wikipedia, they exist simultaneously in special salty tropical environments such as the Gulf of Mexico.

And because I love Pelicans (hi mom!) here is an image of a Floridian non-breeding brown one, in a mangrove:

Doubling back on the point I was just about to make, this photo highlights for me a simple thematic similarity to be found between the copious amounts of bayou literature I’ve read and the one piece of, why not, “mangrove literature,” I know.

Think of this pelican as a winged messenger of a thematic omen: “Dangerous Bend.” Watch out! Mangroves, like bayous, are dangerous.

Much evidence for the life-risking to be done in the bayou can be found for your viewing pleasure in mine and James’ current favorite reality TV show, Swamp People. Season 3 starts tonight! Check The History Channel’s website for details. (Can’t wait!)

But for depictions of the dangerousness of the mangrove, I turn back to Traversée de la Mangrove, to the moment in which the novel’s title appears in the text. Interestingly, in the novel the words “Traversée de la Mangrove” are a title of a different work, one yet to be written by the dead protagonist, Francis Sancher. We learn about the deceased Francis (unlike Addie Bundren he does not speak from the coffin) through the words and memories of other members of the town, Rivière au Sel (River of Salt).

Here is the brief scene, and I will do my best to translate it, though surely Condé’s eloquence will be lost. Francis is the first speaker and the second, Vilma.

- Tu vois, j’écris. Ne me demande pas à quoi ça sert. D’ailleurs, je ne finirai jamais ce livre puisque, avant d’en avoir tracé la première ligne et de savoir ce que je vais y mettre de sang, de rires, de larmes, de peur, d’espoir, enfin de tout ce qui fait qu’un livre et un livre et non pas une dissertation de raseur, la tête à demi fêlée, j’en ai trouvé le titre: « Traversée de la Mangrove ».
J’ai haussé les épaules.
- On ne traverse pas la mangrove. On s’empale sur les racines des palétuviers. On s’enterre et on étouffe dans la boue saumâtre.
- C’est ça, c’est justement ça (192).

- You see, I write. Do not ask me what the point of it is. Besides, I will never finish this book since, before ever writing the first line or knowing that I would put into it blood, laughter, tears, fears, hopes, well everything that makes a book a book and not a boring dissertation, out of my half-cracked head came the title: “Crossing the Mangrove.”
I shrugged my shoulders.
- You don’t cross a mangrove. You are impaled by the roots of the mangrove trees. You are buried and suffocated by the bitter, salty mud.
- That’s it. That’s exactly it.

Here the mangrove is a violent environment. It actively kills those who dare traverse it. It has many means of killing you, foolish explorer you, be it impalement, strangulation or suffocation, not to mention drowning. Francis views his life as similar to the futile effort of crossing a mangrove.

He believes that he, like his father and his father and his father before him, will die at the age of fifty. During the brief period that he lives in Rivière au Sel, a location he has traced to be the source of this familial curse, Francis speaks only of his impending death. He describes himself as “a zombie,” the walking-dead. Though he seems to ignore the laughable paradox of his impregnating two of the townswomen. But Francis waits, and he does die after all.

This post is only the beginning of a simple conclusion. The treacherous bayou (and mangrove) as representative or symbolic of the  dangerous nature of life is something I consistently encounter in the Bayou Literature of the late-nineteenth century. It is an extension of the seventeenth century tropes of nature as “wild” and “untamable,” a life-threatening  entity that needed to be controlled.

But perhaps the bayou and the mangrove do something a little different. While they are wild (alligators, sink holes, and floods!) in literature they always point back to freedom and refuge. This is specific to the 18th and 19th century context, and it is no coincidence that many of the characters in Mangrove refer to marooned slaves and swamp refugees.

Francis mentions is great-great-great grandfather who,

Le lendemain de ses deuxièmes noces, s’était noyé dans les marais de Louisiane où il avait pris refuge en fuyant la Guadeloupe…(223)

The day after his second marriage, was drowned in the swamps of Louisiana where he had taken refuge after fleeing Guadeloupe…

When Xaintippe became a « nèg mawon », or “marooned nigger,” the trunks of the trees protected him (241). References to the « nèg mawon » are found throughout the text.

This bipolar nature (danger/refuge) of the bayou and mangrove is consistent with what I see to be the nature of all water spaces. They will quench your thirst, but just as quickly wash you away.



Invisible Man and dreams of eviction
February 9, 2012, 17:38
Filed under: Books | Tags: , , , , , ,

“it’s so…… slimy, it feels oozy, if you know what i mean, in this way that it just slides into me and slithers around and makes me feel real funny.”

Those are the words of a friend describing her experience reading Invisible Man (1952). I would concur, it is an experiential this read. I am usually (too) emotionally affected by things I read, see post “on alternating,” but this novel by Ralph Ellison is particularly disturbing. My mood and physicality were altered throughout the 500+ pages of the unnamed narrator’s recount. He is now up there with my favorite male protagonists, just behind Ignatius J. Reilly of A Confederacy of Dunces.

I read the last few chapters on my recent transatlantic flight from Philly to Paris and immediately passed out upon the book’s completion. My subsequent dream centered around eviction, a major reoccurring theme/event in the text, and I believe the word “dispossessed” was even spoken by some dream-character. To quickly summarize, dream-me was some sort of street-folk visual artist and the tenant next door (an unrecognized Harvard TF) was missing, no where to be found.

Finishing Invisible Man was something like a race, so fast-paced and intense that my eyes could barely keep up with the words on the page. In a way the ending is abrupt, though the ultimate conflict was expected; I was anxious for the narrator to see the problems with the Brotherhood. The final riot scene is surreal and its almost humorous looting harks painfully back (or forward I guess) to the looting after Hurricane Katrina.

I think everyone at some point has the desire to “fall in a manhole,” to escape the above ground world and rest awhile. It’s a fantastic image–true fantasy. A cartoon really. Plop! And he’s out of the picture! And Wiley Coyote runs ignorantly overhead. Because this book is so upsetting, disturbing, “oozy,” I think everyone should read it. To finish, here is an image inspired by the book’s amazing prologue: Jeff Wall’s ”After “Invisible Man” by Ralph Ellison, the Prologue”



whose languageless presence evokes an archaic anxiety and aggressivity
January 16, 2012, 21:33
Filed under: Books | Tags: , , , , ,

whose languageless presence evokes an archaic anxiety and aggressivity…

I’ve been coming back to this quote for a week now. It continues to roll around in my head. I find it very provocative and true.

Its source is “DissemiNATION,” the eighth chapter of Homi K. Bhabha’s The Location of Culture (238). It refers to an experience of immigrants in a country where their language is not spoken. One’s own language will never be understood and what’s more will always echo any attempt one makes to speak the local tongue. He quotes John Berger’s A Seventh Man in which a Turkish worker in Germany tries to speak German but his words’ “meaning changed as he spoke them” because he was speaking them as a foreigner, as a speaker of x-nongerman-language (237).

Whether we cannot speak a word or are “fluent” in another language, our words will always be of a language in between. And if your case is the former, you do not speak the local language at all, prepare to be understood as having no language at all. You are languageless. It strikes me as similar to the common case of a medical doctor immigrating to France or America and being limited to jobs in food-service or vending. Your knowledge is devalued if acknowledged at all.

But what of the violence that Bhabha implies is sparked by even the presence of such a person, one who is languageless? If there is such a gaping impasse between people of separate tongues, what makes it then so easy to traverse it in violent reaction. Sometimes the non-native speaker appears weak or submissive in their inability to communicate. Does this apparent submissiveness trigger an “archaic” violence, one that harks back to divide-and-conquer, master-slave societies with “enslave the weak and kill the strong strategies”? (Not to imply that we are out of those societies, we are not.) On one hand, it does not seem to be a matter of survival of the fittest (though I hope to find out soon what Darwin says about language) for even the most linguistically skilled person will always speak a non-language second language. On the other, what is it about the kid with a funny accent and foreign parents that boils the bully’s blood? What about the shy quiet kid makes her the instinctual prey of the louder, more vocal child? If this person does not answer the verbal assaults of their attacker their fate will most likely be worse.

So I ask if Bhabha’s statement only applies to immigrants of a different first language. Could it be a wider human experience? He does much more with this quote of course, connecting it to the “Stranger” concept and amour propre and I am pulling it, somewhat violently and shamelessly, out of context. But I would like to turn his quote into a question, perhaps to suggest wider applicability to issues of language and communication.

Whose languageless presence evokes an archaic anxiety and aggressivity?

In James’ recent blog post, he poses a few questions about language:

He keeps seeking the place where language is sure to fail, is sure to be unable to bring us closer but only to miss the mark. I’m not confident he finds it. If our language entails a certain loss, it also entails expression, which has the potential to reach back behind that which is lost to that which has not yet been held in such a way as to be lose-able. Reaching back to that, my narrator suggests, we find something that we once again cannot attempt to put into words without already having lost it. And yet, does the chain really stop? Does language ever actually fail us in this way? Is anything that is really inexpressible? Maybe… In the dream clearly my companion wishes to leave the experience at experienced and refuses to allow that speaking it could do anything but cover it over irretrievably. I think she is wrong, though I also think her concern is worth dwelling on, worth, even, worrying about. I think we do cover over it irretrievably with our language – but I also think the trouble is in our interpretation, not our expression.

He refers here to two people speaking the same language, but in the same way posits a possible “nucleus of the untranslateable” or what is lost between two speaking beings (Bhabha 234). Even when the words are understood, there can be misunderstandings, loss and “untranslatable” ideas or feelings. Similarly to what James suggests as speaking covering over experience, Bhabha insists that when our mother tongue is a foreign language to the listener, our first language covers both our “speaking” and our “experience.”

This is all a bit of a downer, but I often find the inexpressibility of things very charming and beautiful. Though this inexpressibility or languagelessness often leads to violence or melancholy, I can take some sort of joy in the uniqueness of every time I speak a word, in my own or a foreign tongue. It has a singular meaning in that moment, even if I feel, like Berger’s immigrant, the words’ “meaning changed as [I] spoke them.”