Reconciliation

At the end of the novel, one of the most important moments in the plot occurs when Rowdy decides to reconcile with Junior. On one hand this moment seems to be a touching gesture, showing how individuals can put aside differences to regain a lost relationship. On the other hand, I am not sure how realistic this entire scenario is in the larger context of the novel. That is, I am not sure if Rowdy really would want to rekindle his lost friendship with Junior considering the betrayal that he felt. Rather, I would expect that the relationship between Junior and Rowdy would continue in a somewhat passive aggressive manner similar to how Rowdy did not tear up the picture Junior drew, but at the same time, did not come out and forgive Junior. Perhaps Junior was dreaming about his renewed friendship with Rowdy. The passage from the end of the novel displays a somewhat dreamlike quality due to its vividness and broad language as seen when Junior states: "Rowdy and I played one-on-one for hours. We played until dark. We played until the streetlights lit up the court. We played until the bats swooped down at our heads. We played until the moon was huge and golden and perfect in the dark sky" (230). I believe that the descriptors used in the passage such as the moon being "huge and golden" are what gives the passage this dreamlike quality. Overall, although it was endearing that two old friends could return their relationship to what it was, I do not believe that this is plausible given the rest of the plot.

Why?

Before I begin my post, I would like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian. In fact, I enjoyed the novel so much that I read the entire thing on the way to a college visit. However, although I enjoyed the novel, I honestly do not understand why we are reading this book. I don't understand how it fits in with the curriculum of the AP exam. Even today when we took our in-class essay, we were supposed to use works of literary merit. Again, don't get me wrong, I love this novel, but I do not think that it should considered of literary merit. Are you being nice, or do you have an ulterior motive? 

Passage Analysis from The Bluest Eye

After finishing The Bluest Eye, one passage from the end of the novel was not clear to me so I decided to perform a brief close reading to better understand it.

One of the first meanings that I was able to take away from the passage was the distinctions between certain words that the author uses. Strength vs aggression, free vs licensed, compassionate vs polite ...

I believe that the juxtaposition of these words was intended to highlight how Pecola allowed the girls to feel strength, but did not actually empower them. She may have created feelings of strength but they were really aggression in disguise. Similarly, the shackles that bound Pecola may have inspired feelings of freedom in Claudia, but in fact these feelings were simply substitutes for the true and internal feeling of freedom. In this way, I believe that the author is commenting on the nature of true feelings. Although people may try and use others to empower themselves, it seems that what the author is saying is that true feelings of strength and freedom and compassion can only come from within.