For the "Breakfast at Tiffany's" project, Kim P. did a lot of the arranging; she successfully gathered us, wrangled our information onto paper, and began email threads about what to do. We met at the Library, and had a very productive meeting, hashing out our subject matter.
There are a few things I can point to and claim credit. The syllabus asks whether the work reaffirms or resists traditional relationships and gender roles, so I originally presented the argument that "Breakfast" bucks the trend on all fronts: Holly is not your typical heroine looking for a Prince Charming, there is no happy guy-gets-girl ending, sexual roles are ambiguous.
In keeping with that theme, I submitted numerous lists of talking points, notes from Barker and from various essays and articles, and my own thoughts about what we could discuss and what theories we could connect to. I was also lucky enough to find and post the group's article referenced in the discussion.
My own part of the presentation/discussion was to point out that there are no stereotypical male roles in this novella, no romantic protagonist. All the males in the book are submissive, desperate, old or otherwise out of the running. The only typical male is an unnamed tomcat.
I'm afraid I'm guilty of suggesting the concept of showing the movie's ending and saying "That was Happy Go Lucky; this is Holly Golightly." I cannot help but give in to rhythmic assonances.
No comments:
Post a Comment