Monday, May 22, 2006

I finally finished reading the book. The ending of Jing-Mei Woo's story really surprised me. It was very beautifully ended. I cannot even find the way to explain how much I loved the ending of the story.
I find it very nice that Jing-Mei finally found her half sisters after so many years. The way they met is very amazing. It happened by a slim chance and it is so cool that it did happen. In addition, I love how they seem to be able to piece each other together to somehow form their mother. What I mean is that when they all met and looked at each other's faces, and all saw facial features or personality features that reminded them of their mother, it was as if they were taking pieces from each other to form their mother. That is a beautiful thing.
In addition, I love how the problem between Lindo and Waverly Jong fixed itself. Even though Lindo felt insulted by Waverly, I'm happy to see that Waverly saw the beauty within Lindo. It is always nice to see that Waverly was finally able to accept her mother for what she was and came to face her heritage proudly.
How do you feel about the story's ending?

Sunday, May 14, 2006

For the past few days, I have been thinking about the meaning of the quote that Ying- ying St. Clair told her daughter, Lena. The quote is, "Then why you don't stop it?" She asked Lena this question after a black vase, which Lena's husband, Harold, made, fell off of a table. I know, in a shallow meaning, Ying- ying meant to ask why didn't Lena move the vase somewhere else, so it would not have been at risk of breaking.
However, I think the vase and the fall represented something of a greater importance. The vase probably represented Lena and Harold's relationship. The table could have represented the instability of the relationship. Gradually, the vase slid lower and lower on the table. Within time, it fell onto the floor, breaking into many pieces. The pieces were not completely broken, so they could be easily put back together. However, it would take a lot of time, care, and effort, as it would to fix Lena and Harold's relationship. But, instead of fixing the vase, Lena just picked up the broken pieces, saying that she knew it would eventually break. This could mean that she was trying to pick up the pieces of her broken heart after realizing her relationship was ruined and that there was nothing that she could do to fix it.
The question could have meant more than meaning, "Why didn't you move the vase before it fell and broke?" It could have meant, "Why didn't you save your relationship before it fell apart completely?" That could explain why Lena was so perplexed at the question. What do you think?

Thursday, May 11, 2006

I have read the third section of The Joy Luck Club. This section really goes into the emotional part of each of the characters' stories, especially Rose Hsu Jordan's and Lena St. Clair's stories. Particularly, I believe Jing- Mei Woo's story is based on logic. Waverly Jong's story is based on her own thoughts, mixed in with the thoughts she had of her mom and her mother's own thoughts.
In this section, I really liked "Rice Husband",which was Lena St. Clair's story. I particularly enjoy reading the stories about Lena St. Clair. I believe I understand her point of view the best. In my opinion, she is talking about her story from a point of view that is based on false love and her thoughts are based on her heartbreak. This point of view is really intellectual and emotional, which is why I believe I understand it the best out of all of the stories.
I understand Rose Hsu Jordan's story, which was "Without Wood". It had a similar topic as "Rice Husband". There was a high level of intellect and emotion in the story. However, the story did not have such an intense passion and sadness as Lena St. Clair's story did.
I was not very fond of Jing-Mei Woo's story or Waverly Jong's story. Those stories don't seem to have as much emotion in them as the other two stories.
What is your favorite story? Why is it your favorite? What do you think about the other stories?

Sunday, May 07, 2006

I have finished reading section 2 of the book. So far, I am really enjoying this book. It is written very well with much detail and emotion, which really keeps me interested in a book. Nonetheless, there are many things in this section that captured my attention even more, while confusing me at a certain point.The parable at the beginning of the story explains how the mothers are all being protective and guarding their children, in some cases to an extreme point, so they wouldn't get hurt. I can see why the mothers would do that. (The reason being that they don't want their children to have to go through what they went through in life that hurt them so much.) In addition, all of the mothers tried to make their children perfect, hoping that if they did, it would be as if their children had a protective covering, so they could never get hurt. However, in most of the cases, their hopes and expectations turned out to have been done in their vanity.
However, in the story of Lena St. Clair, the ending confused to me. I am not quite sure how Lena's experience connected with the ending. Can someone please explain that to me?

In class, we read a parable that was at the beginning of the first section of the book. I believe that the parable is very connected to all of the stories in one general way. The connection is the fact that all of the mothers want to share a very important piece of information with them. This may be a seemingly unimportant symbol, such as a feather, or it could b life-changing advice, which all of the mothers have. All of the mothers have been through traumatic experiences in China that taught them a lot about life. These experiences even shaped their views of how life is. The mothers want to share the advice with their daughters so that they can be aware of how life can be and how they should react would life becomes very hard.
I believe this a very important connection that in not only seen in the first section, but throughout the entire story. What do you think?