How Will It End? Discussing Valeria Luselli's Acclaimed Essay on Immigration for Children in USA

A bite-sized look into Valeria Luiselli's essay, Tell Me How It Ends: An Essay in 40 Questions, and how it depicts the immigration process for children in America.

Valeria Luiselli in her essay, Tell Me How It Ends: An Essay in 40 Questions works to provide a human face for immigrant children who are often reduced to numbers and statistics. Luiselli speaks with authority as the essayist and as someone deeply familiar with the situation of the children whose story she wishes to bring to light. At the same time however, she does not aim for journalistic objectivity and makes her personal feelings known as the driving force behind her work. “Because- how do you explain that it is never inspiration that drives you to tell a story, but rather a combination of anger and clarity? How do you say: No, we do not find inspiration here, but we find a country that is as beautiful as it is broken, and we are somehow now part of it...” Luiselli is not only angry at the situation and treatment that faces the children who have come from violence, pain and suffering, but at the country with a system that makes it harder for them to find peace. She uses a simile to refer to America as beautiful but only as much as it is broken, highlighting that it is has just as many flaws as it has accolades. It is as if the country sits upon a scale where even the smallest decision can tip it towards hope or despair. 

The people of America who sit idly by or vocally oppose immigration are also a target of frustration. Luiselli emphasises this by making the reader of her essay feel uninformed about the reality of the situation the immigrant children are faced with. “Before the immigration crisis was declared in summer of 2014, minors seeking immigration relief were given approximately twelve months to find a lawyer to represent their case before their first court hearing. But when the crisis was declared and Obama’s administration created the priority juvenile docket, that window was reduced to twenty-one days.” Luiselli explains the situation to us in a matter of fact way with a slightly emotionally inclined tone. The time needed to find legal aid is referred to as a window, a window of opportunity, a chance that only lasts a certain amount of time. She goes on to clarify that “In real and practical terms, what the creation of that priority docket meant was that the cases involving unaccompanied minors from Central America were grouped together and moved to the top of the list of pending cases in immigration court.” Initially, this seems like a positive thing. Pending cases denote a sense of waiting and entrapment. Reaching a conclusion and final decision whether it be positive or negative is good for example, nobody wants to be a dead man walking, frozen and living a purgatorial existence and unable to make a transition to the next stage. However, this notion is turned on its head, reminding us that this waiting period is essential in order to organise the appropriate defence needed for the children to have a chance of being released and able to live and start a new life in America. This emphasises that many people place too much trust in the government to do the right thing for this situation as their work can be making it worse for the innocents involved.

Happiness is Appreciating the Little Things in 10:04

In this microanalysis, I explore the coffee motif in Ben Lerner's novel 10:04 (2014). Is this simple beverage a non-essential commodity, or does it mean something more to the busy and fast-paced New Yorker? To read my longer article on 10:04, please click here.

Ben Lerner in his novel 10:04, makes a point to meticulously detail everyday events and objects. Throughout the novel, Lerner weaves in a provocative coffee motif, from instant to cafe style in order to comment on the commercially driven society that sees it as a necessity. “...the routine of shopping just enough to make me viscerally aware of both the miracle and insanity of the mundane economy. Finally I found something on the list, something vital: instant coffee.” At first, “instant coffee” seems to be a punchline to a sarcastic joke but then the narrator goes on to detail the production of the coffee itself in one long and descriptive sentence. The sentence leaves the reader overwhelmed and emphasises how processed even the simplest things are. He continues to say “It was as if the social relations that produced the object at hand began to glow within it…the majesty and murderous stupidity of that organisation of time and space and fuel and labor…” The simile highlights that it is rather easy to see what is behind the scenes of every item if you take the time to think about it and how this is illuminating. The juxtaposition between “majesty” and “murderous stupidity” is sharp but entirely understandable. Anything with a process as long as this is in some way fantastic but it doesn’t change the fact that the item itself is a mere commodity; a want, not a need. 

The coffee motif reappears as the narrator is within the city, surrounded by vehicles. His thought of the “ground speed” aeroplane is reoriented by his “...repeating of the phrase until ground began to sound like the past participle of grind- as if velocity could be powdered, pulverised. It made me think of instant coffee.” The coffee image is inserted rather abruptly and softens the previous connotations of “pulverised”. Additionally, just like instant coffee, travel from place to place via aeroplane is only possible through a very involved set of processes, so much that it is practically processed. 

Coffee also becomes an issue when the author meets with the librarian at the coffee shop. “His problem was that the coffee required two hands, or at least he had taken it with two hands, one on cup and one on saucer, so not to spill the coffee or upset the foam; he couldn’t return her wave. He felt himself scowling at this situation, realising too late she’d think he was scowling at her. His solution was to look at the cup with exaggerated intensity, in the hope that she would understand his dilemma. He walked slowly, eyes fixed on the dissolving flower, to the seat beside the window, having ruined everything.” It is interesting to consider what exactly the narrator is referring to as “everything”. Could it be his impression in the eyes of the librarian or is it simply the flower image in the coffee being ruined. However, it may not be fair to call his anxiety and “dilemma” about the coffee simple. Earlier, Lerner questions the necessity of this commodity but in this fast pace world, small pleasures like a perfect cup of coffee can make someone’s day. Those who slow down and focus on the beauty in little things may be the happiest people in New York City.

The Sexual Politics of The Marriage of Maria Braun (Die Ehe der Maria Braun)

Reiner Warner Fassbinder’s 1979 film, The Marriage of Maria Braun (Die Ehe der Maria Braun) raises and explores a range of issues concerning sexual politics affecting both men and women in Germany after World War II.

Judging on initial appearances, it is rather easy to label the characters as right or wrong, moral or immoral, caring or apathetic however, what you must consider is the many levels of context each of them are defined by. These include established gender roles and how these changed and evolved because of the war. 

The wedding or marriage ceremony is an important part of the marriage as a whole. It should be a special day marking the beginning of a couple’s new life together however, Maria and Hermann’s left much to be desired. The first image the audience is shown is a damaged portrait of a proud Adolf Hitler. The camera is then directed to a building which is hit by a bomb and through the hole in the wall, we see Maria standing in her wedding attire with Hermann in his Nazi uniform and the priest. This shot darkly foreshadows the despairing future of the marriage. The film in a way starts with a bang and in the very last shot, ends with a bang. In the beginning, the walls of the building protect Maria and Hermann who are inside whereas later, the walls of Maria’s large and hollow house encase them in the explosion that ends both of their lives. While Maria Braun’s endurance and hard working approach to her difficult life results in her independence through wealth, for the film to end with her death shows how many people will never be in a sense, ‘whole’ again, especially the women who had to step up in order to survive. According to Uecker, Maria is “... a victim rather than the embodiment of West Germany’s post-war recovery, interpreting her violent death as the brutal termination of the hope for female independence and self-assertiveness in post-war Germany”. 

Maria and Bill’s relationship shows that post war happiness may only be possible if ideas of not only gender but also race are allowed to evolve. When Maria is still looking for Hermann, the only real solution or active advice she was given on how to cope was by the lady in the bar who was talking about remarriage. After Maria is told that Hermann is dead and will not come back, she is very much alone to fend for herself. She lacks support from those who are meant to love her, such as her mother who is too consumed in her own grief and self pity to pay Maria any real attention, and her so-called best friend, Betti. While Betti and Maria were able to bond over the fact that they had both lost their husbands in the war, their relationship is stripped bare when Willi returns home. This particular scene is highly unusual because when Maria came in the room and was filled with joy to see Willi, there is an awkward ‘elephant in the room’ feeling as Hermann is not there also. Betti, Willi and Maria’s mother wait for her to ask about Hermann and when they finally tell her, they seem to lack genuine empathy. Maria’s mother gives her a hug but without any warmth and sincerity. Betti acts almost as if she is embarrassed and ashamed to have her husband back when her friend’s husband would never return. Her behaviour is like if you were given an extravagant present and you don’t want to show your excitement because the person next to you receives nothing. Even with this huge heartbreak, Maria still works hard to support herself. One night, the emotionally wrecked Maria opens her heart to the African American soldier, Bill. O’Sicky, and sees that “Bill functions as an emblem of African-American soldiers' cultural and social otherness. His association with the victorious army makes him appear to have more social power than Maria and her family…[However], From the very beginning, Bill's social power is contingent... on how the white German population perceives it. This point is communicated dramatically when he is killed after Maria has taken off his uniform.” Maria is happy as Bill really does care for her and doesn’t just love her for her body, thus provides a much needed emotional cushion for her broken heart. Her mother, Betti and Willi approve as Bill can provide them with material wealth, but Bill’s power is not certain. Being not only an American soldier but a black American soldier, Bill is in a country which has lost in a war against his men, and have a recent ideological history of white supremacy. While he appears physically and emotionally strong, his fate is entirely dependent on the White Germans who can figuratively ‘pull the plug’ at any time.

While we hear from Maria’s mother that Hermann and Maria had fallen in love, their relationship as a married couple lasted less than twenty-four hours. Maria is incredibly dedicated to Hermann, even after she thinks he is dead, she still sees herself as married to him forever. However, what becomes incredibly apparent when we witness the return of Hermann is that Maria loves Hermann as a concept, the idea of Hermann rather than the person himself. Langford asserts that “Hermann is largely a construct of Maria’s memory and imagination. Hermann is quite literally her man. For instance, a photograph of Hermann is able to provoke outbursts of emotion in Maria, whereas Hermann the man cannot.” When Hermann returns, and we see him outside the room where Maria and Bill are being intimate, it is clear from their conversation that their relationship is real. While Maria still misses Hermann, she is happily pregnant will Bill’s child who she wants to name after husband and both appear very committed to each other. However, when Hermann enters the room, her heart goes back to belonging to him alone. Hermann appears angry but more than anything, just wants a cigarette which he sees across the room. He does not even say a word to his wife. Bill stops him and the two men begin to fight. Maria then hits Bill over the head with a glass wine bottle that was sitting on the table. This is highly ironic because most likely the wine was there for her and Bill to celebrate their relationship. In a slapstick fashion, Bill dies instantly. Even though this was a very spontaneous action amongst a lot confusion, it does show who she instinctively sides with and cares for more. On one hand, this could prove what Maria’s mother had said earlier, that you can only ever love one person, that if Hermann was there, the choice between Bill and Hermann would not be difficult at all as it was always was meant to be Hermann. On the other hand, this also shows that her love is irrational, that she needs to be with him just because he is Hermann, not because the relationship promises her any happiness. 

When Maria moves on to have a relationship with Oswald, her independence which she has worked so hard for becomes compromised. According to Martin, “Although Maria believes she uses clothing to control men, she virtually becomes the clothes she wears, which serve to turn her body into a fetishised object. Maria is a consumer good in a capitalist system of exchange.” This is proven literally true by the deal between her lover and employer, Karl Oswald and Hermann. In a sense, Oswald really does love Maria. Although it did start as a love affair, since the moment he met her, he became enraptured and captivated by her confident personality and charm. knowing that his days are numbered because of his illness, he meets with Hermann in prison and offers his entire fortune after he dies in exchange for being allowed to spend his remaining days with Maria. While it seems kind of romantic of Oswald and a clear opportunity for Hermann to regain his pride as the male provider in his marriage, both men were selfish in leaving Maria out of the decision completely. In addition, in the reading of Oswald's will, it is said that the money will be split between Maria and Hermann "50-50" instead of saying all of it will go to the couple. This could have been a subtle way of Oswald maintaining his position as the provider for Maria beyond the grave and also suggests that the couple's bond is not unbreakable as splitting up money happens in a divorce. 

In conclusion, Fassbinder’s 1979 film, The Marriage of Maria Braun raises and explores a range of issues concerning the sexual politics concerning both men and women in Germany after World War II. After watching it the first time, due to the radical nature of the character’s actions, it is easy to place a labelled judgement on them. Initial assessment like this however is incredibly insufficient as the characters are far more complex than they seem due to the layers and levels of context they are defined and confined by. These include established gender roles and how these changed and evolved because of the war going. For the men who are involved with Maria, their roles connect to their role in World War II: the winner (Bill), the loser (Hermann) and the non-participant (Oswald). For women, some positions include the widowed woman, the free single woman and the married woman whose husband has been changed from the man they fell in love with. 

References

Langford, Michelle, “Chapter 5 : Film Figures: Rainer Werner Fassbinder's The Marriage of Maria Braun and Alexander Kluge's The Female Patriot”, in Kiss Me Deadly : Feminism & Cinema for the Moment, (Sydney: Power Publications, (1995)), 147-179

Martin, Robert K, “Gender, Power, and Politics in Rainer Werner Fassbinder's The Marriage of Maria Braun”, In Schatzkammer der Deutschen Sprache, Dichtung und Geschichte, 1992 18 (2): 19-27.

O'Sickey, Ingeborg Majer, “Representing Blackness: Instrumentalizing Race and Gender in Rainer Werner Fassbinder's The Marriage of Maria Braun”, In Women in German Yearbook: Feminist Studies in German Literature and Culture, (2001) 17 (1): 15-29.

Uecker, Matthias, “Fatal German marriage : the National Subtext of

Fassbinder’s Die Ehe Der Maria Braun”, In In German Life and Letters, (2001) 54(1): 45-59.