not just another umw blogs weblog

Archive for the ‘The Wedding of Tom to Tom’ tag

Correspondence with Keith Banner

with 2 comments

As some of you know, while writing my major paper on The Wedding of Tom to Tom, I stumbled upon Keith Banner’s Facebook page, and sent him an email telling him how much I liked his short-story, letting him know about our course, and directing him to this blog. At his request, I thought I would share his correspondence with me.

His initial response: Wow. I love when this happens. It does not happen a lot, of course, but that story has a few fans, and truthfully it’s one of my own faves of what I’ve written. So glad you are “using it.” Thanks so much for your kind words and I look forward to reading your paper… Keith

Then last Wednesday: Amanda, someone sent me a link to your paper about my story. Just out of blue I read it yesterday. Wrote this blog about it. Thank you so much and please relay the thanks to your prof and other students… Keith

Here’s is the link to the blog he wrote about the experience of reading my paper: http://twoplustwoequalsfive-tskyinc.blogspot.com/2010/11/tom-tom-bliss.html

He apparently was very touched by my analysis, but also was impressed with what we’ve been doing as a class.
Here’s an excerpt from the blog-post that also acknowledges the monologue project!

A true example of 2 + 2 = 5: me the writer writing something wholeheartedly dedicated to reinventing the way people view characters with developmental disabilities in literature, and ten years later a writer takes what I did and gives it back to me fully reinvigorated. Wow. Another example on the same blog is four students in the class creating monologues based on some of the characters in my story that I did not give a lot of voice and agency to. Reading those monologues made me cry too.
Maybe I’m just some overemotional freak (well wait a minute: yes I am that), but also I think that this is probably a pretty normal thing that happens to writers all the time. This is just my first time. It was Amanda and the other students’ thoroughness that got me.
Thanks to ENGL 375A2 at the University of Mary Washington in Virginia…

Written by gormanda

November 29th, 2010 at 11:26 am

Amanda Gorman’s Major Paper

without comments

Disability and Representation in Keith Banner’s “The Wedding of Tom to Tom”

Disabled characters, perhaps because of their inherent mystery to nondisabled writers and readers alike, have always been well utilized in literature.  These characters often become walking talking embodiments of their disabilities, and help to further the plotlines of the main nondisabled characters.  The paradigmatic example of a disabled character in literature is Tiny Tim, the helpless, pitiable disabled boy who acts as a moral compass for Scrooge’s change of heart in A Christmas Carol. We seem to be comfortable encountering disabled characters in literature insofar as they act the part: innocent, desexualized, childlike, bent on overcoming their limitations.  In “The Wedding of Tom to Tom”, Keith Banner seems to be challenging this literary stereotype to the utmost degree.  He opens the story by confronting the reader with two intellectually disabled characters engaging in gay sex, an act that many people are barely comfortable reading about nondisabled characters engaging in.  Banner continues his incredibly progressive representation of disabled characters in “The Wedding of Tom to Tom” by granting legitimacy to their sexualities, asking the reader to reject an infantilized view of them, and by re-imagining the kind of impact that they might have on nondisabled persons.
The fact that Banner’s representation of the intersection of sexuality and disability is a positive one is first evidenced in the text by the fact that he clearly depicts the sexual acts between Tom and Tom as intentional.  Anita, after walking in on the couple mid-blowjob and forgetting to turn the lights off as she left says that she “ was getting ready to open the door and turn them off when [she] saw that one of the Toms had already got it.  Almost as soon as it was dark in there again, they were making that same crazy silly sex music” (51).  This shows that Tom and Tom had not only a physical understanding of what they were doing but also a social understanding, as it is common practice that lights are dimmed during intimate sexual interaction.  Anita as the main narrator also makes reference to Tom and Tom’s sexual practices within terms of normal discourse:  “Tom A. and Tom B. were trying to sneak off for a quickie right then, and I saw” (59).  This shows that not only do the disabled characters view what they are doing as legitimate, but one of the nondisabled characters does too.  Though this perhaps should not need to be the case, the fact that a nondisabled character shares this viewpoint does seem to help encourage the reading of Tom and Tom’s behavior as worthy of being understood as mature, intentional sexual behavior.
But it is also made clear in the text that Tom and Tom are not merely mimicking nondisabled sexual behavior.  As Tom B. sneaks back to his room, Anita describes him as
“half-demonic, half-angelic, but dramatic, like he had gone off and now he was returning from his journey filled with beautiful new things to tell” (52).  This description portrays Tom B. as seeming to understand and to have personalized the complexities of sexual life, rather than merely engaging in acts prearranged by a framework of nondisabled sexual meanings.  Though their pleasure itself is described as genuine, for example Anita imagines a fantasy in which a lot of people are coming towards her all “smiling the way Tom A. does during a blow-job session”, Banner does not portray their shared sexuality as functioning merely for physical gratification (73).  The love between Tom A. and Tom B. is conveyed to the reader in poignant subtle detail.  For example, after the two men are split apart during group time, Anita describes Tom B., smiling, “but his eyes were afraid at the same time.  He blew out a sigh and let go of Tom A’s hand…” (58).  The fact that the men are constantly split up ends up being read not as a necessary precaution, but rather a tragic element of their love story.  The “stack of old-timey bridal magazines, worn out from looking at them”, that Tom A. has stacked in his room, clearly is meant to evoke a kind of sympathy from the reader that differs from the kind of pity one might have for two adults with mental retardation engaging in sexual acts devoid of an understanding of their meaning (65). When Tom B. talks about his relationship with Tom A. Anita describes his face as “sincere and stupid and scary and beautiful”, the kind of face she cannot say no to (66).  By the time in the text wherein Anita plans a wedding for the two men, the reader understands why she would want to do something nice for these two men who are unquestionably in love.
It is because of the tender details of their love that Banner includes in the story that the reader ends up having such an adverse reaction to Anita’s boss Kate’s viewpoint on the relationship of Tom A. and Tom B. which is that it is a problematic one, characterized by a strange obsession with each other’s presences.  Her view of the two men only makes sense within an infantilizing, paternalistic view of disability that denies disabled persons their own agencies to make informed decisions for themselves.  In a meeting for workers at the home, Kate expresses her concerns about the two Toms: “I mean, what I’m afraid of is that they are gonna end up hurting each other.  Physically.  There’s all kinds of issues here.  I mean when I walked in on them the other morning, Tom A., excuse me, but Tom A. was anally penetrating Tom B.” (63).   It is clear that this is not a rational concern, proof being that it is indicated that the men have been together for many years without much incident, but rather Kate’s “concern” seems to be a matter of attempting to rationalize her paternalistic motives.  Kate’s assumption that the two men cannot make their own decisions despite their apparent competence may be related to a belief that their choosing to be in a homosexual relationship is indicative of an impaired ability to choose appropriate partners due to their mental
However, Kate is emphatically not a sympathetic character, which reveals that Banner wants the reader to reject Kate’s infantilizing view of the intellectually disabled characters.  The reader is not supposed to like Kate, who is first described as “smiling like a whack-o” (51).  But furthermore, her way of demeaning others and undervaluing their capabilities is shown not to be caused by real necessity insofar as she works with needy disabled individuals, but rather a manifestation of an undesirable personality trait.  After the meeting Kate has with the (nondisabled) workers at the home Anita relates that it “…got quiet, like we were all suddenly little kids and Kate Anderson-Malloy was the teacher” (64). The fact that Anita constantly refers to Kate with all three of her names, Kate Anderson-Malloy, helps locate more specifically what Kate’s undesirable personality trait is: pretension.  In fact, throughout the story Anita expresses her frustration with Kate’s assumed superiority.  For example, she says at one point, “I mean, she’s a bitch…but also there’s this weird, loud, lovingness in her face as she pronounces her proclamations, like against her compassionate instincts she’s always having to tell us these things” (63).  As Anita has trouble pinpointing just what is so terrible about Kate’s opinion that the two men need to be separated, all the while she does not doubt that the two men should have “permission” to be together.  Banner seems to be saying that of course love between two adults should be allowed, this should be an unquestionable fact, one that should not need arguing for.
As progressive as the narrative is in representing the intersection of disability and sexuality and rejecting the appropriateness of infantilizing mindsets, it runs its biggest risk of falling back into the conventions of the archetypal disability narrative in making the disabled characters somewhat auxiliary to the dynamic narrative of the main character.  Not only this, but it does seem to be the implication that the protagonist Anita, a nondisabled character, is looking to learn something from the disabled persons at the group home.  In fact, she describes her job there as her “antidote” to what she had been through with her ex-boyfriend.  She explains that she feels like she is “paying penance too but just for being a total fucking fool” (57).  But Banner now departs from the typical nondisabled character learning from disabled characters structure.  The familiar storyline might include disabled characters overcoming their limitations in some way or learning to cope with their disabling conditions and a main nondisabled character that finds that inspiring.  In “The Wedding of Tom to Tom” there is no talk whatsoever of overcoming disability, and what the nondisabled Anita finds inspiring about Tom and Tom is their love story and the endurance of their love through hard times.
Banner makes it very obvious at certain points in the text that Anita draws analogy between her relationship with Archie and Tom and Tom’s relationship.  For example, she admits that when picking up the Toms before their impromptu wedding that she is “thinking: well it’s me and Archie in my head, if you want to know the truth” (69). Later on, Anita imagines within her prophetic fantasy of Tom A. and Tom B.’s happy life together, “Love-light. Lava-lamp light” (73).  She then immediately connects this to a memory of Archie: “Archie has a lava lamp in his bedroom, or used to.  He would turn it on in the dark while we made love.  “Real cheesy,” he would say (73).  There are also more subtle comparisons in the text that truly bring to light the resonance for Anita of Tom and Tom’s love.  In the car with the Toms in the back seat, Anita remembers a moment with Archie: “…and this was love, without crack and without any lies and without his petty-assed, trashy ways.  Maybe, maybe not.  I see them back there in the rearview.  Tom A. and Tom B.  Looking straight ahead” (70).  Here Anita is looking back to the past to recall a pleasant memory of Archie before they began to have problems and questioning whether or not she loves him.  This stands in stark contrast to the reflection in her mirror of the two Toms sitting in her backseat, looking straight ahead, unflinchingly, resolutely, in love and looking towards the future.  In addition, Banner even seems to evoke the blowjob motif first encountered in the opening lines of the story when Anita decrees to the reader in a moment of unbridled passion for Archie, “if he had a crack-pipe I would let him stick it into my mouth” (75).
Ultimately, though, it ends up being not just the inspiration of Tom and Tom’s relationship that leads to Anita’s epiphany of her love for Archie at the end of the story.  It seems rather to be the fact that he on some level grasps the fact that Tom and Tom are in love, and would never think to question it.  This almost seems to conjure the archetypal image of the disabled character acting as a moral compass, but I argue, differs in a fundamental way.  Archie can in no way be seen as a moral hero for the way he treats disabled characters, for in fact he does not even interact with the disabled characters. He merely hears the crazy sex music of the Toms through the wall separating their hotel room from his and Anita’s and “isn’t disgusted” or “even perturbed” (76).  It is this, instead –his attitude towards love, that it cannot and should not be denied no matter how difficult or unusual the circumstances, which is evidenced by his seemingly natural acceptance of Tom and Tom, that makes Anita realize that she loves him.
By representing the disabled characters as sexual, adult individuals capable of making decisions for themselves, and capable of inspiring people in ways other than attempting to overcome their impairments, Banner breaks from traditional uses of disabled characters in literature.  Instead he comes closer to representing people with disabilities as they actually might appear in the world, as nuanced, complicated individuals with their own ideas, goals, and values.  Banner’s story might be read as an argument for the transcendent quality of love, for its ability to reach beyond the socially sanctioned places it is supposed to be confined to and manifest itself in anyone.  By including disabled characters in this argument, Banner in a small way begins to right the wrongs of his predecessors.  He gives disabled characters back their humanity.

* I am indebted to my peer, Helen Alston, for this insight.  Her complete explication of this passage through the joint lens of sexuality and disability is available at our Disability in Literature course blog at http://dislit.umwblogs.org/2010/11/03/helens-formal-blog-post-on-banners-the-wedding-of-tom-to-tom/

Written by gormanda

November 22nd, 2010 at 3:16 am

Matthew Blakley’s 11/03 Class Summary

without comments

On this chilly hump-day we began class with a small group activity that operated by rotation. Our class divided into four groups and, after responding to a designated question, each group passed their documented responses around the room (counter-clockwise). Each group got a turn with each question, which ultimately created a space for a multi-vocal response. All pertinent thoughts were recorded, and in the end each question’s answer sheet (hopefully) contained a conversation between each group’s unique ideas. This activity avoids cohesion and instead invites contrasting interpretations to elevate our readings’ textual and character analysis. The class then discussed at large the questions they discussed in small groups for the remaining 10-15-minutes of class. Thus, through small and large group discussion, our class focused on how O’Connor’s character Hulga generates no reader-sympathy at all, Banner and Carver’s short stories strongly involve disability as epiphany, and how Lahiri’s character, Libi, complies to the conventional associations of femininity with illness.

My small group was undecided whether or not to sympathize with Hulga, but the class as a whole gave no sympathy to her. Though Manly tricks Hulga into thinking he’s a Christian bible salesman and ultimately flees with her prosthetic leg, it is Hulga’s antagonistic qualities that resist sympathy from the reader. Her childish characteristics of immature fashions, what seems as teen-angst toward her mother, and her overt rudeness develop Hulga into a character to be hated. As Kathleen offered in large group discussion, Hulga is not a Tiny Tim character, and thus the reader is not supposed to like her. Then, in response, Professor Foss questioned Hulga’s character as an anti-Tiny Tim character, saying that she is in fact an “ugly disabled character,” whom O’Connor may have created to contradict the stock, sympathetic role of Tiny Tim. My small group decided that throughout our readings we found that Hulga’s character became less about her disability and more about her personal ideologies. This shift contrasts the stock disabled character, a character like Tiny Tim, and allows Manly’s deceitfulness to translate as dark humor or poetic justice. The ending could be considered poetic justice because us readers want Hulga to suffer because of her unpleasant, isolated personality. Thus, it is her personality, not her disability that makes her unique; whether one affects the other is up to you.

Both Banner’s “The Wedding of Tom to Tom” and Carver’s “Cathedral” boast characters that, through contact with a disabled character, find themselves transformed into better people. Although our class only got to discuss “The Wedding of Tom to Tom” and “Cathedral” in small groups my group had the most to say about this topic. We felt as if there was a progression from the beginning of Banner’s story because initially Anita is uninvolved with her new job at the group home, but in the end she’s so invested to it she ends up risking her job to marry Tom A and Tom B. This risk helps her gain a new perspective on her life and her own personal definition of love. Anita’s sense of bravery and newfound respect for her patients helped my group label Banner’s story as progressive. My group did disagree, however, with how Anita over uses the term “retard” in harmful, frivolous ways.

Carver’s story involves a similar transformation, although what we think Robert’s character is unique because he is so aggressive in the husband’s “transformation.” Of course my group doesn’t think the same about the disabled characters in Banner’s piece, but we do think Robert’s character is more proactive when he insists that the husband sketch a picture of what a cathedral looks like while holding his hand. The questions we offered about the husband’s transformation is his intoxication level and the severity of the disabled character’s disability. For example, was it easier for the husband to rid his prosthetic nervousness because Robert was blind as opposed to mentally disabled or physically deformed? We thought it was “easier” for the husband than it was for Anita due to Robert’s mental stability.

Lastly, in “The Treatment of Bibi Haldar,” Lahiri positions her character Libi victim to the stereotypical implications of women and illness. To her community, Libi is almost exclusively characterized by her ambiguous disability. Above her community’s obsession over Libi’s wellbeing, Libi is severely reduced to her physical appearance and the fact that she is, as Helen put it in large group, “unmarketable as a wife.” Libi is isolated from learning how to cook, clean, and dress as a respectable bride because her community denies her individual agency either because they think she is contagious or because they think they do not understand her. Also, upon exploring Libi’s disability, the reader is immediately told that Libi is crazy, ugly, and self-destructive.  The emphasis on her aesthetics gives reason to the reader to believe that her illness can’t help but be linked to her gender. My group wonders what her community would think of her if Libi were beautiful. Seeing as her only “cure” is a male-induced orgasm, the community would probably accept her. Another indication that Libi is unfairly objectified is because the story’s plot would not make sense if Libi were a male character. Thus, Libi’s character is purely about the politics of gender and illness.

Throughout this semester our class has analyzed many texts dealing with disability stigmas and their interactions with those considered “normal.” “The Wedding of Tom to Tom” ask us to consider sexuality and love through the lens of a struggling, somewhat smug character like Anita. “Cathedral” challenges the stereotypical ways of communication. “The Treatment of Bibi Haldar” and “Good Country People” offer two primary female characters living in isolation possibly because of the implications involving their gender and illness. Today’s readings helped our class challenge the disability in literature and offered enriching, sophisticated discussions.

Helen’s formal blog post on Banner’s “The Wedding of Tom to Tom”

with one comment

“I mean, I’m not against love. I’m not against human sexuality. I’m against obsession. Those two are obsessed. I mean. I talked to Mr. Allen, Tom A.’s guardian last night on the phone, and he told me they’ve been like that since Orient, since they were boys, and it’s hard to stop that kind of behavior. I mean, you can’t. So we’re just gonna move Tom A. over to Franklin Street… I mean, what I’m afraid of is that they are gonna end up hurting each other. Physically…when I walked in on them the other morning, Tom A., excuse me, but Tom A. was anally penetrating Tom B.”
The way she said “penetrating,” I had to laugh.

Kate Anderson-Malloy, the head caretaker in Keith Banner’s The Wedding of Tom to Tom, draws a line between what she perceives as the difference between “love” and “obsession” when she decides to have Tom A. and Tom B. separated. She cites no institutional regulation that states that the two cannot be allowed to be together, nor does Tom A.’s guardian imply that he requires of Kate that the behavior be stopped. Kate’s assumption—that these two “retarded” people cannot make decisions for themselves despite their seeming lucidity and competence—is complicated by the fact that Tom and Tom are in a homosexual relationship. The implied judgment behind Kate’s decision is that Tom A. and Tom B. are only together because their mental illnesses impair their ability to choose “appropriate” partners. Kate categorizes the two Tom’s “deviant” sexual behavior as symptoms of their greater instability.

All of the caretakers, including Anita and Kate in the quoted passage, seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of Tom A. and Tom B. having sex. It is impossible, here, to separate their discomfort of seeing two “retarded” people having sex from their discomfort with homosexuality generally. Anita laughs at the idea of the two men having anal sex, as do her coworkers. None of them speak out against the move, but neither have they separated Tom and Tom with much decisiveness in the past: the two men’s desire for each other seems to be accepted as a kind of eccentricity that is indulged in the context of the institution, but widely acknowledged to be socially unacceptable. The two Toms are treated like children, as if they were five and had been caught kissing chastely on the playground: it is cute, but ultimately inappropriate. Tom and Tom are not allowed to make this decision for themselves not because they are too young, but presumably because they are “too retarded” to choose an “appropriate” partner.

Because the two Tom’s sexuality does not manifest in more “normal” heterosexual ways, Tom and Tom wanting to be together is regarded as “obsession” rather than “love.”  “Obsessive” behavior is something quantifiable, a commodity that Kate can legitimately seek to control or eradicate in her patients because it is a sign of mental instability. Kate talks of being afraid of the two men “hurting each other,” but she also mentions that Tom A.’s guardian said Tom and Tom had been together for years without much incident. Anita never mentions either of the Tom’s guardians speaking out about having the Toms separated. Kate’s decision to move them apart, then, becomes a matter of her own discomfort.

Although Kate admits that “it’s hard to stop that kind of behavior. I mean, you can’t,” she endeavors to end it regardless because there is some unspoken difference between what the Toms are doing and what two people in love would do. Their love is, to the caretakers, adorable up to a point, but it is only taken seriously inasmuch as Kate believes they are capable of hurting each other. Their homosexual relationship is labeled as “obsession,” a term which, for Kate, changes their relationship into a symptom of mental illness, a quantifiable thing which she has control over and plans to eradicate.

Written by Helen

November 3rd, 2010 at 9:27 am