Monthly Archives: January 2014

Mixee Grill

Leave a reply

I am struck, both in the readings and in our discussions, about the concept of “mixing” that occurs in Fred Wah’s biotext The Diamond Grill. “Mixing” is both a theme throughout the work, and, quite literally, a way in which the book is presented. This mixing is, in fact, one of the ways Diamond Grill can be distinguished as a biotext, and not simply an autobiography. Within the pages, as we discussed in class, there is not only narrative, but history, recipes, historical documents. Changes in perspective, footnotes, poems, stream of consciousness. A menagerie of media all ‘mixed’ together to convey what Wah wants to convey. And what does Wah want to convey? Well, I would argue: that medium is the message. The book is a mix, a hybrid, just like Wah. It rejects the standards of traditional autobiography, a linear, logical line, and stands as it’s own genre. Perhaps in the way that Wah wishes for people reading the biotext to reject the stereotypical norms that people, especially people of mixed heritage, often feel forced to squish into. Let them, these people, have their own category, their own genre.

Wah sets this idea of both metaphorical and literal mixing on the second page, which is entitled “Mixed Grill is an Entre at The Diamond Grill”. Again, metaphorically, what follows is a prelude to the mixing of race and identity that occurs throughout the text: “it is part of their [Chinese-Canadians] colonial cook’s training, learning to serve the superior race in Hong Kong and Victoria properly”. This thought, of being a mix of both Chinese and Canadian, Asian and white, authentic and fake, echoes repeatedly throughout the work.

Likewise, I would say that the title of the chapter could very well be referring, quite literally, to the form of the text itself. We can’t forget that the name of the novel is also The Diamond Grill. Thus the mixing that occurs in The Diamond may not just be referring to the restaurant. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.

The idea that mixing has created something new is reinforced on page 98, “even now a half-Ukraine-half-Japanese daughter of a friend of mine calls anyone, white or not, who doesn’t fit, a Geek.” This piece of literature is not a singular genre. It too is a “Geek”.  The Diamond Grill is neither straight memoir, nor historical fiction, nor political novel. It is all and thus, it is none of these things. As Wah says in the last line of his forward “When you’re not “pure” you just make it up”.

Can we Actively Turn Facebook into a Positive Experience?

Leave a reply

There is no way around it: Facebook, Blogs, Twitter, Instagram even, are the new, and let’s not forget, free, outlet to modern autobiographies. One can virtually follow six hundred life stories (more or less depending on the amount of Facebook ‘friends’ you have) via the internet, at the click of a few well-placed buttons.

But can anything really be that easy? After our class discussions about the internet, and Facebook in general, my suspicions about the un-likable negative qualities of Facebook were confirmed.  However, I became curious about the proposal that there would be difference in experience of “passive” internet browsers versus “active” internet browsers. It was suggested by a few in class that of course, those who peruse the internet with no specific aim in mind, the “passive” users, are more likely to have a negative experience. They will have more pop-ups, receive more general information, and perhaps be more susceptible to coercion by the money-makers behind the screens. At first, I will admit I was skeptical to this idea; I believed that those “active” users who considered themselves exempt were a little too optimistic. But, after some active perusing myself, I have been proven, for the most part, incorrect.

According to the New Yorker, study results on Facebook have baffled researchers for some time. While results in one particular study said that Facebook indeed made participants unhappy, and almost equal amount of results came in saying that Facebook made participants happier. How could this opposing information have existed within the same study? Digging deeper, researchers found that those who passively scrolled through the information on Facebook, without liking, writing on friend’s walls, etc. were more likely to experience negative emotions by “lowering their feelings of connection and increasing their sense of loneliness”. However, those who were actively using Facebook, by adding to their  life narrative, or to others, experienced an increase in positive emotions. So why is it that we more often hear of the negative effects of Facebook? As other studies have explicitly stated, majority of users are passive users. Their non-engagment is cause for these negative effects. This idea was also reiterated on World Crunch: “people who communicate relatively infrequently but read the posts of friends and scroll through their pictures tend to be less satisfied with their own life”. 

Perhaps then the message is this: if we’re going to be consumers, why not actively consume and contribute to our happiness, rather than pretend we’re not consuming and add to our sense of alienation?