Having George Elliot Clarke here made his book come alive for me. The way he presented things and laughed about his own responses really won me over as a reader. I truly enjoyed this story before meeting Clarke, but after meeting him – I really felt that somehow the book connected more for me than I previously thought. Clarke’s exuberance and excitement for his skill as a poet and a writer were obvious to me very quickly. I could also see why he would be a very well liked and informative professor. His poetry was very loud – not just how he read it, but how it was written. It was written with percussive intensity. The words and ideas were accentuated and intensified by the use of frequent alliteration. These mechanics really make the images stick. I can still here the sound of his voice in my head, the rhythm of the words in my chest. I think it is a truly valuable experience for readers to meet authors face to face. It’s important to see them as real people, people with skills and abilities and flaws as well. By meeting these people, we really do become more connected to writings – to communicating on a whole. Even if we don’t really like the story, meeting the person who wrote it can make you really respect and value the process of both reading and writing. For me, that is was Clarke did, he really made me value the ability to read and write and strive to communicate in a way that can pull people in and have a big impact on them.

1. Having George Elliott Clarke visit our class was a great advantage after reading his novel. Personally, while I was reading the novel myself I seemed to take his "blackened" English and read it as if it were normal vernacular in my head. To have him there to read to us he used his "blackened" English effectively and it made the novel much more convincing. As I went back and re-read some of the novel it was easier to hear the blackened English in my head than it was before we heard him read. Also, before hearing the story of family background I thought it was a little weird that someone would want to portray their family as murderers and criminals. After hearing Clarke's explanations on writing the novel I felt much closer to the story. It definitely made the book more emotional for me and easier to see that in 1949 Canada could have used some reformation. Especially after hearing the Execution Poems, understanding the reason for him to want to spread this story was evident. I will never forget how into his poetry and opera music he got. It was nice to see a writer so proud of all of his work. I unfortunately missed his reading, but from what I heard he was great and he shared even more of his music with everyone. Clarke was very inspirational in many ways, and like I said I will never forget how into his own works he was.

I wrote this out prior to the prompts were posted, but I think this fits well with number 2:

“Rue ducked into cinemas and studied Westerns that always showed the same crisis: whisky that burned light like it was kerosene; an indigo locomotive ploughing through horses too slow to evade an obscene liquidation so that their teeth, legs, hooves, bellies exploded into pieces upon the shredding impact; black blood spewing against many white shirts; flies flocking on dead pale mouths; bullets dining, take-out style, on fat guts; smiles shattered by hard fists; the stench of rotten English trapped in a handlebar-moustache. Always satisfying violences.” (Clarke, 89).

Yes, there is a good reason why I just typed out this entire passage. Every single poetic adjective that Clarke used is relevant to the question that I am about to pose. Again we are presented with a generalization formulated by Rue, a native-born Canadian, and possibly the author who composed these lines, George Elliot Clarke himself. Just like we were asked after The Englishman’s Boy, do we think these vivid observations above stand true of the American movie house, whether in the past or the present? Do such comments accurately portray American life, or does the classic game of cops and robbers (or in this specific case, cowboys and Indians) merely provide us with pure entertainment?

Again, I am going to resort back to my previous argument that the American “movie house” is a source of pure entertainment, and if one takes aspects of film literally then they are, to be frank, a fool. After George’s visit this notion of mine was further solidified, through his use of art to express his literature. I was really impressed with his extreme passion for not only the novel George & Rue, but the funky Korean scat music he played that contained some of his written lines, his poetry accompanied by photography, and just life in general. I don’t he stopped smiling, and it was genuine.

If entertainment arouses emotion, whether it is George happily jamming to Korean scat, Rue thriving on a violent Western, or me weeping to the Titanic, then so be! Do I think Rue left that theater in Halifax, strapped on some leather cowboy boots and mounted a horse? Do I think Rue thinks that he has learned an important U.S. history lesson from this film? Do I have to actually answer those questions? I think not. Entertainment is solely a form of amusement that one should not allow to taint real-life.

Having George Elliot Clarke visit our class was wonderful. He was lively and fun and just like Eden Robinson he kept us entertained. His visit and talk did reshape the way I viewed the novel. When I found out that he was related to the very people he wrote about I thought about how I would feel if that were me. I think I would be ashamed and embarassed if my relatives had murdered a man for what little cash he had on him. I thought then about how I would probably not want to tell anyone about this dark peice of my family history let alone the world like he did. I felt that he would be somber and cool during his visit knowing how I would be if it were my cousins who had done this. I did not expect him to come in and be bubbly and fun like he was. Like Sarah said he did get very into his work. When he read his poems and parts of the story he acted as though he was in the story. He was very inspiring. Like Sarah I was also excited to see how proud of his work he was. Kristie noted that for her the story really came alive during his visit. It truly did. After his visit my opinion about the book changed as I no longer thought the story to be extraordinary. I realized that many things like this must have happened all over Canada and the US during this time period. It became more realistic and as such it felt more relevant to my life. After realizing the relevance I saw that there was no reason to be ashamed of any crime commited by a family member or any dark story of my families past because it is the past and while it may have been a bad deed I was not the perpetrator and cannot be blamed or persecuted for their crimes.

George and Rue was one of the best books I have ever read in an English class, and I am real grateful for being able to meet and learn from such an amazing writer. While I agree with what everyone is saying about his visit adding deeper understanding and connection to the book, I think his approach to writing was what inspired me the most. Particularly the way he blends fact and fiction, this was something especially interesting to me, and something that I am always trying to do when I write. While everything I write is based in reality, I don't hesitate to exaggerate, or just straight up lie sometimes, but I often find myself unsure of what is going too far. I really liked learning about the parts that George made up entirely to complement the story, and how the flowed so seemlessly with the underlying truth of the narrative. The parts about the piano and about Montreal were particularly impressive. These are just little things that may have seemed like small details, but will defenitely stick with me as a writer for a long time, (Similarly, I loved hearing Eden Robinson talking about how much she has stolen from other authors) and they really showcase his ability to write a gripping narrative. Hearing his poetry also gave me a greater appreciation for his novel; the two are so similar, and there were so many lines where I actually had to stop and re-read them. There was one line that I'll never forget, "where the ravens and the doves commingled". Simple yet profound, writing doesn't get any better than this.

With out question having George Elliot Clarke come to class heightened my understanding and interest of the novel, George and Rue. Prior to his visit I did not think much of the novel. It was a fairly quick read with some intriguing pieces but I found it to be rather predictable and too similar in theory and plot line to other novels I had read before. However, listening to George talk so passionately about the novel and especially hearing his reasons for writing the novel made me appreciate it a great deal more. I really understood after hearing George speak why he felt he needed to write the novel..to reclaim a large part of his family history and to set right the notion of what it truly was like black Canadians living at this time period. George was such a wonderful reader and hearing him made me realize how at times I failed to appreciate the rhythmn and soul found in the text of George and Rue. George also impressed me with his drastic range of interests and works; the poems, operas, novels..he really does it all and does so modestly and humorously.
I suppose what will stick with me the most about his visit was seeing him smile so widely and bobbing his head to the opera music he played for us. He was so proud of his work and was so desirous of showcasing it for us. Another thing was the story of how the town where George and Rue lived was later and still today nicknamed "Hammertown" and many of the people who live there now fail to know it's significance.
I used to think that the anonymity of an author was a good thing and that it gave me a more personal outlook on the novel yet seeing someone like George who was just so awesome made me realize how knowing and understanding the background of an author and the motives they had for writing their novel wuite amazing. I know if anyone is to ever bring up the novel George and Rue I will be able to educate them on these neat little details and background information I would never have known had I not got the opportunity to meet and listen to George Elliot Clarke himself!!

In looking back at George Elliot Clarke’s visit, it was his voice that struck me the most. It is always lovely to hear an author speak his/her own words, but he truly brought the novel to life. I am unsure if it was his vigor, passion, or forthrightness, but one of those things certainly had an effect. His words took the characters out of the book, and reminded me that they were real people too, just trying to get by. It is so often that a book can take you to a far away place, and any concept of reality flies out the door. Clarke, however, let the sincerity, and also the humility of real people shine through.

In all honestly, I was indifferent about “George and Rue” before stepping into class to meet Clarke. I felt like it was a novel that had been written before, in many shapes and forms. Although, as soon as he opened his mouth I knew I had pegged the book all wrong. This novel has heart. It is a transcending story not just for Clarke, but any reader. The authors words helped create an awareness containing the state in which these men, like many others at the time, were in.

I would like to comment on what Kristie wrote, in regard to Clarke’s poetic use of words throughout the novel. While it was undoubtedly clear that the writer of the novel was also a poet, the flow and beauty of the words was not appreciated by me until Clarke spoke. The annunciation and passion within which he spoke blew the listener, me, out of the water. I was left wanting more, and thus, hanging on to each and every one of his words. Just as Kristie mentioned, I could still feel Clarke’s words resonating and vibrating within my bones.

Additionally, I really took something away from what John wrote about mixing fact and fiction. It was so surprising to me how nonchalant he was about admitting to his points of exaggeration in the novel. When a book is “based” on a true story, more often than not the author has no qualms about milking and exaggerating that ideal. However, it is all too common that the truth is lost in the author’s embellishment. Clarke’s additives to the novel did not leave me to this conclusion. What he chose to develop further, was not based on further entertaining the reader, but actively painting a real picture of what really could have happened. The significance between the two is great. I felt Clarke did a remarkable job of highlighting the truths, while deterring inapplicable embellishments.

Like everyone that has posted so far, George Elliot Clarks visit did make the book become alive for me in a way that it hadn't prior to his arrival. Clearly from everyone's reflections and my personal experience, there is something quite unique about how the reader reconnects to a text when the author is there to answer questions and introduce often new and always strongly felt interpretations of the unanswerable gaps within the narrative- which before we as readers had to depend on imagination to fill. Julie commented on how Clarks visit made her rethink the autonomy of the author, ultimately concluding it to be positive in our reading of a text. Here I find myself at a odd junction between knowing from experience that I gain something from the authors ability to breath new life into a text by connecting to them in person and also feeling like there is something to be gained by having a text stand on its own and therefore having to do the unique work of finding connections and filling gaps oneself. The only parallel I can think of is the difference in how kids play and construct worlds through imagination when they aren’t using a provided script and when they are playing with Disney characters and therefore limiting themselves in what narratives they explore. Odd connection I know, but it fits. Ultimately to this question there isn’t a right answer- with Clarks visit I really gained a sense of the rhythm in language I wouldn’t have had otherwise, and I also gained a broader understanding of the history behind the novel which greatly enhanced my reading. While acknowledging this I think it is also important to be aware of how we as readers give up a bit of our own freedom in connection to the text by unconsciously electing an authority of the novel which ultimately the author becomes.
Secondly a quick response to Liz's response to "Entertainment is solely a form of amusement which one should not allow to taint real life" – I agree that we as a society need to be very conscious of the role entertainment plays, questioning how it reflects our experiences, where it diverges from them and what ultimately the message being conveyed is trying to accomplish- how does that message fit into our world and what means does it employ to do this, how effective is it? But on the same hand I think the only way entertainment works is if it does have a connection to "real life", because we can only recognize and ultimately be entertained by something which is in someway already on our radar, this of course may be broad, but ultimately entertainment is effective when it is able to find connection to the audience through a common ground and then in some way complicate that connection or offers something new to the conversation. In that way I think entertainment is one of the fundamental ways in which to understand a societies understanding of "real life".

Having George Elliot Clarke in class definitely altered the way in which I saw Geirge & Rue. His poetic reading and exuberance made me rethink the book as solely a story that I found captivating, and made me consider the novel as a more poetic and deep work of literature. The back cover's quote form the Calgary Herald which states, "Any one sentence could be lifted from the novel and offered up as sublime poetry" struck me as a very bold statement at first, but after Clarke's visit, I found it to be much more accurate than I had before his visit. It was also interesting to hear about his research methods and how his family and locals reacted to his writing of this book. He thought it was cool and exciting that he was related to these men, but some of his family found it shameful; this sort of controversy I hadn't really considered before he mentioned it. Finally, it was surprising to discover that his body of work was so vast. While his opera was not my favorite, the other poems and excerpts that he read at his reading in Billings reinforced his exuberance and creative writing style. His visit definitely hepled me to understand the context of his book more after having read it.

In response to Kristie’s post, I want to concur that I think it would be an awesome experience to have George as a Professor. I think after seeing that his passionate novel matched his personality and overall outlook on life, it really gave me a new perspective on literature and education. I have found, during my almost three years here at UVM, that I have had so many professors that are so enthusiastic about what they do and what they want to teach others and it’s truly inspiring. The way in which George spoke during class and during his readings later that day really caught my attention, just like the way in which the words on the pages of the novel enticed me. It’s weird because I felt that same connection while reading “What We All Long For” but that’s because I felt like it was a group of my own friends just chatting about typical things. On the other hand, even though my friends and I wouldn’t be conversing about murder in that type of “blackened” language, I still felt as connected. I find myself wondering why that is, because I can’t really relate to the occurrences in “George and Rue” like I can in “What We All Long For.” I guess I am really just posing a question that I don’t have an answer to. If anyone has any thoughts on this, feel free to attempt to answer it.

George Elliott Clarke’s book is one of the most appealing books I had ever read. I like the book a lot because it is simple and delightful. His ways of expressing things make book extraordinary. It is a suck book that could not have been interesting, because it is about murder and crime, but because of his unique ways of inscription, the novel turned out to be fascinating and inspiring. Also, George is a great reader who is full of amusement and laugher because he is such happy guy with deep voice. His tone can make you list even if you were not going to list. Moreover, George can inspire you to be a lyricist so easily because he is an influencer who makes you change your major so that you can be English major and take his classes.

On the other hand, having Professor George E. Clarke as a reader as well as an author for the book was a great pleasure because such opportunities of having a wonderful writer like George are very unusual. His visited connected me with his book a lot because it brings memories of what I heard back after he spoke in the class and read his poetic reading in Evening. Also, His visit makes his book alive because it is an illustrative to see and hear him repeating the same message in the book in the front of class. As a result, his visit helped me understanding the book much more because he put into effect somehow in my mind.

Having George Elliot Clarke visit the class did affect my reading of the novel George and Rue. I had to admire his love of digging up old photographs and information. The pictures scattered throughout the novel, not only add to the novel, but to hear how Clarke went on search for them, makes me pause over them more than I would without having met him.
I also have to admire Clarke's ambition. Not only is he a novelist, but he's a screenwriter, opera writer and a poet.
I connected with Clarke most when he said that he listens to certain music when he writes. I also listen to different types of music when I write different things. Some music is good writing music, and some isn't. Jazz music is definitely good writing music.

After reading some of the posts it is easy to see we all enjoyed have George Elliott Clarke come to our class. I thought what John Rubin had to say about mixing fact with fiction was very true. Writing myself I use true facts from my life to create a story about someone totally new. The way Clarke added the details from his childhood, such as the piano, is something the reader would never know unless they had the chance to talk with Clarke. The line between using fact and fiction in novels is hard to understand. Like with James Frey, author of "A Million Little Pieces", when everyone found out his novel was not totally factual they all judged him for it. Well, writing is not always about telling the whole truth. What makes a story interesting does not always happen in real life.

Along similar lines, what Julie Bilodeau had to say about the anonymity of the author is something else I never thought about before meeting both Robinson and Clarke. I never considered really meeting the author of my favorite books, but that is mostly because they have all died by now. Being able to meet the authors of two really great books did not hidder my outlook of the novels; in fact it enhanced it. After hearing both of them speak about their works I completely respect the effort and research that went into both of them.

I really enjoyed reading George and Rue, but after hearing the way Geore Elliott Clarke read his passages I felt a deeper connection to the text. I went back and re-read passages and was instantly influenced by the style in which Mr. Clarke had read. Hearing the way the text was meant to be read adds a whole new element to the book. The prose is more evident and gives off even more of a jazz influence that reinforces the context of the novel.

Even though I read the interview with George Elliott CLarke at the end of the book, what stuck with the most was the personal connection George Clarke has with the characters George and Rue. I found it very interesting that George Clarke was named George to save the legacy of that name to the family. He did more than that. He completely reclaimed that story and put it into perspective of two young black men trying to survive in a deeply racist society.

In response to the second question, I was really interested in the way Geoge Elliott Clarke described Nova Scotia in his novel. I was completely unaware before reading this book that there was a large black population in Nova Scotia who were the descendants of slaves. His descriptions of the difficult lives of his ancestors trying to survive in the cold climate with little money were disturbing to me in a way that has stayed with me after reading the book. I find it sad that they were a displaced people who were not there of their own choosing but who were put there and then left without enough resources to go elsewhere. Despite this, Clarke found pride in his connection to Nova Scotia and Canada. I found the mixture of this pride and knowledge of the history surrounding his ancestors being in Three Mile Plains interesting. With this said, like all of the previous respondants, I really enjoyed meeting George Elliott Clarke and hearing him read and talk about his novel. I agree with Julie in that having him in class gave me a much better appreciation for the novel and has made it one that I don't believe I will soon forget whereas if he had not come to class I probably would not have given the book much thought after reading it. I found John's comment about Clarke's blending of fact and fiction interesting. The idea of truth which was so pervasive in The Englishman's Boy and this whole notion of fiction is one that I feel I have thought a lot about this semester. I often think of the quote we were told in class about how seeing ourselves through fiction makes us feel real. I find it really interesting that something can be made more 'true' by being fictionalized, as I believe is the case with this novel. The lives of George and Rue and their family and neighbors came alive to me in this work of fiction.

I felt so far removed from the subject matter of George and Rue that the book was a bit of a struggle to endure. However, I am very glad to have read George Elliott Clarke’s account of a history too many of us were unaware of. I’ve never really attempted any creative writing and I particularly enjoyed his discussion of music and where he found inspiration and influence in his life as it relates to his writings. Meeting Clarke was helpful in that it put the book in a context as he was able to elaborate on the history of Nova Scotia, but for me the most enjoyable aspect of his visit was his poetry recitations. Clarke read with so much energy and vigor that I couldn’t help but be drawn into his words. And, unlike his novel, Clarke’s poetry had lines that resonated with me. I felt similar to Deng in that “George is a great reader who is full of amusement and laugher because he is such happy guy with deep voice. His tone can make you listen even if you were not going to listen.” I had not expected George Elliott Clarke to be such a jovial, spirited, and exuberant man. Yet he was, and in hearing his passion, I had a new appreciation for the prose and the story of George and Rue. Conversely, however, as Erin said “if he had not come to class I probably would not have given the book much thought after reading it,” and I wonder then if the book really was effective in recounting the history. Should you have to meet an author to appreciate their work? I subscribe to the notion we’ve discussed in class where once the text is set to the page the author fades and what’s left are words for the reader to interpret and make sense of. Yet if I can’t make sense of the words, or at least not in a meaningful way, is there a disconnect or a failure? George Elliott Clarke celebrates and affirms life through his poetry, and for me its much stronger.

I thought Emily P brought up an excellent point in the idea that we as readers give a bit of our freedom up when we elected an authority to the text. This was a really interesting perspective that I had not thought of before. Since there was talk of having George come to our class prior to my reading the novel I subsequently read the novel consciously trying to pick out and understand George's motive for the novel...and at the same time believing everything in the text because the thought of meeting the author brought him more to life so therefore bringing his stories to life and becoming more realistic in my mind.
I also wanted to comment on Scott's post regarding George's name being a result of the death of the George from George and Rue. It's apparent how influential a name can be and how much history and importance a name has. I wonder if George would've written this novel has his name been something else and not related to the story of the murders. In reclaiming the story or George from George and Rufus he has not only brought back and resurfaced the name and thus life of George Hamilton but consequently reclaimed his understanding of himself and his name as George Eliott Clarke.

George's visit was absolutely riviting. When he first came in I really didn't know what to expect of him. He took no time to jump into the novel to begin reading from his novel George and Rue. The way in which he presented the text captivated me. He read passages with immense enthusiasm and articulatation. When George came to speak to our class and also to recite passages, I became in touch with the novel. He affected my perspective on the novel because after his visit I realize how close to home the book is to him and his ancestery. He wrote the book not only to perserve his own family past (good/bad) but also to reclaim the history of the area in which his family is from. His reading of the novel caused me to think of the novel differently because he read it with such a poetic emphasis, something that I didn't do when reading the book. The book really is just more than a novel it's a beautiful work of poetry underlying a superb plot. What stuck most with me about the visit was George's passion of the arts. Not only is he an author but he is a playwright and a huge fan of music. This diverse individual was a pleasure to have in class, and I think he serves as an inspirtation to upcoming participatories of the arts.

I would like to comment on Sarah's response about George emphasizing "blackened" english. This is important in the context of the novel because it gives that sense of reality of the time. Like Mark Twain's Huck Finn, dialect can play such an important role when discussing the effect the novel has on a reader. And, also in response to John Ruben's blog posting, George used the basis of a real event. That doesn't mean the work is non-fiction, he just used an historical event for the seed of the novel. I think that this is a great strategy for an author to use, because by using a historical event for the premise you are given a prompt to write to. But by making it a piece of fiction you are not bound by that historical event and then you can embellish and add in your own details to enhance the novel. I think that George did a wonderful job of doing this in the novel George and Rue

I think the way he spoke when reading, really made me think more into the novel. It really brought it to life. This was my favorite book before hearing Mr. Clarke speak, but his enthusiasm and love for life really made me love it even more. I will remember how lively he was. I really appreciated that he did not come and say they were persecuted unjustly because they did in reality actually murder the man. However he made us think about how realistic it really was to turn their lives around because of the situation they were placed in upon birth. It makes the reader really think that if this was their destiny solely because of their race and economic class they were in. After reading the book originally I thought it was not fair to show any emotion for these two killers because they in fact were killers, no matter who did the killing they were both accessories to the killing. After hearing Mr. Clarke speak I thought about how George and Rue really had no chance to escape their economic class because there were no well paying jobs for the uneducated especially the uneducated black populations. They were stuck and were looking for a chance to escape the impoverished lives they were accustomed too.

Sarah Pickards post made me remember and laugh about him saying he wrote it in blackened English. Mr. Clarke was so lively and high spirited. He was very clear in his readings and showed a lot of love for his work. Reading that word just added more love for the novel and Mr. Clarke’s humor.

After reading Danielle’s post I also realized how things were not in many way different for blacks in the US and Canada. They were not given as many opportunities as whites. This seems to be something we do not realize in the states because some people in my opinion would not even be aware there was slavery in Canada. They simply thought blacks were treated as equals and this was definitely not the case.

While reading George and Rue, I understood the fact that these had been two real guys, and the pictures in the back made me understand that a little more, but it wasn't until George came to talk that I really realized that the book had actually been about real people, from this guy's family. But even more importantly, hearing him read, with that smile, gesturing with his hands and such, reading very quickly, it somehow made the novel make more sense, the narration became a little more real, when I think back to it. I think the pace of his reading is really crucial to the way in which he describes things. You can get a hint of the pacing from the text, but it doesn't really come alive until you've heard him read it.

- I really like what Kristie said about his poetry's "percussive intensity." It's very true, he kind of bangs out these images one after another that really create a very vivid sense of what he's after. I was also thinking about still being able to hear his voice in my head. I can't really describe what it sounded like, and I wouldn't be able to mimic it, but it was very cool. He goes fast but he pronounces words very carefully, really emphasizing the important sounds in each word. He throws a lot of varying sounds into his image lists, his mouth probably gets a good workout. I bet he has to ice his tongue when he's done reading.

- I also like what Katya and Deng were saying about George's personality, and how his voice makes you listen. His personality is infectious... it's like how whenever someone yawns, you have to yawn. When George smiled or laughed, I smiled or laughed. I suppose my main point is that I enjoyed his reading a lot.

What a great opportunity indeed it was to have George Elliott Clarke come not only to speak to our class, but also to read some of his personal favorite works to the class. I enjoyed it so much, I even got his signature...I wonder if the bookstore will buy it back for more. I must admit that having George come entirely changed my perspective on the novel. From the descriptions being illustrated in the novel of the lives that George and Rue led, I figured that we were going to be introduced to a spiteful, neglected author with a dark past. But his constant toothy smile and infectious laugh, he gave his audience a warmer feeling. I particularly enjoyed when he spoke about why he felt obliged to write the novel, and explain his ancestors circumstances and needs. He wanted to justify the man who was repsonsible for his very own name.
I have to agree with Scott Multak about George's reading method. Once you hear his powerful articulation, and see the intensity in his eyes, the text definitely came to life.
I would also like to compliment Joe Cosmides on the finding of the quote from the Calgary Herald which states, "Any one sentence could be lifted from the novel and offered up as sublime poetry." This is especially true because George himself stated that the novel was originally written as one long poem. His editor, however, was displeased with the idea of his 300 page poem. Personally, I loved George Elliott Clarke's novel, I loved his serenading poems, and I will cherish the wishes he granted me in his autograph.

The ability to meet and interact with George Elliot Clarke really gave me a more in depth look at his novel George and Rue. Prior to taking this course, I never really appreciated how much of a difference it makes when you get to hear the author speak about their literature. Clarke opened my eyes to viewing the book through a different perspective. His “blackened” voice and soulful reading of the book helped to shape my way of interpreting it. Because Clarke is also such an amazing poet, hearing some of his poems also helped me understand the novel a little better. His use of lyrical, poetic language when describing scenes, events and characters made the flow of the story much more compelling. Another interesting part of Clarke’s visit was how evident his appreciation for the two human people, George and Rue Hamilton, were. Because Clarke took such interest in the stories of these men’s lives, the way he reflected them onto paper really made the book significant.

Reading other student’s blog postings, I find it interesting that the majority of people gained some sort of connection to the book after meeting Clarke. While I do agree, I found John Rubin’s take on his visit quite interesting. It is true that as developing writers, we as students use our own realities to help shape what we write about. John made a great point about how Clarke’s decision to incorporate both reality and fiction in George and Rue helped to shape and compliment the novel.

I also agree with what Tom Schnurr has said regarding the charisma of Clarke. The way he read to the class with passion and enthusiasm made me more excited to read the book. As Tom said, “the narration became a little more real”, which I think is exactly what the majority of the class felt.

Honestly, George and Rue did not really strike me as a riveting novel. However, my perception of the book completely changed when George Elliot Clarke payed us a visit. His enthusiasm toward his work and his passion for the context is undeniable. I found myself with eyes and ears completely glued to his intensity, and the unique and poetic way he read his own text. I don't think that anyone could ever emulate the way George recites; he puts his whole heart and soul into every word...as if every single syllable is detrimental in portraying something meaningful.
After hearing George read in class, George and Rue became a whole different book to me. His connection to the story made it seem all the more real. The combination of his passion and his knowledge made George and Rue transend into another level for me; instead of looking at the novel impassively, I look at is a beautifully written peice of work that is really important to its author.

-In response to Kristie, I think she has a great point that its a whole different experience when you hear an author read his/her own text. It is truly valuable and important to hear how other people can read and interpret the same text.

-I want to respond to what Deng said about how George makes his reading come alive. I totally agree- I especially loved to see his mannerisms and the way he moved his body as he read. The way he got really into his Execution poems and his opera was great to see too (even if we all don't agree his opera sounded too good)...even so, the way he bobbed his head and started jamming to his own tunes really made me think twice also. I guess that's just because George is such a great, enthusiastic guy.

I absolutely agreed with Liz Bearese about how she could not relate with George and Rue “in the occurrences.” As matter of fact, it is difficulty to relate yourself to such situation if you haven’t in it. I can really relate myself to “What we All long for “for whatever reason, I guess it could be because the book was written by someone that has the same hobby as I’m.

In addition, the reason why no one could relate himself or herself to George and Rue is because the time it occurred was different time period in which black people were unemployed in enormous numbers. On the other hand, part of the reason could have been racism because black and white were in different neighbor not like the way it is today

I found George Elliot Clarke’s visit very entertaining as well as informative. It was fascinating to see how he approached the work. For one, I found it interesting how upon hearing about the characters, he felt that he had to write about them. I could see some people being ashamed of such a past existing in ones family tree. Yet, he had the opposite reaction, which was feeling anxious to get the story out there. At the same time, it’d be easy to brush all the blame off of them and on to their environment which they were raised in. It would be easy and tempting to show George and Rufus as additional victims of the story. He explained how he wanted to show this element of the story while not letting them completely off the hook and free of blame, another temptation I would think would be easy to fall into. He dances this thin line well. The one question I still have is if George really had the attitude that he had in the story. In retrospect it seems as though George and Rufus both aid in dancing on the guilty/victim line, Rufus obviously being the non-remorseful criminal and George being someone who feels that he is somewhat of a victim.

I think Katya Blum had a good point asking whether or not you should need direct contact with the author in order to enjoy the story. I find this interesting because as much as I did enjoy George and Rue and more so Monkey Beach. Both I felt a stronger attachment to the stories after the author visits. However, these books still don’t hold up to my other two favorites from this course which were books from authors whom we did not talk to (A Sunday at the Pool in Kigali and What We All Long For). When actually rating the book should we take the visits into account? Or should we stand by our opinions towards the text minus the explanations from the writers?

Kasey Robinson discussed how she connected with George Elliot Clarke because of his influence in writing by listening to jazz music while writing. I would absolutely agree with this as well. When I was younger my dad always would yell at me for listening to music while doing school work, saying it is a distraction. For me personally it helps me to get in my zone and collect my thoughts instead of being distracted by things going on around me. Listening to music actually is proven in helping the brain function by stimulating different parts of the mind.

Kasey Robinson discussed how she connected with George Elliot Clarke because of his influence in writing by listening to jazz music while writing. I would absolutely agree with this as well. When I was younger my dad always would yell at me for listening to music while doing school work, saying it is a distraction. For me personally it helps me to get in my zone and collect my thoughts instead of being distracted by things going on around me. Listening to music actually is proven in helping the brain function by stimulating different parts of the mind.

I think Erin made a great point when she said that a novel could be made more 'true' by being fictionalized. This is something I have not given thought to previously and it really makes me respect an author that can control the readers emotions in order to make the book more real through fiction. I find Emily's observation about the reader giving up freedom when choosing an authoiry over the text to be very interesting. I definately see what she means. I think that it would be interesting to re-read the text trying to analyze it after meeting George Clark and see if any new connections stand out.

i agree strongly with kristie's comment on meeting the author, and how even if you don't enjoy the book, it really makes the literature come alive to you. after meeting george, and experiencing his eclectic reading style, i went back and read some of the scenes in the book that stood out to me. they were, the second time around, electrifying. i could hear him speaking with his poetic rhythm. it was incredibly different, and entirely more interesting. george and rue was a rather enjoyable book for me, but i wish i had the appreciation for it then, that i do now.

i also think julie brought up an interesting point about george and his attachment to his name. he seemed to be driven by this story and passionate about the history of his name and his family, i also wonder if he would have been so motivated to devote a large amount of time to collecting information for this novel, or writing it all if he had been named something else. it's an interesting question, could it be seen, on any level, to be a bit...self-absorbed? dare i say it. probably not at all, but he obviously found a whole other feeling of pride when he learned of his second cousins struggle, resulting in an individual artsitic quest to liberate the bad reputation...of george, and rue.

Liz said that “Entertainment is solely a form of amusement that one should not allow to taint real-life.” Yet, how can it not? We gravitate towards forms of entertainment, books, music, movies, as they full some hollow in our being. I think, in fact that is a good thing – but these things will also have some impact on you and when they do they will come out in the way we think, speak and act. She also, in a later post, asks why we can connect to stories such a George and Rue or What We All Long For. I think, here again, it is because they fill a void for us. Most of us have probably considered dropping out of school and moving away from our families – yet we are all still here at university. And while we may not live with our families while we are here – most of us probably do go back on break – or we list their address as our permanent address. These characters embody characteristics that many of us feel we have, boldness and independence – but it is often easier to think it than do it. Thus I think reading these characters gives us some sense of acknowledgement and encouragement in who we as “real” individuals are.
I also really liked what Julie said about knowing the significance of “Hammertown” in regards to George and Rue. I think that significance can carry over into other facets of our lives. It really is important to be aware of the events that take place in our communities as well as our world. Although it may not seem like it today – we are the ones who decide the future of our communities and our world.

After reading George and Rue, I would have thought George Elliot Clarke to be a much different person than he actually turned out to be. Writing about the struggle of young African American’s in Canada and the social implications of being black in general had me imagining a somewhat embittered, disappointed, black power sort of individual. Instead, after Mr. Clarke’s visit, I was pleasantly surprised at how different he actually was from my incorrect assumption. His enthusiastic attitude and pleasant demeanor were quite to the contrary of what I had originally thought him to be. While having him here didn’t change my perspective of the novel, he added his personal touch to it by offering bits of autobiographical and historical background. Many times I’ll hear authors speak, much like Eden Robinson, and they say too much. Personally, when I read I like to read a book my way, and as we discussed in class, the book becomes individualized depending on the perspective of the person who is reading it. Eden I feel as if she gave us too much information about her writing process and what she was “really” trying to say which often conflicted with my own opinions about what I had read making me feel inadequate as a reader. Mr. Clarke on the other hand, by saying less, actually enhanced my knowledge of the situation and the setting for the book and therefore elevated my opinion of not only his novel but himself as a writer.

In regards to John Rubin’s comments, I like and agree with what he says. “Particularly the way he blends fact and fiction.” I took a class called “Creative Non-Fiction and I feel as if George and Rue would kind of fall into this category. While the story may not exactly fall into the category of “non-fiction” it certainly is based on real events. George is a masterful writer in the sense that he can examine such significant issues as race and social order using an actual historical event as the foundation, and create a compelling and entertaining story that is both enjoyable and informative to read. There have been many books that have tried to do this, however, this is perhaps the strongest point of this course, is that we have had the privilege of reading two books that achieve this blending of fact and fiction perfectly. “George and Rue” and “A Sunday at the Pool in Kigali” both achieve this historical, educational form of fiction that not only informs but entertains as well. In my opinion, this is the best way to teach someone something, or in the case of “George and Rue” or “A Sunday at the Pool in Kigali” to shed light on social problems or tragedies through a more friendly, less formal medium than a classroom, for example. I’m sure there could be a course offered on the Rwandan genocide, however, it was much easier for me to get interested in it when read through a pleasurable literary medium.

George Elliott Clark’s visit to our class was one of the most enjoyable educational experiences I’ve had. The energy he spoke with and his vivid, upbeat personality made the reading of his novel amazing. The darkest, most sinister of scenes he read with a huge smile on his face and with an almost gleeful energy. Knowing Clark’s story made the reader feel intimately close to the characters in the novel. It is so easy to tell how passionate he is about his novel and after discussing the novel with him, it is so easy to be just as passionate as he was. Clark was almost inspiring in his reading and made his “blackened” English poetic and melodic. He made the truths of the novel come to life. Most significantly, he made the characters of George and Rue come to life and almost play like a movie in the audiences minds.

I agree with what Sarah Pickard was discussing about Clark’s pride in his work. His diversified talents in the arts are just astounding. Hearing his poetry, novel, and music was certainly a gift he bestowed upon us all. I also liked what John Rubin described as blending fact and fiction. This novel although unreal in so many ways to the audience is so vividly realistic and meaningful to the reader. His connection to the story made the story even more amazing to read.

I thoroughly enjoyed the novel George and Rue and having George Elliott Clarke visit out class only enhanced my appreciation for the story. I began to read the book as I would any other only to find the language was so much different and poetic and having George Elliott Clarke read from the novel gave me a greater understanding of it. I cannot imagine his reading not having an affect on someone as his writing is very lyrical. What I enjoyed most about his visit was the array of different materials he read from, not only George and Rue and Executions Poems but the music from his operas and other works of poetry.
What struck me most about his visit was his motivation for writing the novel. He was not trying to justify his family members or clear their names but merely tell the story. I think it is important for people to look at the story from a sociological persective, considering the time and place and the opportunities for the men. I also found it interesting that George Elliott Clarke was named George because George Hamilton had died and the next male-born family member would be given the name in tradition.
In response to some other posts, I wanted to talk about Sarah Pickard's comment about the "blackened" English. I completely agree with her, after hearing him read, you could not go back and read the novel without his voice narrating it in your head. And it did make the story more convincing, it gave the characters a voice through George's reading. A couple of my other classmates have commented on the blend of fact and fiction Clarke used and I find this idea extremely interesting as it has come up in some other novels I've read this year. Fiction adds something to the truth and for readers this technique is extremely effective. I found Clarke's ability to weave fact and fiction admirable.

There are always aspects of a book that will never be known to us. The way in which each person reads a book is a very individual process. George Elliot Clarke gave a voice to the words that were on the page in front of all of us. The way he read the book was a true example of how an author lives through his work. His emotion and vigor with the reading gave a completely new aspect to the whole story for me. I let his voice go back and re-read a lot of the parts of the book and thusly made them come to life in ways that I never thought possible. I would like to comment on what a few people have been saying about tying in entertainment into our real lives and letting fiction influence how we live. I have to really agree with Emily Porter on what she said about fiction and entertainment being a part of our lives. I agree that we can't disregard something from teaching us about life just because it is fiction. I think if anything what we learned from George Elliott Clarke we can see that fiction can have an enormous impact on how we interpret a story. George and Rue's story would not have been remember or written so well if the author hadn't tied in the fiction to make it as grabbing as it was.

I have to say that everyone brings up wonderful points about Mr. Clarke. While listening to him you really do feel that the story comes alive and it was interesting to see a man with such passion for writing. I think his reading demonstrates the intensity of the novel. The story is essentially about two men who commit murder but it was through his reading that I really understood how dramatic this murder really was. Furthermore, I think it is incredible that this is a story that is passed down in his family. Like Katya said, it is easy to be removed from the story because the plot seems to be so far out of our element. Yet, when Clarke read, I felt that I could easily relate to the characters. In a scary way he made the characters out to be so friendly and relatable that I felt like I would like to get to know them despite all of their flaws.

I think its interesting that people are commenting on the use of the term "hammertown". Aside from those who have read this book, I bet there is barely anyone who remembers the trial and death of George and Rue, and the murder of Silver. As George E. said, these facts were buried in the past, for better or for worse. Now, it only exists through trivial little reminders, such as the nickname "Hammertown", even though that most people probably don't know what it is referring to. But, were it not for the book Goerge and Rue, this nickname might be the only reminder of what really happened. I just think it's sort of funny that a horrible murder can live on solely through a clever nickname.

Kasey Robinson was absolutely right about certain music setting the mood for writing. I agree that Jazz is some of the best writing music because its so free form, and doesnt really repeat itself, it sort of drags you along for the trip even though there is no set destination. The way that George Elliot Clarke formed some of his sentences reminded me of jazz music, they just had this flow where the words connected theoretically, and aurally, and just sounded like music. When I was reading, I could hear him accenting and emphasising certain syllables, just like a musician would with certain beats. Im really curious as to what his next novel might be like.
I also think its interesting how we (or at least I) ear certain music when we read different types of stuff. For example, some of his rum-drinkin poetry was playing the Lady from Ipanema in my head, which is the type of samba I had been listening to a lot. Then, at one point, he even started singing that same song. Weird!

To pile on with everyone about what a delight it was to have George Elliott Clarke (GEC) with us last month:

Hearing GEC read George and Rue, I was relieved to know that I wasn't the only one reading the novel- if only through the voice in my head- with such distinct cadence, such affective rhythm, such appropriate bombast. There's that old joke about Morgan Freeman, how he could read the phone book and make it interesting... to take nothing away from George and Rue from a written perspective-- as I wrote in the blog posting on the day that I finished it, I thought it was FANTASTIC-- to hear someone read their work with such enthusiasm not only brings a whole new appreciation for the text, but kind of validates my experience as a reader, you know? I spent, you know, X amount of time and energy reading this book, when there were an infinite number of other things I could've been doing... to hear that GEC has enough invested in the text to give his all when reading it makes me feel that it was worth my time to read it.

I know that there are some folks-- writers included, no doubt-- who either aren't good public readers or public speakers, but it always blows my mind to hear recordings of Allen Ginsburg reading Howl, where he's so monotone and distant...

It's like, "Allen! These words are ELECTRIC! They brought forth feelings I didn't even know I had! THEY STARTED A REVOLUTION! A generation used it as a battle cry! ARE YOU A MACHINE!? How can you be so bored?"

George's energy, smile, and laughter made it obvious he was having fun... and why not? George and Rue is a text set in harrowing circumstances, and it's main conflict is a murder, but the text has its lighthearted moments, it has its moments of sheer joy (I was SHOCKED by the progression of the relationship between Cinthy and Asa, they seemed downright BLISSFUL in the beginning), and the way it was written... there were so many passages in that book where you just have to sit back, appreciate the power of the words both in rhythm and sound, and tip your cap to GEC. It's nice, to say the least, that his interactions with us on that day seemed to show he had as much appreciation for his audience as I did for him as a writer.

To pile on with everyone about what a delight it was to have George Elliott Clarke (GEC) with us last month:

Hearing GEC read George and Rue, I was relieved to know that I wasn't the only one reading the novel- if only through the voice in my head- with such distinct cadence, such affective rhythm, such appropriate bombast. There's that old joke about Morgan Freeman, how he could read the phone book and make it interesting... to take nothing away from George and Rue from a written perspective-- as I wrote in the blog posting on the day that I finished it, I thought it was FANTASTIC-- to hear someone read their work with such enthusiasm not only brings a whole new appreciation for the text, but kind of validates my experience as a reader, you know? I spent, you know, X amount of time and energy reading this book, when there were an infinite number of other things I could've been doing... to hear that GEC has enough invested in the text to give his all when reading it makes me feel that it was worth my time to read it.

I know that there are some folks-- writers included, no doubt-- who either aren't good public readers or public speakers, but it always blows my mind to hear recordings of Allen Ginsburg reading Howl, where he's so monotone and distant...

It's like, "Allen! These words are ELECTRIC! They brought forth feelings I didn't even know I had! THEY STARTED A REVOLUTION! A generation used it as a battle cry! ARE YOU A MACHINE!? How can you be so bored?"

George's energy, smile, and laughter made it obvious he was having fun... and why not? George and Rue is a text set in harrowing circumstances, and it's main conflict is a murder, but the text has its lighthearted moments, it has its moments of sheer joy (I was SHOCKED by the progression of the relationship between Cinthy and Asa, they seemed downright BLISSFUL in the beginning), and the way it was written... there were so many passages in that book where you just have to sit back, appreciate the power of the words both in rhythm and sound, and tip your cap to GEC. It's nice, to say the least, that his interactions with us on that day seemed to show he had as much appreciation for his audience as I did for him as a writer.

When I think about the Nova Scotia that George Elliot Clark paints of a agriculture landscape full of Jazz, hearty soul food, bath tub liquer, and old abandoned shacks all remind me of a 1950's Louisana or Alabama setting. That is one of the most interesting aspects of this book; the fact that, although most Canadians wouldn't agree and most Americans would, Canada share some similar aspects with certain sterotypes that Canadians and even Americans share with themselves. Deeply rotted and impprtant issues particularly the important fact that Canada did have slaves which is something that I doubt(sadly) many of my family and friends probably. And even more intersting to me is the fact that the book shows how prominently rascism was at one time a part of the Candian culture. This was somewhat shocking for me to learn because throughout my pre-collegiate career I was alwyas under the impression that Canada was the place for blacks to go and escape from rascism and bigotry in fact during my study of the underground railroad I was always taught to think that even the north wasn't a safe place for the fleeing slaves and that the final place of salvation for these passengers was Canada. I guess I was wrong though. Thanks for clearing that up George.

Having a well known author come and visit our class was absolutely incredible. I looked forward to the class for a while because I enjoyed George and Rue so much. The thing that stuck out the most while I was listening to him read was his poetic style of both reading out load and then when I began to read his book again, I began to read it like a poem. It's amazing how when you listen to the author read his/her own work, you begin to understand the writing a lot more. When he began to start talking about the actual true story and it's origins it really got me intrigued on the subject matter. The fact many people did not want him to write this novel really got my attention and had me thinking about what I would do if I was in the shoes of the victim's friends and family.

In response to Nick Sachs comments about slavery and whether or not most Americans know about the universal use of slaves. It is quite amazing how close-minded this world is. Over the years, I have drawn the conclusion that people only believe in their own history and the major events in world history. When people from the United States they think of the slave trade, US tales such as Frederick Douglas, and the Civil War, and do not consider the widespread use of slaves all over the world. It is something that needs to be addressed in the classrooms and understood all over the world. This unfortunate period in our history was not only shared between Americans, but most of the world.

-Friedman's posting about how he pictured George Elliot clarke in his head as a more bitter, black empowered individual and then being suprised by Clark's carefree and happy demeanor as particularly interesting to me. I, for instance never even imagines what kind of person Clark would be since I always believed that the better writers, at least fiction authors, are able to write well because they simply write for themselves. As in they don't write to appease a certain population and/or try to promote personal agendas.

- Riley and many others feel that Clark's visit added much to they story making it resonate deeper than it would have stood alone. In fact Riley and many of the other classmates felt without Clark they wouldn't have been able to appreciate the novel as much. And I whole heartedly feel that it was great having Clark visit. But when I'm reading something I like making my own opinions and reasongings about text and even why an author wrote the text. So its slightly restricting for me when the author, in person, tells me what I'm suppose to get out of it, does it mean I have to rethink all my orignial thoughts on the novel because they didn't intend for that type of reasoning?

1. Let me be the first to say that George Elliot Clark is the man. Hands down, blew Eden Robinson out of the water. Not only was George and Rue an incredible book, but when he read it the way that he wrote it was nothing short of spellbinding. Not to mention his laugh is one of those laughs that make you laugh, ya know. Anyway, I am impressed that this was his first book, I know he did the poems, but the book was awsome, my Dad read the book in two days when I was home for the break, and he was jealous of the fact that I got to see the author. Unfortunatly, I missed the reading that he had later that day because I had class. But I heard it was cool anyway. Him being there set up the rythme of the book up better than when I read it for sure.

I think that it goes to show how racism was a sickness that infected almost everyone at that period of time, not to say that it isn't a problem now but it seems like it was a concensus back then. Regardless of that, the story was intriuging and intense to say the least.

After Eden Robinson's visit I was looking forward to Clarke's. I was a little annoyed that Martin made the alternative project to attend Clarke’s reading. As soon as Clarke began speaking in class, that annoyance disappeared. His class visit was very entertaining and i was excited to participate in his out of class reading. Reading his work brought the book to life. As I read the novel on my own I had a hard time connecting to the characters especially because of the “blackened” language, but as a result of his reading style the novel became an active experience. The chosen authors for a campus visit were a great choice, especially because they were my favorite novels from the class. Being able to meet someone who writes for a living and to hear their flaws, sometimes with writing, gives added support with the writing and reading experience. At some point I’m sure I will re-read both Monkey Beach and George and Rue, and be able to appreciate the novels, more that I did when reading them before their visits, because of my experience with the authors. Clarke has an exceptional reading style, after his reading I wish he had read the whole novel to me.

Reading the responses from my fellow classmates, I was surprised at the similar responses to Clarke’s visit, yet as I think about it I’m not that shocked. Both Kristie and Sarah share a similar view as I. We all share common experiences with reading the book and having a hard time relating to it, which changed with Clarke’s visit. We also share the effectiveness the book had before and after his visit. His reading brought and explanation to why he used the style of writing, giving a clear understanding of the meaning the novel has to offer. Sarah also made a great point, that his background information added extra understanding of the main characters.

In responce to Nick's comment I agree with him that after hearing George read his novel it made my own version and undersanding seem quite inferior. It's kind of like reading a book and then seeing the movie. Your memory of the book will forever be tainted by scenes brought about in the film. However, hearing George speak was an unbelievable experience. When he read passages from the book aloud, the scene came to life as he read the words in a musical fashion. Tracy made the comment to him in class that it is evident he has a poetry background. I couldn't agree with her any more, after hearing him read I will view him as a poet first, and a writer second. After hearing him speak it became easier to pick up on the rhytms and accentuations of his prose.
Seeing George in action also made me realize how cool it was that he had so much enthusiasm about what he was doing. He seemed to be in very good spirits, loved his job, and is always laughing having a good time. Seeing him also made me give thought about what it must be like during the writing process.

Often times I struggle with how to interpret material I’m reading in a novel and I feel that the lack of a connection with the text creates an inconsistency in the relationship constructed by the author. Having Eden Robinson and now George Elliot Clarke come in and speak about the process they went through with the writing of their books and how some of the characters developed into what is represented in the text interested me because of the understanding I felt I had with their novels up to that point. I was especially shocked with the presentation George provided for the classes and his reading at Billings later in the day. Listening to George read excerpts from “George & Rue” brought out a passion in the text that I never noticed when I was reading it. He exudes passion in his speech and after listening to him talk and then picking up the novel again is like reading a new version of the book.

It was really great to have George Elliot Clark come in to speak about "George and Rue." Besides hearing him read aloud, which was great, I was really intrigued to hear about his personal connection to the novel. I knew that he was related to the main characters, but having him explain it thoroughly added a whole new dimension. It was funny to hear that his whole family knew about George and Rufus Hamilton, and seemed to love telling their tale. The types of accounts he must have gotten from his relatives were probably so much better than what he would have had if he just used newspapers and court documents. I just liked hearing about his whole experience with the writing process, and with researching the novel. It loved hearing his reading of, and opinion on the material. Seeing Clark in person really added something, as well. He was really passionate about all his work, which made me appreciate it even more. His sense of humor and personality put everyone at ease, and it was evident that he really put thought and effort into answering questions from the class.
I liked Nicole's idea of rereading the text. I looked at some of the novel after George Elliot Clark came to visit, and read it in a different way. I really would like to sit down and read the whole thing, start to finish, knowing what I know now.

I think the book states negative things about Noiva scotia and New Brunswick during the time period that the book was written. George and Rue were treated poorly because of their skin color. They were born poor and were not given any opportunities to try and move up from the status of where they were born. They were not educated which made it even harder for them to get a job, non the less paid, as it was already. They were cheated and demeaned, leaving them no choice but to steal and cheat, to try and make ends meet. These two men saw no other way out because the society around them treated them as though the committed a crime before they ever did.

Although, I was not there due to illness, it is very enjoyable for me to read the passages written on this blog about George Clarke. It seems that everyone in both classes really enjoyed his visit and were amazed at his skill of reading his work. Eric Lynch said that because of the way George read, he started to understand the text more clearly. Was there a part in the text that you didn't understand that the class might be able to clear up for you? Sara Burke said that she really enjoyed hearing about George's personal connection to the book. I am aware that he is related to the people discussed in the book, but was there anything else worth mentioning since I was unable to hear him speak?

Nick Sachs had very good points to make about the book's Novia scotia and New B. Although, it wasn't my point of view, his perception of the area was very interesting. He is right that I did not know that there were slaves in Canada before I took this class. It is amazing that we are all so informed about the history of the United States, but when we are asked about Canada, we are all misinformed. I am very happy and agree with Nick when I say thank you George for clearing my misconception up!!

I think the thing that change me the most for the novel after Clarke's visit was how he read the novel. When I first was reading it I did not pick up on the sounding of the words. I could really tell that he was also a poet just by the few lines that he read in class. It tought me not to just speed through books, but slow down a little and actually read the words. Usually I just look for main characters, plots, and themes. After he visited our class I re-read the first two chapters and it was amazing how differently the words sounded. It sounded like I was reading a poem. Now whenever I have to read a novel for class, I am going to try and slow down while reading. I don't think all books are like that, but it would be interesting to read some more of his poetry or other works. He probably has the best writing style of all the authors we have read this past semester.

This was a really interesting perspective that I had not thought of before. Since there was talk of having George come to our class prior to my reading the novel I subsequently read the novel consciously trying to pick out and understand George's motive for the novel...and at the same time believing everything in the text because the thought of meeting the author brought him more to life so therefore bringing his stories to life and becoming more realistic in my mind.
I also wanted to comment on Scott's post regarding George's name being a result of the death of the George from George and Rue. It's apparent how influential a name can be and how much history and importance a name has. I wonder if George would've written this novel has his name been something else and not related to the story of the murders. In reclaiming the story or George from George and Rufus he has not only brought back and resurfaced the name and thus life of George Hamilton but consequently reclaimed his understanding of himself and his name as George Eliott Clarke.

George's energy, smile, and laughter made it obvious he was having fun... and why not? George and Rue is a text set in harrowing circumstances, and it's main conflict is a murder, but the text has its lighthearted moments, it has its moments of sheer joy (I was SHOCKED by the progression of the relationship between Cinthy and Asa, they seemed downright BLISSFUL in the beginning), and the way it was written... there were so many passages in that book where you just have to sit back, appreciate the power of the words both in rhythm and sound, and tip your cap to GEC. It's nice, to say the least, that his interactions with us on that day seemed to show he had as much appreciation for his audience as I did for him as a writer.