Gender convention was a very black and white kind of scenario in 19th century Russian Society. Within the Russian 19th century society, men had more power and authority than women, which often led to abuse and a power struggle within relationships and power struggles between gender roles of society. Within Leo Tolstoy’s “The Kreutzer Sonata”, we see several instances during which women are undermined and viewed as lesser beings when compared to males. From another standpoint, we see similar ideals being depicted within Marianna G. Muravyeva’s “Between Law and Morality: Violence against Women in Nineteenth-Century Russia”, which expresses how women are taken advantage of due to their lack of power and authority in Russian society and in relationships. Along with these, another source “ “ by also shows how….
In 19th century Russian society, a power struggle had existed between the two genders, because of the major patriarchal establishment there was, which unfortunately led to men having more privileges than women in a myriad of instances. Within Tolstoy’s “The Kreutzer Sonata”, we see various instances during a conversation between a lady, an old man, and a lawyer, where patriarchal views are depicted and seemingly enforced by the people. In the text it states, “What can you say? The first thing that should be required of a woman is fear!… Why, this: let her fear her husband! That fear!” (161). This goes to show how the tradesmen depicted ideals that many people followed during these times. Ideas revolving around how the man should be the authoritative figure within a relationship, and how the women should be there as an obedient supporter. This is one of the logical reasons behind why there was this power struggle between Genders and how gender roles within 19th century Russia were very flawed and led to people having antiquated beliefs regarding societal influence. Along with this, it further states in the text, “No one is permitting anything, but a man does not bring offspring into the home; while a woman-a wife is a leaky vessel,” the tradesman continued insistently. His tone was so impressive that it evidently vanquished his hearers, and even the lady felt crushed but still did not give in.” (162). This specific phrase ‘leaky vessel’ depicts how society viewed women as child-bearers and caretakers, more than a human being who had the same potential as a man in society. The tradesmen’s logic is that women are the only ones who can give birth, and so by nature’s law, women must be child caretakers and birth givers, while the men go out to work and earn for their families. It was generally believed that the women should be housewives, caretakers for children in a relationship with a man, as the male figure claims the authority by working and bringing income home to provide for the family, with more options than the female. While we would typically see this perspective on gender roles as completely outdated and unrealistic in modern times, many individuals in 19th century Russia would adopt these ideals to a certain extent. The idea of men having more privileges over women was typically known, but unspoken. Yet, we see these ideas being freely spoken about by the old man who believed the male figure should always keep the female in check and line, as stated in the text which states, “Because he is a fool,” said the old man. “If he’d pulled her up properly from the first and not let her have her way, she’d be living with him, no fear! It’s giving way at first that counts. Don’t trust your horse in the field, or your wife in the house.” (163). This is quite significant, as it showed how rather than believing in an equal and loving relationship where both partners contribute, the old man believed the male figure should always keep the women figure in check. Almost sort of like on a leash, where the women should be watched and taught obedience by the husband, which depicted how bad the power struggle and power balance was between the male and female figures in relationships of 19th century Russia. When we begin transitioning to how females were treated when adultery was discussed, and how the men were treated, we begin to understand how much more powerful men were than women in relationships. Within this text, we see how Pozdnyshev, after developing his paranoia, anxiety, and suspicions of possible adultery that may have been committed by his wife, went on a rampage by murdering his wife. At this point, all he could think about was how to get rid of her, how impure or disobedient she seemed to be, and how to get his revenge, rather than trying to resolve potential suspicions by talking it out thoroughly in a conversation with his wife. According to the text it states, “You know at the trial the case was put as if it was all caused by jealousy. No such thing: that is, I don ‘t mean ‘no such thing,’ it was and yet it was not. At the tnal it was decided that I was a wronged husband and that I had killed her while defending my outraged honour (that is the phrase they employ! you know)” (209). Going to show another sense of power struggle within a relationship, as this specific scenario depicts a man’s honor being tested and because of a rumor regarding adultery, surrounding his wife. Rather than conversing with her as two equals of a relationship, it decided to end all ties with her, and end her life because she did not seem to fit his description of an obedient wife, because of a potential act of adultery possibly being committed.
These same ideas regarding a sense of power struggle and power dynamics between gender roles are also expressed within Marianna G. Muravyeva’s “Between Law and Morality: Violence against Women in Nineteenth-Century Russia. Within this text, a sundry of instances are depicted in which women fall victim to a lack of authority and power in relationships. For example, in the text, it states, “Nineteenth-century lawyers unanimously agreed that there could not be rape in marriage. N. A. Nekliudov, an authoritative criminologist at the time, explained that rape was a crime against woman’s chastity and honour, which could not happen in spousal relations, as sexual intercourse was sanctioned by the sanctity of marriage. In other words, a husband had absolute control over his wife’s body and any sexual violence was classified as domestic abuse.” (48). This is crucial to understand within the perspective of 19th century Russian Society and its ideals, as it shows how even the laws favored male authority over women. In this specific scenario, we see how men could easily get away with taking advantage of their wives sexually, whether it be with consent or no consent. It did not matter if the wife was obedient or did not like how they were being treated by their husband, as the husband could easily get away with these sexual acts due to how laws were designed back then. This goes to show just how privileged men were in 19th century Russia, and how women were constantly under a power struggle with their spouses, due to how society perceived a male authoritative figure as the only possible logical explanation. To add on, within the text it also states, “Ethnographical data for the nineteenth century from the Tomsk region (where allegedly the tradition of wife-selling or wife-exchange was widely practiced) suggests that husbands still ordered their wives to have sex with strangers in exchange for goods or money. At one of the goldmines, for example, people witnessed a husband beat up his wife with a bridle because she refused to sleep with his friend who offered three rubles for that privilege. His actions were supported by the eldest members of the family: they insisted that a wife should always obey her husband’s orders and contribute to the family’s wealth in any way necessary. (49). This is also going to show how important obedience of a wife was, in 19th-century Russian society, as it was one of the most sought after aspects of an ideal wife. Without obedience, a woman was considered to lack the tasteful qualities of a marriageable wife who could keep her husband happy and satisfied. We see here, in this scenario, that a lack of obedience often led to abuse, and how women were taken advantage of by their husbands, because of their lack of power or authority in the relationship. Thus, further proving how there was a massive power struggle between gender roles. In this specific citation, we see how when the wife refused to sleep with her husband’s friend for money, she was abused and beat because she displayed disobedience to the figure of authority in the relationship. In this text, the general situation and experiences of abused women in Russia are also expressed, and how many women were desperate to get out of these power struggles with their husbands. Within the text, it states, “The picture of the abuse of Russian women emerging from this chapter is mostly negative and calls for obvious conclusions about the place of women in nineteenth-century society. Patriarchal families led by men (and sometimes women) used every accessible tool to discipline, control, and subjugate women to the family and community needs, often to the harm of their interests. Women responded by using all available strategies to cope with the violence and to resist it through judiciary and extra-legal activities. Many women fled. Some killed their husbands and fathers-in-law in self-defense. Yet many preferred to conform because their well-being and livelihood often depended on the male head of the household.” (51). This pretty much sums up how much of a power struggle and difference in authority there was within relationships, as women had to choose between either conforming and obeying their husbands or disobeying and getting away from their husbands. It even went as extreme as women feeling forced to kill their husbands because of the abuse they underwent, and pressure that was developed as a result of the authority husbands had over them. Some people may think that the women could have easily gotten a divorce and just gotten away from abusive relationships that way, however, it was not that simple. Due to the way 19th century Russia was, men had access to a variety of jobs, while women were very limited in their options. Usually restricted to options such as being a maid, caretaker of children, and even prostitution. Therefore, females felt inclined to stay in relationships with an authoritative male and deal with being obedient, as it was much better than trying to survive on their own through means such as prostitution, which was often frowned upon when compared to a married life.
When looking past just the relationship power struggles, we also see the power struggles between gender roles in the workforce. According to Richard Stites’s, “The women’s liberation movement in Russia: feminism, nihilism, and bolshevism, 1860-1930”, it states, “In the same manner, a discussion of the economic difficulties of women in the cities leaves the impression that only upper-crust society women and prostitutes peopled the towns, an imbalance that stems from reliance on the most readily available sources: upper-class women’s accounts about themselves and police reports concerning prostitutes. We hear little or nothing about women of merchant, artisan, civil service, and clergy families…” (499). This goes to show how when women began to stop using marriage as a solution for financial stability because of the lack of authority and potential abuse that comes with it, their options were very limited in the workforce. Since they were not given the same education opportunities as men in the Patriarchal system, their options were limited, while the stigma of women performing the same jobs as men also reduced their options as it was frowned upon. This goes to show how the power struggle between gender roles was observable, as we just saw in the workforce example, and how it was blatantly obvious due to the societal results that were produced as a result of it.
As you can see, there are a myriad of examples that can be utilized to depict how the power struggle between gender roles existed in 19th-century Russian society, and how issues such as abuse, oppression of women, an imbalance in the workforce existed as a result of this power struggle between the two genders. Females were given this image of being a housewife that birthed children and obeyed their husbands to satisfy and support their husband’s welfare. Yet, through time this power struggle between authoritative figures of a relationship and gender roles, gradually became less and less of an issue as these antiquated beliefs were left in the past.

For longer than anyone could remember, love has always been a mystery, with fragments of it becoming unveiled and many others still perplexing scientists, psychologists, biologists, and even anthropologists to this day. Within Benedict Carey’s essay “The Brain in Love”, a myriad of sources from different scientists are utilized to depict the different perspectives on Romantic attraction based on various studies and whether or not biology drives attraction. From Helen Fisher’s physical analysis and experimentation on the brains of lovestruck college students with MRI scans, to other pattern based experiments and surveys that could explain more about romantic attraction. From analyzing the outcomes and results of the many experiments scientists within this essay scientists have conducted, it is logical to say that many of the results make sense and are agreeable with.

Helen Fisher is an anthropologist who came up with the inference that romantic attraction relates to the biological drive of choosing a mate so that individuals can focus on one person over all the others(401). Fisher tests this idea of lovestruck individuals having a different reaction to the person they claim to love, by utilizing MRI scans on lovestruck college students to observe any potential brain activity patterns. Upon inspecting the results of more than 3000 brain scans, neurobiologists Andreas Bartels and Semir Zeki came to the conclusion that “the experience of romantic attraction activated those pockets of the brain with a high concentration of receptors for dopamine, the chemical messenger closely tied to states of euphoria, craving and addiction”(401). Suggesting that people in love seem to have a different chemical reaction when exposed to images or the presence of their lover, when compared to being exposed to any other potential lover. Another source that Carey cites is a study performed by researcher Ellen Berscheid in which a group of men and women were asked to make a list of people that fell in the categories of individuals they loved, found sexually attractive, are friends with, and people they are in love with(401). The results were that the people they were in love with, happened to fall in all the categories, which led to psychologists making the assumption that people often idealized their lovers to different extents, which became known as the ‘Pink Lens effect’. A form of behavior in which people believe their lovers could be considered perfect, disregarding their potential flaws, producing excuses for their mistakes, believing their relationship to be incomparable to the likes of others. This study led to another researcher, Pamela Regan to believe that some amounts of idealization may be necessary for the longevity and stability of a relationship over many years(402). Indicating that the pink lens effect may not necessarily be an unhealthy form of behavior, as it allows people to be more forgiving over conflicts with their lovers, which as a result would increase the likelihood of a longer relationship with that person. This idea that Pamela Regan proclaimed was tested in a 1996 experiment conducted by psychologists during which a group of 121 dating couples were tracked and given questionnaires that were used to figure out how much they idealized their partners. The reason for this was that psychologists wanted to see if there was a commonly present correlation between a sense of idealization for their partners, and how healthy their relationship was, whether it be emotionally or how long they have been together. The results were that “idealizing seemed to help carry these couples through the inevitable rough spots”(402), along with “What they’re finding is that idealization of a kind can keep people happily married”(402). Suggesting that there is indeed a positive correlation between idealization and the stability or longevity of a relationship. However, according to the lead investigator of this study Ted Huston, another finding was that intense and passionate romance seemed to have a negative correlation with the longevity and stability of a relationship. He describes it as intense Hollywood-type romances being most likely to have a big drop-off later in the relationship, almost like a drug wearing off, and the lovers becoming desensitized to each other(403).

After analyzing the various experiments and studies conducted by many scientists, biologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and even researchers, I have found the results of certain studies to be agreeable with because of their logic, patterns and consistency. The first being Helen Fisher’s idea regarding individuals choosing a mate, as coinciding with their biological drives. I found that the physical observations of surges in chemicals such as dopamine when individuals are exposed to pictures of their lover, cannot be disproven, and that there is definitely some different biological reaction when people are exposed to their lovers. To add on, another experimentational result that I deemed to be logical, is Huston’s conclusion that intense hollywood-like Romance tends to have a much less likely sense of stability and longevity, with an expected drop-off somewhere during the relationship. It correlates to one of the 4 forms of Greek love, Eros, in which it is primarily about the sexually active partners that experience sexual attraction, fulfilling their needs and desires, rather than focusing on the love aspect regarding their partner. It is a form of love that can be addicting, which is why it is mentioned in the essay as being a drug that may eventually lose its kick (403). These results make sense, as intense romantic love focuses more on desires than helping eachother grow and living a healthy relationship. In Alexander Pushkin’s “The Blizzard” we see how Marya Gavrilovna developed fantasies of romantic love after entertaining herself with romantic french novels. According to the text, Pushkin states, “Marya Gavrilovna was brought up on French novels and consequently was in love. Her chosen one was a poor ensign”(20). It later states, “it was intensely gratifying to Marya Gavrilovna’s romantic imagination.” This suggests and goes to show how intense romantic love develops expectations around one’s imagination which may or may not be fulfilled. This is one of the aspects of romantic love that depict a sense of instability in the longevity of the relationship.

As you can see, these various scientists and research studies depict a sense of correlation between romantic attraction, and different patterns within a relationship that may arise, it shows how there are still many developing theories that be may true as a result of consistencies and patterns in various couples or relationships.

Narcissism is a trait that everyone should be familiar with, as you never know when you may end up a victim when encountering individuals with narcissistic tendencies and personalities. Understanding what narcissism is, and the various symptoms of it can save many people from going into unhealthy relationships. In many cases, individuals with a narcissistic personality end up ruining relationships with other individuals for the sake of protecting and inflating their own egos. These individuals crave attention, like to have a sense of dominance or power over other people, and are so self-absorbed in their own image that they lack empathy for others. Pechorin, a young man within Mikhail Lermontov’s “A Hero of Our Time-Princess Mary”, fits the very description of an individual with narcissistic tendencies. In the story, we see Pechorin develop and ruin relationships he has with several people, manipulating both men and women to satisfy his ego, and even taking advantage of 19th-century Russian society’s cultural expectations. While he may be a narcissist, he proves to be one yet so effortlessly, utilizing his intelligence to prey upon those who can sate his ego and those that intrigue him because they seem different from the rest of society. Pechorin is a narcissist who feeds his curiosity and ego through the suffering and manipulation of others within his vicinity, which inevitably ruins many of his relationships with individuals in the Caucasus. Showing how narcissism is destructive towards those affected by it, and those who embrace the practice of it.

Pechorin is a man of complicated tastes, he does not simply love a woman, he isn’t attracted to individuals he feels romantic love for, but rather individuals that he believes may prove to be a challenge when trying to conquer them mentally and emotionally. Almost everything he does somehow correlates with feeding into his insatiable ego and sense of pride in his own image. In the text, it states, “have studied, for a long time, the mountain peoples’ style of riding: there is no better way of flattering my vanity than to acknowledge my skill in riding a horse in the Caucasian fashion.”(103). This goes to show how even Pechorin himself is aware that he fancies doing anything that could make him seem more prideful and improve his social image. When it comes to romantic love, Pechorin has an acquired taste for women who he believes may prove to be a challenge trying to conquer. In essence, he seeks to conquer women mentally and emotionally, the harder the challenge the more fulfilling it is for him in the end. In this story, he sets his eyes on Princess Mary, a female who upon reaching the Caucasus, had developed a crowd of attention and attraction from men flocking to her in groups like birds seeking bread bits in the parks. Within the text, it states, “so pleasingly constricted at the ankle her spare little foot, that even one uninitiated into the mysteries of beauty would have certainly uttered an exclamation, if only of surprise. Her light yet noble gait had something virginal about it that escaped definition, but was comprehensible to the gaze.” (86). We can observe here that Princess Mary has indeed ramped up Pechorin’s curiosity, and so began Pechorin’s journey to conquer her. Pechorin fits the Casanova womanizer description, and we see him do so as he pursues Mary. He studies her, experiments on how she reacts to different actions and tests how easily he could manipulate her. According to the text, it states, “The young princess kept begging her mamma not to be stingy; that rug would be such an adornment for her dressing room! I offered forty roubles more and outbid her; for this, I was rewarded by a glance in which glittered the most exquisite rage.” (97). Here, we see Pechorin executing his plan to conquer Princess Mary, by first gaining her attention and curiosity. Even though he gets her attention by infuriating her, he still obtains it, which is exactly what he wants. Further on, during the ball, Pechorin manipulates Nobleman’s etiquette and mannerisms to gain Princess Mary’s favor. According to the text it states, “I went up to the drunk, took him rather firmly by the arm and looking steadily into his eyes, asked him to go away, because, I added, the princess had long ago promised to dance the mazurka with me.” (109). Here, we see that Pechorin almost swoops in like a white knight who is here to save the day, which in Mary’s eyes made him look like a hero. This is all a part of Pechorin’s plan to conquer Mary emotionally. Displaying again, how perfectly Pechorin fits into the category of a Casanova womanizer type.

Although, some may say that this was not part of Pechorin’s plan based on narcissistic motives. Perhaps he really was in love, or at least had feelings for Princess Mary, which is what led to him rescuing her from that situation. It is possible that while he may not have been completely in love with Mary, he felt slight empathy for her, and understood that she had to follow etiquette by accepting the drunken man’s request to a dance at the Mazurka.

However, going back to how Pechorin had narcissistic motives in play, Pechorin further sates his ego by trying to get into relationships and being the dominant partner through a power struggle. He is more intrigued by women that are not so easily swayed and submissive, but rather women that he finds difficult to tame. There is a myriad of events in the story that display a sense of power struggle between Mary and Pechorin. One of the key examples of power struggle being displayed is when Mary and Pechorin are walking, and Mary has an outburst, asking Pechorin if he really loves her or not. In the text, it states, “She felt better; she wanted to free herself from my arm, but I wound it still tighter around her tender, soft body; my cheek almost touched her cheek; flame emanated from it.” (133). This is the physical power struggle that foreshadows the mental power struggle which occurs immediately after. It depicts how Mary felt vulnerable in this moment and wanted to get away from Pechorin for a moment to cool down, but he refuses to let her go during this moment of vulnerability. It then states within the text, “Either you despise me, or love me very much!’ she said at last, in a voice in which there were tears. ‘Perhaps you want to laugh at me, to trouble my soul, and then leave me . . . It would be so base, so mean, that the mere supposition … Oh no! Isn’t it true,’ she added in a tone of tender trust, ‘isn’t it true that there is nothing in me that would preclude respect? Your insolent action . . . I must, I must forgive it you because I allowed it…” (133). A series of things occur here, the first being that Pechorin had emotionally conquered Mary, since she is now desperate and dependent on him for a response, as to whether he loves her or simply taunts her. She then begins to put the pieces together and assumes that Pechorin may just be trying to toy with her, mess with her emotions, and then abandon her, and so she leaves him. To a sense this is true, as Pechorin only stays with women until he can satisfy his ego’s cravings with them, then he moves on to the next to conquer. We see that this momentary scene does in fact feed his ego as it states in the text, “In the last words, there was such feminine impatience that I could not help smiling. Fortunately, it was beginning to get dark … I did not answer anything.” (133). The smile indicates that Pechorin felt some sort of satisfaction or pleasure, from the emotional desperation that he caused Mary to develop by manipulating her. He realized at this moment that he has pretty much won the power struggle and that he does not have much use for Mary anymore.

Pechorin utilizes various methods of manipulation to make people suffer and thus sate his ego’s cravings. One of the prime examples of this is his relationship with Grushnitsky. Near the beginning of the story, they begin as friends, and later have a fall out due to Pechorin’s manipulations. Pechorin convinces Grushnitsky, with the idea that he has a chance to make Mary fall in love with him. Just to mock Grushnitsky, by manipulating Mary into losing interest in him and falling for Pechorin instead. Within the text, it states, “’Including even my friend Grushnitsky?’ ‘Why, is he your friend?’ she said, revealing some doubt. ‘Yes.’ ‘He does not enter, of course, into the category of dull people.’ ‘Rather the category of unfortunate ones,’ I said laughing. ‘Of course! You find it funny? I wish you were in his place.’ ‘Well, I used to be a cadet myself, and indeed it was the very best time of my life!’ ‘But is he a cadet? … ‘she said quickly, and then added: ‘I thought that … ‘ ‘What is it you thought?’ ‘Nothing! … Who is that lady?’” (110). This entire scene during the Mazurka depicts how methodically Pechorin makes Mary lose any potential interest she may have had in Grushnitksy. He knew that Mary was unaware of Grushnitsky being a cadet, while also talking down on him by referring to him as an unfortunate individual. Further on, we can see Pechorin observing how Mary reacts to Grushnitsky’s presence, after what he said about him. In the text, it states, “She did not hear me out, moved away, sat down next to Grushnitsky, and there started between them some kind of sentimental conversation. The young princess, it seemed, replied rather absently and irrelevantly to his wise pronouncements, though she tried to show that she listened to him with attention, for now, and then he would glance at her with surprise, trying to guess the reason for the inward agitation that expressed itself…” (114). This shows how observative Pechorin is when he manipulates someone, as he needs to assess how they react to his manipulations. He gains pleasure and satisfaction from seeing Grushnitsky agitated by the Princess’s disinterest in him.

As you can see, Pechorin is a prime example of a narcissist who also identifies as a Casanova type womanizer. He shows how narcissism can ruin relationships people have with others, for the sake of their own ego and pride, along with how narcissism leads to a lack of empathy for friends and lovers, which can only lead to a destructive path.

Works Cited:

*“Princess Mary.” A Hero of Our Time, by Lermontov Mikhail., Penguin Books, 2009.

New York, a place of variety, diversity, experiences, and a myriad of other mysteries waiting to be discovered. A place that in my opinion, cannot be compared to the likes of any other place throughout the world. The reason being that for one, it practically follows no specific format and is structured like a buffet, an all you can eat for a tourist who craves adventure and experiences. You have a sundry of Middle Eastern Asian cuisines and ideals being expressed within Jackson heights, you have the same concept expressed within the likes of Chinatown, minus the Middle Eastern vibes. By now you should get the gist of it, New York can simply overwhelm a foreigner, as it has so much culture to explore, understand, and experience. I for one am grateful for being born in New York, having so much time to experience all the places around me that reflect a variety of cultures. As it seems so much more interesting than the likes of growing up exposed to one specific culture in a certain part of the world. Had I been born in say, India, I doubt I would get the chance to experience the authentic Mexican cuisine that I have exposed myself to in Williamsburg, and grown to respect. Now I don’t want to seem biased with my positive experience in New York, but I simply don’t think it can be compared to anywhere else across the world with all the variety of goodies and treats it has to offer. It’s like a video game that is constantly being updated with new downloadable content, you will find it very hard to run out of content, that you can experience. Joan Didion’s essay “Goodbye to All That”, shares various feelings and experiences regarding New York City that I have found rather interesting, along with that some even being quite relatable to. Zadie Smith’s “Under the Banner of New York” offers a different perspective on the same subject regarding New York, offering a strong sense of optimism for readers to absorb. Didion depicts the inevitable end of her journey in New York, which I respect as it may not be something meant for everyone, as individuals come and go with expectations of New York not being met or sustainable. 

Queens has been a chapter of my life that seems to have the most memories, the majority being positively reinforced. The various parts and pieces of Queens and other Boroughs are what makes New York City special. Don’t believe me? Try living in Elmhurst Queens for a period of your life, and then finally experiencing a place like Sunnyside or even Astoria. It’s like teleporting from one city to another, of similar structure but apparent differences. I remember the first time I arrived at my Middle school in Maspeth, IS.73, an experience that was rather quite unexpected. The first time I went to middle school, the bus ride in itself was quite the experience, it was like being guided through different sections of a museum. I could no longer feel the atmosphere and personality of Elmhurst as the q53 crossed the road which aligned with Queens Center Mall a few blocks away. An unexplainable feeling washed over me as I encountered Maspeth for the first time. From trying to get used to the majority of it being filled with housing, clean and beautiful parks, and a bunch of gas stations, emphasis on the last one. While this may seem normal to many people, my life in Elmhurst consisted of primarily 5 story apartment buildings, run-down parks, and bubble tea from Quickly’s on Broadway. This experience of transitioning from Elmhurst to Maspeth for the first time was one so memorable that it’s safe to say, has indeed impacted me in a way that is life-changing. All my childhood I did not have much respect or nationalistic feelings for Queens New York, up until I had the chance to explore more of it, down to the details, rather than just seeing the different parts of it from the view of our local 7 trains. Never understanding back then why people seemed so prideful for growing up in queens and saying things under their Instagram post captions such as “Queens for life”. Anyways moving on, one of the most memorable chapters of my life, was during my pre-teen years.  I remember how ecstatic I felt when classes were over on the first day of Middle school since all my friends from elementary school, happened to share similar feelings. We were a close group of friends that were all from Elmhurst and went to PS.89.  Once math was over, our teacher led us to the cafeteria, where the boys and I discussed what we could do after school. Throughout the remaining school day, we eventually decided that we would walk back home together, as we all lived within the vicinity of Broadway Park. It was a grueling journey in the sense that it was a couple mile’s walk from our school, yet it was exciting in the sense that we went on a detour to explore Maspeth and its parks. I remember when we first walked into Frontera park and noticed something right off the bat, the basketball courts were empty. Immediately I recalled the courts in Broadway Park, Elmhurst, where my friends and I would have to wait at least 30 minutes to get our own court or end up taking turns with other people on a court. It was a bittersweet moment for me in the sense that while there was always free basketball courts there, Broadway Park was light years ahead at being lively. This sense of contrast between Elmhurst and Maspeth indicated to me that, while Maspeth may seem more fitting for the term eye-candy, Elmhurst won in the category of spirit and diversity. Of all my years that I went to Maspeth for school, one thing I noticed was that its general population seemed to consist of Caucasians. While this is just my general perception, I can safely say that Elmhurst Queens is significantly more diverse in terms of the population, why is why I will always prefer it. It has developed my way of thinking and helped me understand now, that queens truly does have personality and a spirit that cannot be mimicked.

Joan Didion’s “Goodbye to All That” is an essay that provided me a whole new perspective on New York City. As an individual that has resided in Queens and Brooklyn for the majority of their life, I have not had the chance to venture deeper into the culture and scenery of Manhattan, except on special occasions such as New Years or Christmas. Within Joan Didion’s essay, one of the things that caught my attention was on page 227 which states, “In retrospect, it seems to me that those days before I knew the names of all the bridges were happier than the ones that came later…” This analogy stood out to me in the sense of discovering different parts of Queens during my childhood and understanding them. It’s a feeling that I do not believe I can no longer experience in Queens, as I have had my fair share of experiencing Astoria, Elmhurst, Maspeth, Forest hills, etc. While there are definitely more areas that I have yet to explore, I can say for sure, that I have experienced a majority of it, especially the nicer neighborhoods. Going back to why I am so attached to New York, this idea of exploring all there is, of each borough, is what makes it so hard to experience all the aspects and cultures New York City has to offer, in a short amount of time. Nevertheless, Didion also points out another interesting detail on page 229 which states, “Nothing was irrevocable; everything was within reach. Just around every corner lay something curious and interesting, something I had never before seen or done or known about.” This idea really speaks to me on a personal level since I too feel this way about New York City. I could leave my house right now and get ice cream right around the block, pizza two blocks away, electronics a couple blocks away, clothes at many retail stores around me, etc. Accessibility to things has never been a problem for me in New York City, it truly has access to practically anything realistic, that an individual may need to live a normal life and enjoy themselves. I specifically can relate to Didion’s statement regarding there being something interesting around every corner, because it speaks to me as more of a physical expression than rhetorical. I have felt this way in Times Square, as it is such an overwhelming area to absorb for someone who does not go there often.  Along with this, Didion also states on page 231, “I am not sure that it is possible for anyone brought up in the East to appreciate entirely what New York, the idea of New York, means to those of us who came out of the West and the South…To an Eastern child…New York is just a city.” This idea that Didion expresses, regarding the different perspectives of individuals in the East, to the individuals in the West and South while growing up, is something that I myself can agree with. I have always as a child, looked forward to the day that I could go to Times Square and Manhattan in general. The massive skyscrapers and jaw-dropping views made it seem almost magical, just from television alone. I never thought about it the way that Didion describes it, it inspired a sense of gratefulness within me, for not growing up in the East and being constantly exposed to it. Since otherwise, my sense of beauty for Manhattan and Times Square would not reflect as strongly.

To add on, Zadie Smith’s “Under the Banner of New York” helped me improve my understanding of New Yorkers as a whole, and helped me realize that New York and New Yorkers cannot be generalized due to the overwhelming sense of diversity. According to the second to last paragraph of the text, it states, “New Yorkers choose to gather under the banner that says “New York”—which is so elastic it really means nothing at all—and that is exactly what I love about this place. The capacity to gather without precise definition I experience as a form of freedom.” I cannot put into words just how much of an eye-opener this expression of New York was to me upon comprehending it. Smith shows us that New York cannot truly be defined in one or two words, as it is ‘elastic’ in the sense of having an undefined amount of terms to describe it and its continuously increasing percentages of diversity. She reminds me that New York is truly incomparable in the sense that it has no true personality or character in its name, thus being why she loves it, as it depicts a sense of freedom. A sense of freedom that no other nation or country you can think of off the top of your head can replicate. 

As you can see, New York has been a place of constant transitions for me, both emotionally and physically. My perspective of New York has matured and aged like a fine wine as I continue to explore it every day, not knowing what lies ahead. Jane Didion’s perspective on New York has expanded my own, showing me a view of New York from a different angle. Yet one thing remains the same in me after reading her essay, how can anyone not want to experience New York at least once in their life?