hi

The Baptist Convention of Zimbabwe was found in 1963 and was a Christian religious body that provided a lot of opportunities to young Rhodesians. It was part of the Foreign Mission Board that began work in Southern Rhodesia in the 1950s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_Convention_of_Zimbabwe

However, most of the youth that became pastors or evangelists were promised to attend the international convention once per year. However, many African pastors wanted to get involved well beyond that and take control over governing the church. Thus, this created a lot of conflicts and the Baptist Convention of ZImbabwe was created in order to provide some level of local governing and control, while no conflicts arose between international delegates/missionaries and local pastors.

It is very intriguing as to what Philip defines as "necessary baptism" and the way it is the "title of them all". This makes me believe that it is either a way to symbolize some kind of an awakening that Philip experiences or some type of an internal conflict that he helped to get over by the means of faith or simply purification (as what baptism means).

Es'kia Mphahlele was a South-African author who is perceived as the Father of African Humanism. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature and has received the Order of the Palm by the French government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Es%27kia_Mphahlele

His book The African Image in 1962 and it served to provide historical context of the South African Literature. His book was banned in 1966 under the Internal Scrutiny Act.

What I think the purpose of mentioning this book by the author, is that, just as Mphahlele did, Stephen was analysing works that were written from Africans about the Africans. Mphahlele did the absolute same thing, as it was one of the main purposes of his life. This is why I believe it is mentioned that Stephen: "gleaned a few nuggets of thought" from Mphahlele. It is an interesting intertextuality, but not to the works that both Mphahlele and Stephen analyzed, but rather the act of the work they did that makes this reference relevant to the story.

(pg. 95) This paragraph represents what I suspected is the reason behind the author's behavior and overall perception of the world. Even though he doesn't say that much here, the first sentence: "It was the House of Hunger that first made me discontented with things." makes so much sense about why the author possibly tells the things he did in his story. Overall, it was obvious that his relationship to his father and mother wasn't great, especially the mentioning of phrases for his father, such as "screwed my mother", "paid the rent", "beat me up", and "was cuckolded", tells us so much about the wrong morals and ideas he grew up with, that it reflected into a trauma he shows throughout the whole story – even his style of writing, narrating, and timeline explains this confusion and despair he felt throughout his childhood. I can't really understand why he mentions "the only things" is his father was an alcoholic. Perhaps it represent the only thing that is common between them, or the only thing that made his father do the things he did. Thus, I would most probably think that even though the House of Hunger represents a greater idea, connected to the overall state of the youth and people in his society, his home is most probably the place that made him hungry for knowledge, hungry for experiences, or simply hungry to gain right morals again, and not continue living with the disgusting and awful memories that he had from his childhood. However, something really intriguing is that the author mentions the houseflies that were humming Handel's "Hallelujah Chorus" once again (pg. 96). I can't seem to understand why he includes this reference or imagery in such moments, when it seems that there is something weird going on with the author or a friend/relative of his. I wonder whether there is greater significance to those houseflies, or the author simply uses them for strictly thought-out situations that represent an event the author is trying to deal with emotionally.

(pg. 74, 75) This is one of the most intriguing passages throughout the story. It seems that so many important details, intricacies, and descriptions are mentioned that they almost fully describe the way that Rhodesians (most particularly young ones, with bright futures, and dreams) felt throughout this period of Oppression and White Supremacy. A thing that caught my attention almost immediately is the use of the word "shit" numerous times. It is very intriguing as to why Philip starts this monologue with differentiating people from animals and why there is nothing that special to being human. Afterwards, he mentions the word "shit" in regards to the leaders, the dreams of the people, the history, their hands, etc. I am pretty sure that this whole passage is what Rhodesians despised the most about their situation – not that they were unable to do anything about their future, but rather the idea that their future couldn't do anything for them – they are just trapped in an endless cycle of coping with outside factors that no citizen should be forced to deal with. He continues to describe basically why their situation would not change anytime soon: "There's a lot of bastards hanging around in London waiting to come back here and become cabinet ministers." (pg. 75). Honestly, this is very true, even nowadays. However, what is more interesting is what he says afterwards: "The only cabinet they'll be in is a coffin." (pg. 75). Thus, this makes me believe that people indeed are ready for change and that they will not cope with being oppressed or ruled by anyone anymore, whether the leaders are Black or White. What he continues to say about how people mind their own business, but they still can't be left alone and how there is always another obstacle you have to pass until the day you die. This represent the tragedy, helplessness, and anger that people have towards the life they have to live. As Philip says: "There's a lot of anger that gets you nowhere.". Thus, this represents a feeling of both giving up or trying to find a more rational solution for the people to deal with their situation. Overall, I think there is a lot of significance in this passage, and the fact that very central ideas are stated explicitly makes it both unique to the whole story, yet fitting perfectly into the timeline and natural course of events of the story.

(p. 60) The narrator says the exact same words on page 14 – "spider web; it is studded with minute skeletons of genius". I find this extremely interesting as it seems that in the first case when he says it, he is referencing this analogy to "small men", whereas in the second case, he is referring to himself. Thus, I am prone to believe that the mentioning of the analogy two times in the text until now, means that he is trying to find reason and to keep going. On page 14, he mentions that the House of Hunger clings to these skeletons firmly because it believes there is more potential in them; however, on page 60, the narrator is trying to find the words to describe his life, trying to justify that even though he is in this "spider web", he still has more to do in this world. I believe that he tries to symbolize the House of Hunger in a way, since spider webs represent societies on a smaller scale. They are often referred to as mini-communities, and each part of it is different from the whole – thus, each web is completely different from other ones. However, there is a paradox that I find in describing the House of Hunger like that – spider webs can be perceived as either scary places that will eat you alive and are impossible to escape, or simply as an organized structure where the Mother "Spider" is protecting all of the members of the society. Another philosophical theory related to the Spider is that its web is an illusion that masks the true nature of reality. Therefore, there are many ways that we can go on about thinking in which of the numerous ways the author wants to portray the harsh reality he lives in by the description of the spider's web.

This is a great article about the cultural depictions of spiders. It tracks how spiders were perceived as mythological creatures as early as in ancient civilizations, up until their depiction in contemporary art, such as manga or anime. Don't immediately discard it because it's Wikipedia, it has 100 sources it was crafted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_spiders#:~:text=Roman%20goddess%20Minerva.-,Near%20East,of%20the%20water%20god%20Enki.&text=The%20tale%20goes%20on%20to,the%20opening%20of%20the%20cave.

(p. 64) The Prelude is an autobiographical poem by William Wordsworth. In it, the author showcases his spiritual and professional development. The poem tells many anecdotes and stories from the author's life, each of which has the purpose of illustrating childhood versus what happens when you grow up. Another theme that the author focuses on is the connection between the mind and the environment around us. This poem is often referred to as the introduction to a longer and more philosophical concept that Wordsworth spends his life working on. The author uses many and interesting techniques in order to represent this connection – he personifies nature, explains how nature can be both appealing and disgusting, and shares what he understood about nature during this process of trying to become "one" with it.

Here is a link to an extract of the poem, called Boat Stealing, and a brief summary: https://www.litcharts.com/poetry/william-wordsworth/extract-from-the-prelude-boat-stealing#:~:text=The%20Prelude%20is%20a%20long,of%20a%20lake%20at%20night.

(p. 53, 55, 57, 60, 61, 70) Numerous mentions of the word "stains". The context in which he mentions them is significantly different than in the previous week's pages: dirt stains, bloodstains, stains on the sheet, God's stains, stains left behind. Thus, it is now obvious that there is some symbolism and importance behind this idea of stains. It seems that the author uses this concept in order to explain things that are dramatic and weird, and he uses the stains to illustrate a wide range of scenes – he compares a boy being "smashed into a stain" to a stain on a sheet. I think it is very important that he mentions how love and revenge are "too many stains on a sheet", which definitely makes it look like the author considers them as emotional burdens, as memories that are distant and blurry, but still part of his life. He uses the stains most commonly in order to refer to them as being part of this "sheet" or something that is playing with his brain – I believe they actually represent traumatic experiences that he just wants to get rid of, but cannot. The word itself is often accompanied by an adjective that makes them sound innately negative, such as "stinking", "blood", etc. Thus, I believe that the concept of these stains will be further developed throughout the story, and possibly represent a detail about the author's memories or past.

(p. 47) This excerpt provides a further development on the consequences that the rain had on the narrator. In the paragraph "It drummed on the asbestos… like glue to our clothes." (pg. 44, 45) the narrator presents the rain as this force that is unable to be defeated, that inflicts so much fear and craziness into the whole situation that even the narrator agrees that it affected the schoolchildren so much that "we felt our very sanity was under a relentless siege". However, the interesting thing is what the narrator shares after this experience. He states that his "demon" has been removed from him and that this is the first time he is "completely alone". This idea of being "alone" is such a paradox compared to the fact he wasn't alone all this time - there were demons inside of him. Furthermore, him mentioning the sentence "It is as if a storm should rage in one's mind and no one else has the faintest experience of it" that makes me think whether this storm actually happened at all or whether it had really happened and the author is just using it to reference and give us insight into what is going on in his mind. Also, immediately after he finishes telling this story, he goes back into reality for a brief moment and then returns back to his narrative. It is so strange that he jumps from story to story, admits that there are "demons" in his head, and doesn't tell the stories in a chronological order that makes this whole thing so unrealistic yet beautiful and believable. However, I am confident that this has more significance than I am managing to grasp now–mainly because of the confusion–since it seems he is trying to go somewhere with his chaotic, but significant stories from different periods of his life and I feel that the whole truth is going to emerge soon and it is going to be explosive.

A rather comical excerpt, serving as a food for thought to those who take their language as granted – I believe this specific anecdote is another way for the author to showcase how something as simple as speaking in another language may have weird consequences (him not being able to eat after this argument). However, what is strange about these lines is not the reason why his mother hits him – it is what she does afterwards that makes us wonder what is actually going on and whether it is possible that his own home is the House of Hunger? It is obvious why the mother would be mad, considering the Rhodesian's history with the English language, its use in the mid to late 19th century, and the particular ethnic group that it represents. But the actions that she does afterwards (loud smacking, licking the plate and her fingers, and giving a "belch of delight"), as well as mentioning the fact that he supposedly thinks he is more special since he is "educated", makes it seem that she has some kind of hate or despise towards him, that she sees him as someone who gave up on his history and language. Is it possible that she is so narrow-minded that she isn't even happy for her son's knowledge, that she prefers him to stay low and quiet, rather than go out and learn another nation's language? Is it possible that she is a representation of a wider group of people in his country?

The Cocktail Party is a play, written by T. S. Eliot. It tells the story of a married couple that has problems, but overcomes them with the help of a stranger. However, the main theme of the play is considered to be about human relations and their complexity. Here is a good and straightforward summary of the play: https://interestingliterature.com/2017/01/a-short-analysis-of-t-s-eliots-the-cocktail-party/.

However, it is very intriguing to me as to why Harry mentions this work. It seems that there is a lot of intertextuality on pages 26 and 27, but most of it appears to be related to either Greek mythology or some sort of political or social issue. However, the Cocktail Party is a play that represents something completely different from mythology and politics – it is a psychoanalytic piece that illustrtates the faults and struggles of marriage and human relations. So does the author simply used this reference for its title, in order to symbolize that they are going to have a somewhat of a "Cocktail party" or is it something more substantial, that strives to prove yet another flaw of the author's relationships as a whole? I believe it may be something deeper, since it is mentioned that it is indeed a play by "T. S. Eliot", not just a random allusion.

A newspaper that is published in Harare, Zimbabwe. It is considered to have been both a propaganda as well as a reliable newspaper source. Malcom Smith was an editor to this newspaper. He was notable for his opposition to the White Minority Rule. This is an intriguing and short article about his life: https://apnews.com/article/673348a5e8c4a8de9101f9e565914824.

Here is an excerpt from an article that states what Malcolm Smith said about his work in the Rhodesia Herald, the censorships that he had to implement, and the threats and attacks that he faced because of his support to the impoverished people in his community. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00358536908452787?journalCode=ctrt20

The formulation of such a bold statement ("the elixir seemed to be right under our noses and yet not really there") is a frequent motive that I have found in many books by writers – especially Bulgarian ones – who are trying to figure out how it's possible for a certain nation to proceed with its normal life under times (usually after the fall of a political ideology/the rise of a new one), characterised by uncertainty, no political progress, and/or socio-economic enrichment whatsoever. I believe that what the author is trying to do here is possibly outline the reason why he decided to become a writer, why the current situation in his society/country was hardly going to change, as well as a way to explain the metaphors that he is going to use throughout his work. This quote summarizes the struggles, both his own and those of his society, and illustrates how hard it was to reach eventual success, calmness, and even inner peace. I believe that the word "elixir" is definitely an euphemism for something deeper and more vulgar that he doesn't feel comfortable to share yet; however, we may understand what elixir he is talking about towards the end of his novella. Still, I am certain that the "elixir" he is talking about is definitely not material, even far from a drug or an alcohol – I believe it is a feeling, rather an instinct that he will further develop towards the end.