Staff Writer Victoria Borlando invents a Columbia-themed form of literary analysis because that is what people casually do at 1 am on a Saturday.

As finals creep around the corner, I (a hardcore Humanities person) have become routine to applying different lenses of literary analysis to each essay I write. Yet, in my free time, I began to grow unsettled with my work. More specifically, I became bored with these existent lenses, being applied to any and every book. But I love to read, write, and most importantly, overanalyze for at least an A-. If I truly am enjoying these new approaches to old texts, applying multitudes of interpretations to them, then what is this void in my soul? Is using the “Using a Marxist lens, person A is enforcing an oppressive, capitalistic ideology…” trope to get a guaranteed A not enough anymore?

The answer: yes. It truly is not enough.

Thus, because I hate myself, I decided to create a new type of literary analysis to switch things up a little. I can’t help myself; I love to add some spice to my world. However, this isn’t the average literary analysis that, when you strip away all the nuances, ends up just being psychoanalytical. This one will be much more interesting.

But first, an explanation. I will admit, I became fascinated by the “Beginner’s Mind” during quarantine. Not the original, spiritual definition of it, however. I’m talking about the one icon and legend Deantini emphasized in every email and speech since 2012. He defined a Beginner’s Mind as “…what drives scientific curiosity…learning to question and analyze what we know and how we know it, what we believe and why we believe it, to imagine new knowledge and to entertain new ideas.” He explained this concept as an acknowledgement that our knowledge is simply a ‘starting-off point’ for new information. He encouraged Columbia students to take the stuff they learn in the classroom and question it, taking these truths and challenging them, hopefully making the world a better place in the meantime.

And, because I’m going crazy and because he’s awesome, I want to honor him in a way that represents his wisdom and beliefs in the center of Columbia University’s renowned Core Curriculum. I want to incorporate his ideas of a Beginner’s Mind to everything I do.

I am proposing a new form of literary analysis that applies the concepts of Deantini’s  ‘Beginner’s Mind’ to offer a new interpretation of texts that reveals its more didactic, more motivational qualities. Yet, in order for this lens to truly exist, I must set some parameters.

For a text to enforce the ideals of a “Beginner’s Mind”, the characters and story must support the desire of thought-provoking actions/subtexts/themes. It must have elements that allow the reader to want more, revealing more and more information as the text develops. Like Hemingway’s 7/8th principle, it must provide enough information to help us understand, but everything beneath the surface must encourage us to desire to understand more. Like Keats’ theory of negative capability, the text in front of us must make sure that it is alright for us to not know the whole truth, so long as we keep pursuing the knowledge.

For instance, anything JK Rowling has ever done (especially on her Twitter) does NOT have a Beginner’s Mind. Telling us that all the students shit themselves constantly is not accepting the fact that most of the world she created must go unknown. She ruined a perfectly good story by going “Oh yeah, Harry Potter is a grumpy dad now with a stupidly-named son becoming best friends with the son of his father’s archnemesis.” She gave us too much information, and now we all are begging her to kill the world we grew to love, even resorting to fan-made productions that are objectively better than anything she ever wrote (see: A Very Potter Musical by Starkid Productions—it has a young Darren Criss!). If a text makes us want to close the book and put the whole story behind us, it does not have a Beginner’s Mind.

Thus, a “Beginner’s Mind” text must be thought-provoking, something we want to learn more about, something that inspires us to create a better world.

So now, in order to provide a good guideline to Beginner’s Mind analysis, let’s put this form of literary analysis into action!

The 2013 movie Perks of Being a Wallflower, based on the bestseller novel by Stephen Chbosky, is a cultural phenomenon, portraying found families, healing, angst, and growing up in a world that’s bleak yet chaotic. Sure, within the story, there are loads of analysis material and loads of questions. For instance, why does Charlie gravitate toward the weirdest people in the school? Why does everyone treat the freshman like a therapy dog instead of like an actual friend? Why does every senior want to fuck the freshman? Why don’t these indie freaks not recognize arguably the most famous David Bowie song when they’re driving through the tunnel? Why is everyone genuinely so cringey and annoying? Why am I still watching this and crying after seven whole years since its first release? (hint: It’s Logan Lerman)

But yeah, I’m not going to do that. I could, but I won’t. For time’s sake, you know?

Anyway, I am going to apply the Beginner’s Mind lens to answer the biggest question I had from the whole experience: Why the HELL was The Smiths, and all the subsequent worshipping of it, a major plot point of the entire film?

A BEGINNER’S MIND ANALYSIS OF THE OBSESSION WITH THE SMITHS IN THE MOVIE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER.

Was the text thought-provoking? Based on Sam’s initial, “I LoVe tHe sMitHs!” and all the posters of Morrissey in bedrooms, lockers, and pretty much anything else, this obsession with The Smiths did cause a lot of thoughts for me, even if they were mostly questions. Already mentioning a love for a band like The Smiths implicates a LOT about the characters in the movie. For instance, Charlie, whose favorite song is canonically “Sleep”, allows the reader to assume that he is angsty and brooding, setting up the rest of the narrative as a means to unfold his dark past (that literally jumps out of nowhere). Sam loving The Smiths makes perfect sense once you grow up and realize that hating pop music isn’t a personality trait, and those who make it known that they don’t listen to “Top 40s” are probably even worse. Sam genuinely judges Charlie based on his music taste, calling him ‘cool’ for refusing to listen to “terrible” music like the “Top 40s.” Yet clearly an iconic band from the 80s is underground enough to make it a staple of your personality.

Did the text leave you with more questions you wish to answer? Even though this book/movie (thankfully) didn’t get a sequel, I really wanted to know more about this universe. First, if The Smiths was the epitome of indie rock, how the HELL did no one know the influence of David Bowie on British rock? Not to use cross-textual evidence, but at least in the terrible film Yesterday, the band Oasis was wiped from memory because there was no way for that band to exist without the Beatles. Sam not knowing the infamous “tunnel song” (IT’S “HEROES.” WHICH IS ACTUALLY IN SO MANY MOVIES) was a work of dramatic irony that was more beautiful than the plot twist of Oedipus. She genuinely prided herself on her “I’m not like other girls” complex and failed to recognize an extremely recognizable and iconic tune. So, does David Bowie not exist in this universe? How does “Come On, Eileen” exist, then? And out of every band, why The Smiths? Why not The Talking Heads? WHY NOT THE CURE?

Did the text cause inspiration to create a better world? The obsession with The Smiths in Perks of Being a Wallflower truly made me feel bliss that there is an alternate timeline in which Morrissey isn’t a piece of shit. It made me believe that man could, in fact, be separated from the music, and everyone doesn’t have a single ounce of regret for supporting The Smiths. POBAW, specifically the almost-erotic worshipping of Morrissey and basing friendships off whether or not “Sleep” really gets you, made me want to go out into the world and stop The Smiths from circulation. I genuinely wanted to stand up and scream through a bullhorn at the bedroom windows of angsty fourteen-year-olds, “No! Morrissey is not your friend! Stop giving him money!” Every mentioning of The Smiths, included with the character progression that made me hate these indie twerps more and more, did make me want to raise awareness of Morrissey’s bigotry and general asshole persona. And, because I’m purposefully acting like the philosophy student who didn’t do the Lit Hum reading but comments anyway, I’m going to go ahead and say that was Chbosky’s point. He was simply telling us not to be these embarrassing members of the Cult of Morrissey.

In conclusion, the repeated mentioning of the 80s Indie Rock Band, The Smiths, in the 2013 film Perks of Being a Wallflower, adds so much more depth to the story, creating a much more enriched text that models a Beginner’s Mind. Based on the Morrissey poster in Charlie’s room alone, the world of this teen film adds so many layers of this preteen’s emotional state, dark past, political ideologies (can’t take the music from the man), and ideals for a good person. From Sam’s, “I love the Smiths!” we already know she’s going to be the worst, even if the quip about “Worst Top 40s” wasn’t included in the final script. It reminded me that we need to eradicate any and all praise of famous white supremacist Morrissey, even if his music was really good in the 80s. Lastly, it taught me that “basic” people are not the enemy; having “niche” music (which is just music from before you were born) simply does not constitute a personality.

Yet, that’s how everyone in high school acted! You either liked old music, or you didn’t! And for that, I must recognize that the obsession with The Smiths is truly a work of art. It caused plot development, reaction from the viewer, and the revelation of the many dimensions of one story, proving that as much as we dwell upon the worshipping of a racist, we never truly will know what these dorks stand for.

Furthermore, obsession with a band you thought no one else around you know was such a crucial part of growing up in a suburban town! Like, yes! Everyone in my high school knew “Wonderwall”, but all the cool, “interesting” people could also shout all the lyrics to “She’s Electric” and “The Masterplan.” The inclusion of The Smiths created a sense of nostalgia for our own youth, and it encouraged us to seek our own (hopefully less racist) version of this 80s normcore band. It made me think, “Was I like this in high school? Like, seriously—was I this elitist about music when I was in high school? Did I really act this way?” Something this subtle, laced throughout the main story causes us to enter a period of self-reflection, of wondering who we were and what shaped us into the college students we are today.

But, the most beautiful part of The Smiths being a crucial part of Perks of Being a Wallflower, is the overall simplicity of it. At the end of the day, these teens just really like The Smiths, and I think that’s bold! Sensational! A cultural reset! It is such a surface-level fact that both has no meaning and all the meaning in the world! Excellent work, Chbosky. Truly excellent. This, sir, has a Beginner’s Mind.

Now, I’ve kept the analysis short for the sake of Bwog’s readers’ time, but using this new lens of Beginner’s Mind analysis, you could write full essays about how a text is supporting Deantini’s ideals of our Core Curriculum!  After all, why keep comparing the power dynamic between two friends to the proletariat/bourgeoisie relations when you could do something more fun (and unique…and less tiresome and stereotypical of a Columbia student)?

Now go forth, my scholars! Show the world what Deantini gave you! And go to Hell, Morrissey!

 

Bowd, Bweautiful, Beginnew’s Mind Bwain via Pixabay